The
pancake sorting problem is to determine the diameter of the
pancake graph, the Cayley graph of

with respect to the generating set

, where

is defined (in two-line notation) by

(i.e.,

flips the top

pancakes). It is not hard to see that the diameter is between

and

. Both lower and upper bound have been sharpened by a constant factor, and a natural conjecture is that

converges to some intermediate constant (to be determined, ideally).
Here is a natural model problem: estimate
for each fixed
as
. Clearly
, and we should be able to detect some fall-off from this trivial upper bound.
Proposition 1 There is an integer sequence
, beginning 
(not in the OEIS) such that
as
with
fixed.
To define
it is useful to introduce the hyperoctahedral group
(cf. burnt pancake sorting). You can think of
as the group of “signed” or “antipodal” permutations: permutations
of
such that
for all
. There is a natural cover
defined by forgetting signs. We lift
to
in a particular way: define
, where

Now define

I computed the initial terms in the sequence using this simple formula. The first nontrivial relations are

and its inverse (to verify I recommend using four asymmetric cards from a deck of cards), which together account for

.
To sketch the proof of Proposition 1, consider composing
random elements of
. You can think of this as a two-step process: randomly divide the stack
in
places, and then rearrange the resulting
pieces, possibly with some reversals. With high probability the points of division are all distinct, so they can be inferred from the result (this is true for
up to about
). The only question is whether the order can be inferred, and this is precisely what is defined by
.
It would be informative for the pancake problem to know more about the sequence
. I don’t know whether
can be computed more efficiently than the naive way above, e.g., whether there is a recurrence: if so that would really help a lot.
There is at least a submultiplicativity property that follows from the proposition:
Corollary 2 For
,
. Hence there is a constant
such that 
Proof: This follows from
, dividing by
, and taking the limit. The second part follows from the subadditivity lemma and the data point
.
I think a stronger bound should be true: there should be a constant
such that

(One might then contemplate whether

is the diameter of the pancake graph, but that seems a little bold at this stage.)