1: %\documentclass[a4paper,10pt,superscriptaddress,showpacs]{revtex4}
2:
3: \documentclass[aps, prl, twocolumn, superscriptaddress, showpacs]{revtex4}
4:
5: \usepackage{amsfonts,amssymb,amsmath,amsbsy}
6: \usepackage{epsfig}
7:
8: \newcommand{\ud}{\,\mathrm{d}}
9: \newcommand{\e}{\mathrm{e}}
10:
11: \newtheorem{theo}{Theorem}
12: \newtheorem{lem}{Lemma}
13: \newtheorem{conj}{Conjecture}
14: \newtheorem{fact}{Fact}
15: \newtheorem{claim}{Claim}
16: \newtheorem{nul}{}
17: \newtheorem{defi}{Definition}
18: \newtheorem{corr}{Corrolary}
19:
20: \vglue .7cm
21: \begin{document}
22: \title{Clustering of solutions in the random satisfiability problem.}
23:
24: % Evidence of clustering in spin glasses and combinatorial problems
25:
26: \author{M. M\'ezard}
27: \affiliation{Laboratoire de Physique Th\'eorique et Mod\`eles Statistiques,
28: b\^atiment 100, Universit\'e Paris-Sud, F--91405 Orsay, France.}
29: \author{T. Mora}
30: \affiliation{Laboratoire de Physique Th\'eorique et Mod\`eles Statistiques,
31: b\^atiment 100, Universit\'e Paris-Sud, F--91405 Orsay, France.}
32: \author{R. Zecchina}
33: \affiliation{Abdus Salam International Center for Theoretical Physics,
34: Strada Costiera 11, 34100 Trieste, Italy}
35:
36:
37: \date{\today}
38:
39: \begin{abstract}
40:
41: Using elementary rigorous methods we prove the existence of a clustered phase
42: in the random $K$-SAT problem, for $K\geq 8$. In this phase the solutions are grouped into
43: clusters which are far away from each other. The results are in agreement with
44: previous predictions of the cavity method and give a rigorous confirmation to
45: one of its main building blocks. It can be generalized to other systems of
46: both physical and computational interest.
47:
48:
49: \end{abstract}
50: %\pacs{75.10.Nr, 75.40.-s, 75.40.Mg}
51: \pacs{02.50.-r, 75.10.Nr, 89.70.+c, 05.20.-y}
52:
53: \maketitle
54:
55: Constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs) provide one of the main building blocks
56: for complex systems studied in computer science, information theory and
57: statistical physics, and may even turn out to be important in the
58: statistical studies of biological networks. Typically, they involve a large
59: number of discrete variables, each one taking a finite number of values, and a
60: set of constraints: each constraint involves a few variables, and forbids some
61: of their joint assignments. A simple example is the $q$-coloring of a graph,
62: where one should assign to each vertex of the graph a color in
63: $\{1,\dots,q\}$, in such a way that two vertices related by an edge have
64: different colors. In the case $q=2$, this is nothing but the zero temperature
65: limit of an antiferromagnetic problem, which is known to display a spin-glass
66: behaviour when the graph is frustrated and disordered. CSPs also appear naturally in the studies
67: of structural glasses \cite{sellittoetal} and rigidity percolation \cite{barreetal}.
68:
69: Given an instance of a CSP, one wants to know whether there exists a solution,
70: that is an assignment of the variables which satisfies all the constraints
71: (e.g. a proper coloring). When it exists the instance is called SAT, and one
72: wants to find a solution. Most of the interesting CSPs are NP-complete: in the
73: worst case the number of operations needed to decide whether an instance is
74: SAT or not is expected to grow exponentially with the number of variables. But
75: recent years have seen an upsurge of interest in the theory of typical-case
76: complexity, where one tries to identify random ensembles of CSPs which are hard
77: to solve, and the reason for this difficulty. Random ensembles of CSPs are
78: also of great theoretical and practical importance in communication theory:
79: some of the best error correcting codes (the so-called low density parity
80: check codes) are based on such constructions \cite{gallagher,mckaybook}.
