Let $G \leq {\rm S}_n$ be a finite permutation group, and let
$S = \{g_1, \dots, g_k\}$ be a generating set for $G$ which is closed
under inversion and which does not contain the identity.
The growth function of $G$ with respect to $S$ is the sequence
$(a_0, a_1, a_2, \dots)$, where $a_r$ is the number of elements of $G$
which can be written as products of $r$, but no fewer, generators $g_i$.
The diameter of $G$ with respect to $S$ is the largest $r$ such that
$a_r > 0$.

Question: How hard is it to compute the diameter and the
growth function of a given permutation group $G$ of degree $n$?
Or more specifically: using current computer technology, is it feasible
to do this for any given group $G$ of degree $n \leq 100$ and any given
sufficiently small generating set $S$?

The motivation for this question is that while the Schreier-Sims algorithm
allows e.g. to compute the order of such groups and to perform element tests
instantaneously, even only computing the diameter of the Rubik's Cube Group
with respect to its natural generating set was a major effort --
and its growth function is apparently not known in full so far.

My feeling goes in the direction that one can do essentially better,
i.e. that it should be possible to find an algorithm for computing
diameter and growth function which is by orders of magnitude more
efficient than enumerating group elements by brute force.
However maybe I am wrong, and somebody can point out reasons why
these problems cannot be solved efficiently?

Thanks for the reference. -- Though I don't see that the paper answers the question. The author derives bounds on the diameter of certain Cayley graphs, shows that they are sharp and says that the naive way to evaluate the bounds takes $n!$ times a polynomial operations. Though I have not read everything in full.
–
Stefan KohlAug 15 '13 at 9:11