Some Notes on Random Satisfiability

  • Gregory B. Sorkin
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2264)


3-SAT is a canonical NP-complete problem: satisfiable and unsatisfiable instances cannot generally be distinguished in polynomial time. However, random 3-SAT formulas show a phase transition: for any large number of variables n, sparse random formulas (with m ≤ 3.145n clauses) are almost always satisfiable, dense ones (with m ≥ 4.596n clauses) are almost always unsatisfiable, and the transition occurs sharply when m/n crosses some threshold. It is believed that the limiting threshold is around 4.2, but it is not even known that a limit exists. Proofs of the satisfiability of sparse instances have come from analyzing heuristics: the better the heuristic analyzed, the denser the instances that can be proved satisfiable with high probability. To date, the good heuristics have all been extensions of unit-clause resolution, all expressible within a common framework and analyzable in a uniform manner through the differential equation method. Any algorithm expressible in this framework can be “tuned” optimally. This tuning requires extending the analysis via the differential equation method, and making use a “maximum-density multiple-choice knapsack” problem. The structure of optimal knapsack solutions elegantly characterizes the choices made by an optimized algorithm. Optimized algorithms result in improving the known satisfiability bound from density 3.145 to 3.26. Many open problems remain. It is non-trivial to extend the methods to 4-SAT and beyond. If results are to be applicable to “real-world” 3-SAT instances, then the theory should be extended to formulas that need not be uniformly random, but obey some weaker conditions. Also, there is theoretical evidence that in the unsatisfiable regime it is difficult to prove the unsatisfiability of a given formula, while in the known region of satisfiability, linear-time algorithms produce satisfying assignments with high probability. Is the unsatisfiable regime truly hard, and is the whole of the satisfiable regime truly easy? In particular, as the scope of myopic, local algorithms is expanded so that they examine more and more variables, can such algorithms solve random instances arbitrarily close the the threshold density?


2-SAT 3-SAT phase transition complexity satisfiability randomized analysis of algorithms average-case analysis differential equation method 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Dimitris Achlioptas. Setting two variables at a time yields a new lower bound for random 3-SAT. In 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (Portland, OR, 2000), pages 28–37. ACM, New York, 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dimitris Achlioptas and Gregory B. Sorkin. Optimal myopic algorithms for random 3-SAT. In 41st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 590–600. IEEE Comput. Soc. Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 2000.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Béla Bollobás, Christian Borgs, Jennifer Chayes, Jeong Han Kim, and David B. Wilson. The scaling window of the 2-SAT transition. Manuscript, 1999.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andrei Z. Broder, Alan M. Frieze, and Eli Upfal. On the satisfiability and maximum satisfiability of random 3-CNF formulas. In 4th Annual ACM-SIAM Symp. on Disc. Alg. (Austin, TX, 1993), pages 322–330. ACM, New York, 1993.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ming-Te Chao and John Franco. Probabilistic analysis of two heuristics for the 3-satisfiability problem. SIAM J. Comput., 15(4):1106–1118, 1986.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vašek Chvátal and Endre Szemerédi. Many hard examples for resolution. J. Assoc. Comput. Mach., 35(4):759–768, 1988.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vasěk Chvátal and Bruce Reed. Mick gets some (the odds are on his side). In 33th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (Pittsburgh, PA, 1992), pages 620–627. IEEE Comput. Soc. Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 1992.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Colin Cooper, Alan Frieze, and Gregory B. Sorkin. A note on random 2-SAT with prescribed literal degrees. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms. ACM, New York, 2002.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wenceslas Fernandez de la Vega. On random 2-SAT. Manuscript, 1992.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ehud Friedgut. Necessary and sufficient conditions for sharp thresholds of graph properties, and the k-SAT problem. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 12:1017–1054, 1999.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Joel Friedman and Andreas Goerdt. Recognizing more unsatisfiable random 3-SAT instances efficiently. manuscript.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Andreas Goerdt. A threshold for unsatisfiability. J. Comput. System Sci., 53(3):469–486, 1996.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Svante Janson, Yiannis C. Stamatiou, and Malvina Vamvakari. Bounding the unsatisfiability threshold of random 3-SAT. Random Structures Algorithms, 17(2):103–116, 2000.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thomas G. Kurtz. Solutions of ordinary differential equations as limits of pure jump Markov processes. J. Appl. Probability, 7:49–58, 1970.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mike Molloy and Bruce Reed. The size of the giant component of a random graph with a given degree sequence. Combinatorics, Probability and Computing, 7:295–305, 1998.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rémi Monasson and Riccardo Zecchina. Entropy of the K-satisfiability problem. Phys. Rev. Lett., 76(21):3881–3885, 1996.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rémi Monasson and Riccardo Zecchina. Statistical mechanics of the random K-satisfiability model. Phys. Rev. E (3), 56(2):1357–1370, 1997.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rémi Monasson and Riccardo Zecchina. Tricritical points in random combinatorics: the (2 + p)-SAT case. J. Phys. A: Math. and Gen., 31(46):9209–9217, 1998.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nicholas C. Wormald. Differential equations for random processes and random graphs. Ann. Appl. Probab., 5(4):1217–1235, 1995.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregory B. Sorkin
    • 1
  1. 1.IBM T.J. Watson Research CenterYorktown Heights

Personalised recommendations