81:
82: The archetypical example of CSP is Satisfiability (SAT). This is a core
83: problem in computational complexity: it is the first one to have been shown
84: NP-complete \cite{cook}, and since then thousands of problems have been shown
85: to be computationally equivalent to it. Yet it is not so easy to find
86: difficult instances. The main ensemble which has been used for this goal is
87: the random $K$-satisfiability ($K$-SAT) ensemble. The variables are $N$ binary
88: variables ---\,Ising spins\,--- $\vec\sigma=\{\sigma_i\}\in\{-1,1\}^{N}$. The
89: constraints are called $K$-clauses. Each of them involves $K$ distinct spin
90: variables, randomly chosen with uniform distribution, and it forbids one
91: configuration of these spins, randomly chosen among the $2^K$ possible ones. A
92: set of $M$ clauses defines the problem. This corresponds to generating a
93: random logical formula in conjunctive normal form, which is a very generic
94: problem appearing in logic. $K$-SAT can also be written as the problem of
95: minimizing a spin-glass-like energy function which counts the number of
96: violated clauses and in this respect random $K$-SAT is seen as a prototypical
97: diluted spin-glass \cite{Monasson-Zecchina}. Here we shall keep to the most
98: interesting case $K\ge 3$ (for $K=2$ the problem is polynomial).
99:
100: In the recent years random $K$-SAT has attracted much interest in computer
101: science and in statistical physics
102: \cite{AI,TCS,Selman-Kirkpatrick,Nature}. The interesting limit is
103: the thermodynamic limit $N \to\infty,\ M \to \infty$
104: at fixed clause density $\alpha=M/N$. Its most striking feature is
105: certainly its sharp threshold.
106: It is strongly believed that there exists a phase transition for this
107: problem: Numerical and heuristic analytical
108: arguments are in support of the so-called
109: \emph{Satisfiability Threshold Conjecture}:\\
110: {\it There exists $\alpha_c(K)$ such that with high probability:\\
111: -- if $\alpha<\alpha_c(K)$, a random instance is satisfiable ; \\
112: -- if $\alpha>\alpha_c(K)$, a random instance is unsatisfiable. \\}
113: In all this paper, `with high probability' (w.h.p.) means with a probability
114: going to one in the $N \to \infty$ limit. Although this conjecture remains
115: unproven, Friedgut has come close to it by establishing
116: the existence of a non-uniform sharp threshold
117: \cite{Friedgut}. A lot of efforts have been devoted to understanding this
118: phase transition. This is interesting both from the physics point of view,
119: but also from the computer science one, because the random instances with $\alpha$
120: close to $\alpha_c$ are the hardest to solve. The most important rigorous
121: results so far are bounds for the threshold $\alpha_c(K)$. The best upper
122: bounds were derived using first moment methods
123: \cite{kirousis,dubois}. Lower bounds can be found by
124: analyzing some algorithms which find SAT assignments \cite{franco,frieze-suen}, but recently a
125: new method, based on second moment methods, has found better and
126: algorithm-independent lower bounds \cite{achliomoore,achlioperes}. Using these bounds, it
127: was shown that $\alpha_c(K)$ scales as $2^K \ln(2)$ when $K\to\infty$.
128:
129:
130: On the other hand, the cavity method, which is a powerful tool from the
131: statistical physics of disordered systems \cite{Cavity}, is claimed to be able
132: to compute the exact value of the threshold \cite{MPZ,MZ,MMZ-RSA}, giving for
133: instance $\alpha_c(3)\simeq 4.2667...$ It is a non-rigorous method but the
134: self-consistency of its results have been checked by a `stability analysis'
135: \cite{montanariricci,monparric,MMZ-RSA}, and it also leads to the development
136: of a new algorithmic strategy, `survey propagation', which can solve very
137: large instances at clause densities which are very close to the threshold
138: (e.g. $N=10^6$ and $\alpha=4.25$).
139:
140: The main hypothesis on which the cavity analysis of random $K$-satisfiability
141: relies is the existence, in a region of clause density $[\alpha_d,\alpha_c]$
142: close to the threshold, of an intermediate phase called the `hard-SAT' phase.
143: In this phase the set $\cal S$ of
144: solutions (a subset of the vertices in the$N$-dimensional hypercube)
145: is supposed to split into many disconnected
146: \emph{clusters} ${\cal S} = {\cal S}_1 \cup
147: {\cal S}_2\cup\dots$. If one considers two solutions $X,Y$ in the same
148: cluster ${\cal S}_j$, it is possible to walk from $X$ to $Y$ (staying in $\cal
149: S$) by flipping at each step a finite numbers of spins. If on the other hand
150: $X$ and $Y$ are in different clusters, in order to walk from $X$ to $Y$
151: (staying in $\cal S$), at least one step will involve an extensive number
152: (\emph{i.e.} $\propto N$) of spin flips.
153: This clustered phase is held responsible for entrapping many local search
154: algorithms into non-optimal metastable states \cite{montanarisemerjian}. This
155: phenomenon is not exclusive to random $K$-SAT. It is also predicted to appear in
156: many other hard satisfiability and optimization
157: problems such as Coloring \cite{mulet,braunstein} or the Multi-Index Matching
158: Problem \cite{martinmezardrivoire}, and corresponds to a `one step replica
159: symmetry breaking' (1RSB) phase in the language of statistical physics. It is
160: also a crucial limiting feature for decoding algorithms in some error correcting
161: codes~\cite{montanari}.
162: So far, the only CSP
163: for which the existence of the clustering phase has been established rigorously is the simple
164: polynomial problem
165: of random XOR-SAT \cite{XORSAT-MRZ,XORSAT-CDMM}. In other cases it is an hypothesis,
166: the self-consistency of which is checked by the cavity method.
167:
168: In this paper we provide rigorous arguments which show the existence
169: of the clustering phenomenon in random $K$-SAT, for large
170: enough $K$, in some region of $\alpha$ included in the interval
171: $[\alpha_d(K),\alpha_c(K)]$ predicted by the statistical physics
172: analysis. Our result is not able to confirm all the details of this
173: analysis but it provides strong evidence in favour of its validity.
174:
175: Given an instance $F$ of random $K$-satisfiability, we define a SAT-$x$-pair as a pair of
176: assignments $(\vec \sigma,\vec \tau)\in\{-1,1\}^{2N}$, which both
177: satisfy $F$, and which are at a Hamming distance
178: $ d_{\sigma\tau}\equiv\sum_{i=1}^{N}(1-\sigma_i\tau_i)/2$ specified by $x$ as follows:
179: \begin{equation}
180: d_{\sigma\tau}\in [Nx-\epsilon(N),Nx+\epsilon(N)]
181: %\nonumber
182: \end{equation}
183: Here $x$ is the normalized distance between the two
184: configurations, which we keep fixed as $N$ and $d$ go to infinity.
185: The resolution $\epsilon(N)$ must be such that $\lim_{N \to \infty} \epsilon(N)/N=0$,
186: but its precise form is
187: unimportant for our large $N$ analysis. One can choose for instance $\epsilon(N)=\sqrt{N}$.
188:
189: We call \emph{$x$-satisfiable} a formula for which such a pair of
190: solutions exists.
191: Our study mimicks the usual steps which are taken in rigorous studies of
192: $K$-SAT, but taking pairs of assignments at a fixed distance
193: instead of single assignments.
194:
195: We first formulate the \emph{$x$-Satisfiability Threshold Conjecture}:\\
196: {\it For all $K\geq 2$ and for all $x$, $0<x<1$, there exists an
197: $\alpha_c(K,x)$ such that w.h.p.:\\ -- if $\alpha<\alpha_c(K,x)$, a
198: random $K$-CNF is $x$-satisfiable; \\ -- if $\alpha>\alpha_c(K,x)$, a
199: random $K$-CNF is $x$-unsatisfiable,\\} which generalizes the usual
200: satisfiability threshold conjecture (obtained for $x=0$). We shall find
201: explicitly below two functions, $\alpha_{LB}(K,x)$ and $\alpha_{UB}(K,x)$
202: which give lower and upper bounds for $\alpha$ for $x$-satisfiability at
203: a given value of $K$.
204: Numerical computations of
205: these bounds show that $\alpha(K,x)$ is \emph{non monotonous} as a function of
206: $x$ for $K\geq 8$, as illustrated in Fig.\ref{alpha8}. This in turn
207: shows that, for $K$ large enough and in some well chosen interval of
208: $\alpha$ below the satisfiability threshold, SAT-$x$-pairs exist for $x$
209: close to $0$ ($\vec\sigma$ and $\vec\tau$ in the same cluster) and $x$ close to $.5$ ($\vec\sigma$ and $\vec\tau$ in different clusters), but there is an intermediate $x$
210: region where they do not exist. Fig.\ref{alpha8} shows an explicit example of this scenario for a particular value of $\alpha$.
211:
212:
213:
214: \begin{figure}
215: \begin{center}
216: \epsfig{file=curveK8.eps,width=8cm,angle=-0} \caption{\label{alpha8} \small
217: Lower and Upper Bounds for the $x$-satisfiability threshold $\alpha_c(K=8,x)$.
218: The upper curve is obtained by the first moment method. Above this curve there
219: exists no SAT-$x$-pair, w.h.p.. The lower curve is obtained by the second
220: moment method. Below this curve there exists a SAT-$x$-pair w.h.p.. For values
221: of $\alpha$ lying between $164.735$ and $170.657$, these bounds guarantee the
222: existence of a clustering phenomenon.
223: The horizontal line gives an example of this phenomenon for $\alpha=166.1$.
224: We exhibit
225: the successive phases as one varies $x$: $x$-SAT regions
226: are represented by a thick solid line, $x$-UNSAT regions by a wavy line, and
227: ``don't know'' regions by a dotted line. The $x$-SAT region near $x=0$
228: corresponds to intra-cluster pairs, whereas the $x$-SAT region around $x=.5$
229: corresponds to inter-cluster pairs. In this example, the intermediate $x$-UNSAT region
230: around $x \sim .13$ shows
231: the existence of a ``gap'' between clusters. We recall that the
232: best refined lower and upper bounds for the satisfiability threshold
233: $\alpha_c(K=8)$ from \cite{dubois,achlioperes} are respectively $173.253$ and
234: $176.596$. The cavity prediction is $176.543$ \cite{MMZ-RSA}. }
235: \end{center}
236:
237: \end{figure}
238:
239: In what follows we first establish a rigorous and explicit upper bound
240: using a simple first moment method. Subsequently, we provide a
241: (numerical) lower bound using a second moment method
242: \cite{achliomoore,achlioperes}. Both results are based on elementary
243: probabilistic techniques which could be generalized to other physical
244: systems or random combinatorial problems.
245:
246: {\it Upper bound: the first moment method.} We use the fact that,
247: when $Z$ is a non-negative random variable:
248: \begin{equation}
249: \mathbf{P}(Z \geq 1)\leq \mathbf{E}(Z)\ .
250: \label{lemfirst}
251: %\nonumber
252: \end{equation}
253: Given a formula $F$, we take $Z(F)$ to be the number of pairs of solutions at fixed distance (with
254: resolution $\epsilon(N)$):
255: \begin{equation}\label{Z1}
256: Z(F)=\sum_{\vec \sigma,\vec \tau}\delta\left(\frac{d_{\sigma\tau}}{N}\simeq x \right)
257: \;\delta(\vec\sigma, \vec\tau \in S(F)) \; \ ,
258: \end{equation}
259: where
260: $S(F)$ is the set of solutions to $F$. Throughout this
261: paper $\delta(A)$ is an indicator function, equal to $1$ if the
262: statement $A$ is true, and to $0$ otherwise. Since $Z(F)\geq 1$
263: is equivalent to ``$F$ is $x$-satisfiable'', (\ref{Z1}) gives an upper
264: bound for the probability of $x$-satisfiability.
265: The expected value of the double sum over the choice of a random $F$ is:
266: \begin{equation}
267: \mathbf{E}(Z(F))=2^N\binom{N}{Nx}{\mathbf{E}\left[\delta(\vec\sigma,\vec\tau\in S(c))\right]}^{M}.
268: %\nonumber
269: \end{equation}
270: We have used $\delta(\vec\sigma,\vec\tau\in S(F))=\prod_c
271: \delta(\vec\sigma,\vec\tau\in S(c))$, where $c$ denotes the
272: clauses, and the fact that clauses are drawn independently.
273: The expectation
274: $\mathbf{E}\left[\delta(\vec\sigma,\vec\tau\in S(c))\right]$ is equal to: $1-2^{1-K}+2^{-K}(1-x)^{K}$ (there
275: are only two realizations of the clause among $2^K$ that do not
276: satisfy $c$ unless the two configurations overlap exactly on the
277: domain of $c$).
278:
279: In the thermodynamic limit, $\ln \mathbf{E}(Z(F))/N \to \Phi_1(x,\alpha) $,
280: where:
281: \begin{eqnarray}
282: \Phi_1(x,\alpha)
283: =\ln 2+H_2(x) +\alpha\ln\left[1-2^{-K}(2-(1-x)^{K})\right],
284: \nonumber
285: \end{eqnarray}
286: where $H_2(x)=-x\ln x-(1-x)\ln(1-x)$ is the two-state entropy
287: function. This gives the upper bound:
288: \begin{equation}
289: \alpha_{UB}(K,x)=-\frac{\ln 2+H_2(x)}{\ln(1-2^{1-K}+2^{-K}(1-x)^{K})}.
290: \end{equation}
291:
292: {\it Lower bound: the second moment method. } We use the
293: fact that, when $Z$ is a non-negative random variable:
294: \begin{equation}
295: \mathbf{P}(Z>0)\geq \frac{\mathbf{E}(Z)^2}{\mathbf{E}(Z^2)}.
296: %\nonumber
297: \end{equation}
298: However using this formula with $Z$ equal to the number of solutions
299: fails, and one must instead use a weighted sum \cite{achliomoore}.
300: We follow the strategy recently developed in \cite{achlioperes}, which we generalize
301: to SAT-$x$-pairs by taking:
302: \begin{equation}\label{Zw}
303: Z(F)=\sum_{\vec\sigma,\vec\tau}\delta\left(\frac{d_{\sigma\tau}}{N}\simeq x\right)
304: \prod_c W(\vec\sigma,\vec\tau,c)\ .
305: %\nonumber
306: \end{equation}
307: $W(\vec\sigma,\vec\tau,c)$ is a weight associated with the clause $c$, given the couple $(\vec\sigma,\vec \tau)$, and is defined as follows: Suppose that $c$ is satisfied by $n_\sigma$ among the $K$ $\vec\sigma$-variables involved in $c$, and by $n_\tau$ among the $K$ $\vec\tau$-variables. Call $n_0$ the number of common values between the $\vec\sigma$- and $\vec\tau$-variables involved in $c$. Then define:
308: \begin{equation}
309: W(\vec\sigma,\vec\tau,c)=\left \{\begin{array}{ll}\lambda^{n_\sigma+n_\tau}\nu^{n_0}&\textrm{if }n_\sigma>0\textrm{ and }n_\tau>0,\\
310: 0& \textrm{otherwise.}\end{array}\right.
311: \label{Wdef}
312: \end{equation}
313: Note that with this definition of $Z$, the choice $\lambda=1,\nu=1$ simply yields the number of solutions (\ref{Z1}).
314:
315: Let us now compute the first two moments of $Z$ (\cite{MMZ_inprep}):
316: \begin{equation}
317: \mathbf{E}(Z)=2^N\binom{N}{Nx}\left[f_1^{(\lambda,\nu)}(x)\right]^M \ ,
318: \end{equation}
319: where $f_1^{(\lambda,\nu)}(x)=\mathbf{E} (W(\vec\sigma,\vec\tau,c))$ can be calculated by simple combinatorics (via multinomial sums). To compute $\mathbf{E}(Z^2)$, we sum over four spin configurations $\vec\sigma,\vec\tau,\vec\sigma',\vec\tau'$. Symmetry allows to fix $\sigma_i=1$. Let $Na(t,s,t')$ be the number of sites $i$ such that $\tau_i=t$, $\sigma_i'=s'$ and $\tau_i'=t'$ (where $t,s,t' \in\{\pm 1\}$). It turns out that the term of the sum depends only on these 8 numbers $a(\pm 1,\pm 1,\pm 1)$. We collect them into a vector $\mathbf{a}$ and get:
320: \begin{equation}\label{E2}
321: \mathbf{E}(Z^2)=2^N \int_V d \mathbf{a} \; \frac{N!}{\prod_{t,s',t'}(Na(t,s',t'))!}
322: \left[f_2^{(\lambda,\nu)}(\mathbf{a})\right]^M \ ,
323: \end{equation}
324: where $f_2^{(\lambda,\nu)}(\mathbf{a})=\mathbf{E}(W(\vec\sigma,\vec\tau,c)W(\vec\sigma',\vec\tau',c))$ can
325: be calculated by simple combinatorics
326: in the same way as $f_1$. The integration set $V$ is a 5-dimensional simplex taking into account the normalization $\sum_{t,s',t'} a(t,s',t')=1$ and the two constraints: $d_{\sigma\tau}/N\simeq x$, $d_{\sigma'\tau'}/N\simeq x$.
327:
328: A saddle point evaluation of eq.(\ref{E2}) gives, for $N \to \infty$:
329: \begin{equation}\label{cond}
330: \frac{\mathbf{E}(Z)^2}{\mathbf{E}(Z^2)}\geq C_0\exp(-N\max_{\mathbf{a}\in V}\Phi_2(\mathbf{a})),
331: %\nonumber
332: \end{equation}
333: where $C_0$ is a constant depending on $K$ and $x$, and:
334: \begin{equation}\label{defphi}
335: \Phi(\mathbf{a})=H_8(\mathbf{a})-\ln 2-2H_2(x)+\alpha \ln f_2^{(\lambda,\nu)}(\mathbf{a})-2 \alpha \ln f_1^{(\lambda,\nu)}(x),
336: %\nonumber
337: \end{equation}
338: with $H_8(\mathbf{a})=-\sum_{t,s',t'} a(t,s',t') \ln a(t,s',t')$. In general $\max_{\mathbf{a}\in V}\Phi(\mathbf{a})$ is non-negative
339: and one must choose appropriate weights
340: $W(\vec \sigma,\vec \tau,c)$ in such a way that
341: $\max_{\mathbf{a}\in V}\Phi(\mathbf{a})= 0$.
342: We notice that at the particular point $\mathbf{a}^*$ where $(\vec\sigma,\vec\tau)$ is uncorrelated with $(\vec\sigma',\vec\tau')$, we have $\Phi(\mathbf{a}^*)=0$.
343: We fix the parameters $\lambda$ and $\mu$ defining the weights (\ref{Wdef})
344: in such a way that $\mathbf{a}^*$
345: be a local maximum of $\Phi$. This gives two algebraic equations in $\lambda$ and $\nu$
346: which have a unique
347: solution $\lambda>0,$ $\nu>0$. Fixing
348: $\lambda$ and $\nu$ to these values, $\alpha_{LB}$ is the largest value of
349: $\alpha$ such that the local maximum at $\mathbf{a}^*$ is a \emph{global} maximum,
350: i.e. such that there exists no $\mathbf{a}\in V$ with $\Phi(\mathbf{a})>0$:
351: \begin{equation}\label{alpha2}
352: \alpha_{LB}(K,x)=\inf_{\mathbf{a}\in V}\frac{\ln
353: 2+2H_2(x)-H_8(\mathbf{a})}{\ln f_2^{(\lambda,\nu)}(\mathbf{a})-2\ln f_1^{(\lambda,\nu)}(x)},
354: \end{equation}
355:
356: We devised several numerical
357: strategies to evaluate
358: $\alpha_{LB}(K,x)$. The implementation of Powell's method starting from each
359: point of a grid of size $\mathcal{N}^5$ ($\mathcal{N}=10,15,20$) on
360: $V$ turned out to be the most efficient and reliable. The results are
361: given by Fig.\ref{alpha8} for $K=8$, the smallest $K$ such that the
362: clustering conjecture is confirmed. We found a clustering phenomenon
363: for all the values of $K \ge 8$ that we checked, and in fact the
364: relative difference $[\alpha_{UB}(K,x)-\alpha_{LB}(K,x)]/ \alpha_{LB}(K,x)$
365: seems to go to zero at large $K$.
366:
367: We have shown a simple probabilistic argument which shows rigorously the existence of
368: a clustered `hard-SAT' phase. The prediction from the cavity method
369: is in fact a weaker statement. It can be stated
370: in terms of the overlap distribution function $P(x)$, which is the
371: probability, when two SAT-assignments are taken randomly (with uniform
372: distribution), that their distance is given by $x$. The cavity method finds that
373: this distribution has a support concentrated on two values: a large value
374: $x_1$, close to one, gives the characteristic `radius' of a cluster, a smaller
375: value $x_0$ gives the characteristic distance between clusters. This
376: does not imply that there exists no pair of solution for values of
377: $x$ distinct from $x_0,x_1$: it just means that such pairs are exponentially
378: less numerous than the typical ones. Our rigorous result shows that in fact
379: there exists a true gap in $x$, with no SAT-$x$-pairs, at least for $K \ge 8$.
380: More sophisticated moment computations might allow to get some results for
381: smaller values of $K$. Still the conceptual simplicity of our computation
382: makes it a useful tool for proving similar phenomena in other systems of
383: physical or computational interests, like for instance the graph-coloring
384: (antiferromagnetic Potts) problem.
385:
386: This work has been supported in part by the EC through the network
387: MTR 2002-00319 `STIPCO' and the FP6 IST consortium `EVERGROW'.
388:
389: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
390:
391: \bibitem{sellittoetal} M. Sellitto, G. Biroli and C. Toninelli, Europhys. Lett. {\bf 69}, 496 (2005).
392: \bibitem{barreetal} J. Barr\'e et al., cond-mat/0408385
393:
394:
395: \bibitem{gallagher} Robert G. Gallagher. {\it Information Theory and
396: Reliable Communication.} Wiley, New York, 1968.
397:
398: \bibitem{mckaybook} David J.C. MacKay. {\it Information Theory,
399: Inference \& Learning Algorithms.} Cambridge University Press,
400: Cambridge, 2002.
401:
402: \bibitem{cook} Stephen Cook. The complexity of theorem proving
403: procedures. In {\it Proceedings of the Third Annual ACM Symposium on
404: Theory of Computing}, pages 151-158, 1971.
405:
406: \bibitem{Monasson-Zecchina} R. Monasson, R. Zecchina, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 56},
407: 1357 (1997).
408:
409: \bibitem{AI} T. Hogg, B.A. Huberman, C. Williams, C. (eds), Artificial
410: Intelligence {\bf 81} I \& II (1996).
411:
412: \bibitem{TCS} Special Issue on {\it NP-hardness and Phase
413: transitionls}, edited by O. Dubois, R. Monasson, B. Selman and
414: R. Zecchina, {Theor. Comp. Sci.} {\bf 265}, Issue: 1-2 (2001).
415:
416: \bibitem{Selman-Kirkpatrick}S. Kirkpatrick, B. Selman, {Science} {\bf
417: 264}, 1297 (1994).
418:
419: \bibitem{Nature} R. Monasson, R. Zecchina, S. Kirkpatrick, B. Selman,
420: and L. Troyanski, {Nature} {\bf 400}, 133 (1999).
421:
422: \bibitem{Friedgut} E. Friedgut, {Journal of the A.M.S.} {\bf 12}, 1017 (1999).
423:
424: \bibitem{kirousis}L. M. Kirousis, E. Kranakis, D. Krizanc. Technical report TR-96-09, School of Computer Science, Carleton University, 1996.
425:
426: \bibitem{dubois} O. Dubois, Y. Boufkhad, {J. Algorithms} {\bf
427: 24}, 395 (1997).
428:
429: \bibitem{franco} M.-T. Chao, J. Franco, {Inform. Sci.} {\bf
430: 51}(3), 289 (1990).
431:
432: \bibitem{frieze-suen} A. M. Frieze, S. Suen, {J. Algorithms} {\bf
433: 20}, 312 (1996).
434:
435: \bibitem{achliomoore} D. Achlioptas, C. Moore, Proc. Foundations of Computer Science (2002).
436:
437: \bibitem{achlioperes} D. Achlioptas, Y. Peres, {Journal of the
438: AMS} {\bf 17} 947 (2004).
439:
440: \bibitem{Cavity}{M. M{\'e}zard, G. Parisi, G. , J. Stat. Phys. {\bf 111}
441: (2003).}
442:
443: \bibitem{MZ} M. M\'ezard, R. Zecchina, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 66}, 056126
444: (2002).
445:
446: \bibitem{MPZ} M. M\'ezard, G. Parisi, R. Zecchina, Science {\bf 297}, 812
447: (2002).
448:
449: \bibitem{MMZ-RSA} S. Mertens, M. M\'ezard, R. Zecchina, Threshold
450: values of Random K-SAT from the cavity method, cs.CC/0309020 (2003),
451: to appear in Random Structure and Algorithms.
452:
453: \bibitem{montanariricci} A. Montanari, F. Ricci-Tersenghi, {Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf B 33}, 339 (2003).
454:
455: \bibitem{monparric} A. Montanari, G. Parisi, F. Ricci-Tersenghi, {J. Phys. A} {\bf 37}, 2073 (2004).
456:
457: \bibitem{montanarisemerjian} G. Semerjian, R. Monasson,
458: Proceedings of the SAT 2003 conference, E. Giunchiglia and A. Tacchella eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Springer) 2919, 120 (2004).
459:
460: \bibitem{mulet} R. Mulet, A. Pagnani, M. Weigt, R. Zecchina, {Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 89}, 268701 (2002).
461:
462: \bibitem{braunstein} A. Braunstein, R. Mulet, A. Pagnani, M. Weigt,
463: R. Zecchina, {Phys. Rev. E} {\bf 68}, 036702 (2003).
464:
465: \bibitem{martinmezardrivoire} O. C. Martin, M. M\'ezard, O. Rivoire,
466: {Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 93}, 217205 (2004).
467:
468: \bibitem{montanari}
469: A. Montanari,
470: {Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf B 23}, 121 (2001).
471:
472: \bibitem{XORSAT-MRZ} M. M\'ezard, F. Ricci-Tersenghi, R. Zecchina,
473: J. Stat. Phys. {\bf 111}, 505 (2003).
474:
475: \bibitem{XORSAT-CDMM} S. Cocco, O. Dubois, J. Mandler, R. Monasson,
476: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 047205 (2003).
477:
478: \bibitem{MMZ_inprep} M. M\'ezard, T. Mora, R. Zecchina, in preparation.
479:
480:
481: \end{thebibliography}
482:
483:
484: \end{document}
485: