1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}

2: %\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amsfonts}

3: 

4: \usepackage{times}

5: %\usepackage{palatino}

6: 

7: \usepackage{amssymb}  

8: 

9: \usepackage{epsfig} 

10: %\usepackage{psfig} 

11: \setlength{\textheight}{9.2 in}

12: \setlength{\textwidth}{6.55 in}

13: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0 in}

14: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{0 in}

15: \setlength{\topmargin}{-0.5 in}

16: \setlength{\parskip}{2pt}     

17: 

18: \newcommand{\tinyspacing}{\baselineskip = 0.7\normalbaselineskip}

19: \newcommand{\smallspacing}{\baselineskip = \normalbaselineskip}

20: \newcommand{\morespacing}{\baselineskip = 1.1\normalbaselineskip}

21: \newcommand{\newspacing}{\baselineskip=1.04\normalbaselineskip}

22: \newcommand{\oldspacing}{\baselineskip= 1.0\normalbaselineskip}      

23: 

24: 

25:   \renewcommand*{\Pr}{\mathop{\mathrm{Prob}}}

26: 

27:   

28: 

29:   \def \qedbox{\hfill\vbox{\hrule\hbox{\vrule 

30: height1.3ex\hskip0.8ex\vrule}\hrule}}

31: 

32:   

33: 

34:   \newcommand{\goesto}{\rightarrow}

35:   \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}

36:   \newtheorem{definition}{Definition}

37:   \newtheorem{proposition}{Proposition}

38:   %\newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}

39:   \newcommand*{\proof}{\noindent {\bf Proof}.\,\,}

40: 

41:  

42: 

43: \def\NP{\rm NP}

44: \def\AND{\wedge}

45: \def\OR{\vee}

46: \def\oper{\circ}

47: \def\goesto{\rightarrow}

48: \def\implies{\Rightarrow}

49: \def\zeroone{\{0,1\}} 

50:  \def\sstar{\zeroone^{*}} 

51: \def\L{\langle}

52: \def\R{\rangle}

53: \def\HYP{\hbox{-}}

54: \def\IFF{\leftrightarrow}

55: \def\Ldef{\buildrel \rm def \over \leftrightarrow}

56: \def\Edef{\buildrel \rm def \over =}

57: \def\almostall{\hbox{\rlap{$_{\thinspace\forall}$}{$^{^\infty}$}}}

58: \def\infoften{\hbox{\rlap{$_{\thinspace\exists}$}{$^{^\infty}$}}}

59: \def\N{{\bf N}}

60: \def\setdelta{\bigtriangleup}

61: \def\cminus{\dot{-}} 

62: \def\plusminus{\pm} 

63: \def\PR{{\rm Pr}}

64: \def\HSAT{{\rm HORN}\hbox{-}{\rm SAT}}

65: \def\PUR{{\rm PUR}}

66: \def\beginproof{\noindent{\bf Proof.}\quad}

67: \def\endproof{}

68: 

69:  

70: 

71: 

72: 

73: \newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}[section]

74: \newtheorem{theo}[lemma]{Theorem}

75: \newtheorem{cor}{Corollary}

76: \newtheorem{prop}[lemma]{Proposition}

77: %\newtheorem{fact}[lemma]{Fact}

78: \newtheorem{example}{Example}

79: \newtheorem{obs}{Observation}

80: \newtheorem{claim}{Claim}

81: \newtheorem{defi}{Definition}

82: %\newtheorem{obs}[lemma]{Observation}

83: \def\qed{\hfill$\Box$\newline\vspace{5mm}}

84: \newenvironment{PROOF}{\noindent{\bf Proof:}}{{\qed}}

85: \newtheorem{conj}{Conjecture}

86: 

87: \bibliographystyle{unsrt}

88: 

89: %\setpapersize{USletter}

90: %\setmarginsrb{1in}{1in}{1in}{1in}{0pt}{0mm}{0pt}{0mm}

91: 

92: \begin{document}

93: 

94: \pagestyle{empty}

95: 

96: \title{Phase transitions and {\em all that}}

97: \author{Gabriel Istrate\thanks{e-mail: istrate@lanl.gov,

98:         NISAC, National Infrastructure Simulation Analysis Center, 

99:         Los Alamos National Laboratory,

100:         Mail Stop M 997, Los Alamos, NM 87545, U.S.A.}}

101: \date{}

102: 

103: \maketitle 

104: \thispagestyle{empty}

105: \section{Introduction}

106: 

107: Since the experimental paper of Cheeseman, Kanefsky and Taylor 

108: \cite{cheeseman-kanefsky-taylor}

109: {\em phase transitions in combinatorial problems} held the promise to 

110: shed 

111: light on the ``practical'' algorithmic complexity of combinatorial 

112: problems. However, the connection conjectured in 

113: \cite{cheeseman-kanefsky-taylor} was easily seen to be inaccurate. A much more realistic

114: possible connection has been highlighted by the results (based on 

115: experimental evidence and nonrigorous arguments from Statistical Mechanics) 

116: of Monasson et 

117: al. \cite{2+p:nature} (see also \cite{2+p:rsa}). These results 

118: supported 

119: the conjecture that it is {\em first-order phase transitions} that 

120: have algorithmic implications for the complexity of restricted 

121: classes of algorithms, including the important class of 

122: {\em Davis-Putnam-Longman-Loveland (DPLL) algorithms} \cite{beame:dp}. 

123: 

124: There exists, indeed, a nonrigorous argument supporting this 

125: conjecture:

126: phase transitions amount to nonanalytical behavior of a certain  

127: {\em order parameter}; the phase transition is {\em first order} if the 

128: order parameter is actually 

129: discontinuous. At least for random $k$-SAT \cite{monasson:zecchina} the 

130: order parameter suggested by Statistical Mechanics considerations has a 

131: purely combinatorial interpretation: it is the {\em backbone} of the 

132: formula, the set of 

133: literals that assume the same value in all optimal assignments. 

134: But intuitively one can relate (see e.g. 

135: the presentation of this argument by Achlioptas, Beame and Molloy 

136: \cite{achlioptas:beame:molloy:slides}) 

137: the size of the backbone to the complexity of DPLL algorithms, 

138: when run on random $k$-SAT instances slightly above the phase 

139: transition: All literals in the 

140: backbone require well-defined values in order to satisfy the 

141: formula. But a DPLL algorithm has very few ways to know what those 

142: ``right'' values are. If w.h.p. the backbone of formulas above the 

143: transition contains a positive 

144: fraction of the literals that is bounded away from zero as we approach 

145: the transition (which happens in a case of a first-order phase 

146: transition) then, 

147: intuitively, DPLL will misassign a variable having $\Omega(n)$ height 

148: in the 

149: tree representing the behavior of the algorithm, and 

150: will be forced to backtrack on the given variable. 

151: {\em The conclusion of this intuitive argument is that a 

152: first-order phase transition implies a $2^{\Omega(n)}$ lower bound for 

153: the 

154: running time of any DPLL algorithm, valid with high probability for 

155: random instances located slightly above the transition.  }

156: 

157: While previous rigorous results 

158: \cite{2+psat:ralcom97,scaling:window:2sat,achlioptas:beame:molloy}, supported these intuitions, to date, the 

159: extent of a connection between first-order phase transitions and 

160: algorithmic complexity was unclear. 

161: 

162: {\bf The goals of this paper are

163: \begin{enumerate}

164: \item  To remedy this, and formally establish a connection between 

165: first-order phase 

166: transitions and the resolution complexity of random satisfiability 

167: problems, and

168: \item To take steps towards obtaining a complete classification of the 

169: order of phase transition in generalized satisfiability problems. 

170: \end{enumerate} 

171: }  

172: 

173: To accomplish these goals 

174: 

175: \begin{enumerate} 

176: \item we obtain (Theorem~\ref{dichotomy:threshold}) a complete 

177: characterization of sharp/coarse thresholds in the random generalized 

178: satisfiability model due to Molloy \cite{molloy-stoc2002}. 

179: ``Phyisical'' arguments (see discussion below) imply that it makes no 

180: sense to study the order of the phase transition unless the problem 

181: has a sharp threshold. 

182: \item we rigorously prove (Theorem~\ref{3sat:first-order}) that random 

183: 3-SAT has a first-order phase transition. We extend this result in 

184: several ways: first (Theorem~\ref{2+p-sat:first-order}) to 

185: random $(2+p)$-satisfiability, the original problem from 

186: \cite{2+p:nature}, obtaining further theoretical support to the 

187: heuristic results of \cite{2+p:nature}. Second we give a sufficient 

188: condition (Theorem~\ref{sufficient:first-order}) for the existence of 

189: a first-order phase transition. We then show 

190: (Theorem~\ref{implicates:first-order}) that all problems whose 

191: constraints have no implicates of size at most two satisfy this 

192: condition.\item we show that in all the cases where  

193: we can prove the 

194: existence of a first-order phase transition, such problems have   

195: a $2^{\Omega(n)}$ lower bound on their resolution complexity 

196: (and hence the complexity of DPLL algorithms as well \cite{beame:dp}). 

197: Indeed, the two phenomena ($2^{\Omega(n)}$ resolution complexity and 

198: the existence of a first-order phase transition) have 

199: common causes. 

200: \item in contrast, we show (Theorem~\ref{second:order}) that, for {\em 

201: any generalized 

202: satisfiability problem},  a second-order phase transition implies, for 

203: every $\alpha >0$, a $O(2^{\alpha \cdot n})$ upper 

204: bound on the resolution complexity of their random instances (in the 

205: region where most formulas are unsatisfiable).  

206: \end{enumerate} 

207: 

208: \section{Preliminaries} 

209: 

210: Throughout the paper we will assume familiarity with the general 

211: concepts of phase transitions in combinatorial problems (see e.g. 

212: \cite{martin:monasson:zecchina}), 

213: random structures \cite{bol:b:random-graphs}, proof complexity 

214: \cite{beame:proof:survey}. Some papers whose concepts and methods we use in 

215: detail (and we assume greater familiarity with) 

216: include \cite{friedgut:k:sat}, \cite{chvatal:szemeredi:resolution},  

217: \cite{ben-sasson:resolution:width}. 

218: 

219: Consider a monotonically increasing problem $A=(A_{n})$, 

220:  under the constant probability model $\Gamma(n,p)$, that independently 

221: sets to 1 with probability $p$ 

222: each bit of the random string. As usual, for 

223: $\epsilon >0$ let $p_{\epsilon}= p_{\epsilon}(n)$ define the canonical

224: probability such that $\Pr_{x \in \Gamma(n,p_{\epsilon}(n))}[x \in

225: A]= \epsilon$. 

226: 

227: The probability that a random sample $x$ satisfies property $A$ (i.e. 

228: $x\in A$) is a monotonically increasing function of $p$. {\em Sharp 

229: thresholds} are those for which this function has a ``sudden jump'' from 

230: value 0 

231: to 1:  

232: 

233: \begin{definition} \label{sharp}

234: Problem $A$ has a {\em sharp threshold} iff for every $0<\epsilon < 

235: 1/2$, we have $\lim_{n\goesto \infty} \frac{p_{1-\epsilon}(n)- 

236: p_{\epsilon}(n)}{p_{1/2}(n)} = 0$. 

237: $A$ has {\em a coarse threshold} if for some $\epsilon > 0$ it holds 

238: that

239: $\underline{\lim}_{n\goesto \infty} \frac{p_{1-\epsilon}(n)- 

240: p_{\epsilon}(n)}{p_{1/2}(n)} > 0$. 

241: \end{definition} 

242: 

243: For satisfiability problems (whose complements are monotonically 

244: increasing) the constant probability model amounts to adding every constraint 

245: (among those 

246: allowed by the syntactic specification of the model) to the random 

247: formula independently 

248: with probability $p$. Related definitions can be given for the other 

249: two models for 

250: generating random structures, 

251: the {\em counting model} and {\em the multiset model} 

252: \cite{bol:b:random-graphs}. Under reasonable 

253: conditions \cite{bol:b:random-graphs} 

254: these models are equivalent, and we will liberally switch 

255: between them. In particular, for 

256: satisfiability problem $A$, and an instance $\Phi$ of $A$, 

257: $c_{A}(\Phi)$ will denote its {\em constraint density}, the ratio 

258: between 

259: the number of clauses and the number of variables of $\Phi$. To specify 

260: the random model in this 

261: latter cases we have to specify the constraint density as a function of 

262: $n$, the number of variables. 

263: We will use  $c_{A}$ to denote the value of the constraint density 

264: $c_{A}(\Phi)$ (in the counting/multiset 

265: models) corresponding to taking $p=p_{1/2}$ in the constant probability 

266: model. 

267: $c_{A}$ is a function on $n$ that is believed to tend to a constant 

268: limit as $n\goesto \infty$. However, Friedgut's proof 

269: \cite{friedgut:k:sat} of a sharp threshold in $k$-SAT (and our results) leave this issue 

270: open.   

271: 

272: 

273: The original investigation of the order of the phase transition in 

274: $k$-SAT used an order parameter called {\em the backbone}.  

275: Bollob\'{a}s et al. \cite{scaling:window:2sat} have investigated the 

276: order of the phase transition in 2-SAT under a different order parameter, 

277: a ``monotonic version'' of the 

278: backbone called {\em the spine}. 

279: 

280: \begin{equation}\label{spine:initial} 

281: Spine(\Phi) = \{ x\in Lit | (\exists) \Xi \subseteq \Phi, \Xi \in SAT,

282: \Xi \AND \{\overline{x}\}\in \overline{SAT}\}. 

283: \end{equation}

284: 

285: They showed that random 2-SAT has a continuous (second-order) phase

286: transition: the size of the spine, normalized by dividing it by the 

287: number of 

288: variables, approaches zero ( 

289: as $n\goesto \infty$) for $c<c_{2-SAT}=1$, and is continuous 

290: at $c=c_{2-SAT}$. By contrast, nonrigorous 

291: arguments from Statistical Mechanics \cite{monasson:zecchina} imply the 

292: fact  

293: that for $3-SAT$ the spine jumps discontinuously from zero to 

294: positive values at the transition point $c=c_{3-SAT}$ 

295: (a first-order phase transition).  

296: 

297: It is easy to see that the intuition concerning the connection between 

298: the 

299: complexity of DPLL algorithms and the size of the backbone (discussed 

300: briefly in the introduction) extends to the spine as well. In this 

301: paper 

302: whenever we will discuss the order of a phase transition we will do it  

303: with respect to this latter order parameter.  

304: 

305: We would like to obtain a complete classification of 

306: the order of the phase transition in random satisfiability 

307: problems. 

308: A preliminary problem we have to deal with is characterizing those 

309: problems that 

310: have a sharp threshold: indeed, Physics considerations require that, 

311: in order that the study of the (order of the) phase transition to be 

312: meaningful, the order parameter (in the case of $k$-SAT the spine) has 

313: to be, w.h.p.,  concentrated around its expected value 

314: (in Physics parlance it is a {\em self averaging quantity}), and it is 

315: zero up to a certain value of the control parameter 

316: (in our case constraint density $c$) and positive above it. 

317: In the case of $k$-SAT these conditions imply the fact that 

318: $k$-SAT has a sharp threshold. The argument (a ``folklore'' one) 

319: can be formally 

320: expressed by the following 

321: 

322: \begin{lemma}\label{spine-threshold} Let $c$ be an arbitrary {\em 

323: constant} value for the constraint 

324: density function.  

325: \begin{enumerate}

326: \item If $c< \underline{lim}_{n\goesto \infty} c_{k-SAT}(n)$ then 

327: $\lim_{n \goesto \infty} \frac{|Spine(\Phi)|}{n} =0$. 

328: \item If for some $c$ there exists $\delta > 0$ such that w.h.p. (as 

329: $n\goesto \infty$) $\frac{|Spine(\Phi)|}{n} > \delta$ then 

330: $\lim_{n\goesto \infty}

331:  \Pr[\Phi \in SAT]= 0$, that is $c> \overline{lim}_{n\goesto \infty} 

332: c_{k-SAT}(n)$. 

333: \end{enumerate}

334: \end{lemma}

335: 

336: The argument is generic enough to extend to {\em all} constraint 

337: satisfaction problems. So a necessary condition for the study of 

338: the phase transition to be meaningful is that the problem have a 

339: sharp threshold.     

340: 

341: \section{Coarse and sharp thresholds of random generalized 

342: satisfiability 

343: problems} 

344: 

345: 

346: In this section we obtain a complete classification of thresholds of 

347: random satisfiability problems, under 

348:  Molloy's recent model of random constraint satisfaction problems from 

349: \cite{molloy-stoc2002} (specialized to satisfiability problems, i.e. 

350: problems with domain $\{0,1\}$).  This affirmatively solves 

351: an open problem raised in \cite{creignou:daude:sat2002}.  

352: 

353: 

354: \begin{definition}\label{model} 

355: Consider the set of all $2^{2^{k}}-1$ potential nonempty binary 

356: constraints on $k$ variables 

357: $X_{1}, \ldots, X_{k}$. We specify a probability distribution ${\cal 

358: P}$ which selects a single 

359: random constraint, and let ${\cal C}= supp({\cal P})$ be the set of 

360: constraints on which ${\cal P}$ 

361: assigns positive probability. 

362: 

363: A random formula from $SAT_{n,M}({\cal P})$ is specified by the 

364: following procedure: 

365: \begin{itemize} 

366: \item $n$ is the number of variables. 

367: \item $M$ is the number of clauses, chosen by the following procedure: 

368: first select, uniformly at 

369: random and with repetition $m$ hyperedges of the uniform hypergraph on 

370: $n$ variables. 

371: \item for each hyperedge choose a random ordering of the variables 

372: involved. Choose a random 

373: constraint according to ${\cal P}$ and apply it on the list of 

374: (ordered) variables. 

375: \end{itemize} 

376: $SAT({\cal C})$ refers to the random model corresponding to ${\cal P}$ 

377: being the uniform distribution on ${\cal C}$. 

378: \end{definition} 

379: 

380: It turns out we face a technical difficulty when studying sharp and 

381: coarse thresholds in Molloy's model; it cannot  be directly mapped onto 

382: the 

383: constant probability model for which the notion of a sharp threshold in 

384: Definition~\ref{sharp} works. The definition of a sharp threshold we 

385: need 

386: to employ is the one from \cite{molloy-stoc2002} 

387: 

388: \begin{definition}\label{sharp:2} 

389: $SAT({\cal P})$ is said to have {\em a sharp threshold of 

390: satisfiability} if there exists a function $c(n)$ bounded away from 0 such that, for 

391: any $\epsilon >0$ if $M<(c(n)-\epsilon) n$

392: then $SAT_{n,M}({\cal P})$ is a.s. satisfiable and if 

393: $M>(c(n)+\epsilon) n$ then $SAT_{n,M}({\cal P})$ is a.s. unsatisfiable. On the other 

394: hand, if there exist two functions $M_{1}(n), M_{2}(n)$ 

395: such that $M_{1}(n)/M_{2}(n)$ is bounded away from zero, and the 

396: satisfaction probability of random instances from $SAT_{n,M_{1}}({\cal P})$, 

397: $SAT_{n,M_{2}}({\cal P})$ is bounded away from 

398: both 0 and 1 then $SAT({\cal P})$ is said to have {\em a coarse 

399: threshold.} 

400: \end{definition} 

401: 

402: However, just as in \cite{molloy-stoc2002} (where this was done in the 

403: case when ${\cal P}$ is the uniform distribution), for $k\geq 3$ 

404: one can map Molloy's model onto a modified version of the constant 

405: probability model, defined as follows: 

406: Let $p_{1}, \ldots p_{r}$ be positive numbers between zero and 1. A 

407: random sample $x$ from the model $\Gamma_{p_{1},\ldots p_{r}}(n,p)$ is 

408: obtained in the 

409: following way: divide the bits of $x$ into $r$ equal groups. Set each 

410: of the bits in the $i$'th group to 1 independently with probability 

411: $p\cdot p_{i}$. For this model the definitions of $p_{\epsilon}$ and sharp/coarse threshold from Definition~\ref{sharp} carry over, and are equivalent to 

412: those from Definition~\ref{sharp:2}. 

413: 

414: Indeed, let $r$ be the cardinality of the support of distribution ${\cal P}$, 

415: and $p_{1}, \ldots, p_{r}$ be the associated positive 

416: probabilities. 

417: 

418: In its general setting Molloy's model is specified as follows: divide 

419: the potential constraints into 

420: groups of $rk!$ constraints, corresponding to all possible applications 

421: of the $r$ constraint templates on a fixed set of $k$ variables. 

422: For each such group, independently with probability $p$, we make the 

423: decision to include at least one of the constraints in the group 

424: with probability $p=\frac{M}{rk!{{n}\choose {k}}}$ (going from $M$ 

425: clauses to including each potential edge independently with probability $p$ 

426: can be done just as in the uniform case from \cite{molloy-stoc2002}). 

427: 

428: Each realization of  constraint constraint template $i$ is chosen with 

429: probability probability $p_{i}/k!$. Denote this model by $M(n,p,p_{1}, 

430: \ldots, p_{r})$. 

431: 

432: Defining $f(x) = [(1+x pp_{1}/k!)\cdot (1+xpp_{2}/k!) \cdot \ldots 

433: \cdot (1+xpp_{r})/k!]^{k!}- x$ we have $f(1)>0 $ and, since (by a simple 

434: calculus argument) 

435: the minimum of $f(x)$ over the choices of $p_{i}\geq 0$, $\sum p_{i}=1$  

436:  is obtained when one of them 

437: is 1 and the others are zero,  

438: \[

439: f(\frac{1}{1-p})\geq [1+\frac{p}{k!(1-p)}]^{k!}-\frac{1}{1-p}\geq 0.  

440: \]

441: 

442:  

443: Let $\alpha= \alpha(n) >0$  be the smallest solution of the equation 

444: $f(\alpha) =0$. Thus $\frac{1}{1-p} \leq  \alpha$. 

445: 

446: 

447: 

448: Define, for $i=1,r$, 

449: \[

450: p^{\prime}_{i}= \frac{1/k! \cdot \alpha \cdot p_{i}}{1+1/k! \cdot 

451: \alpha pp_{i}}

452: \]

453: 

454: 

455: 

456: \begin{claim}

457: The following hold for any $p=\theta(n^{1-k})$:  

458: \begin{enumerate}

459: \item For every formula $\Phi$ such that no two constraints on the same 

460: set of variables appear in it, 

461: \[

462: \Pr_{M(n,p,p_{1}, \ldots, p_{r})}(\Phi)\geq 

463: \Pr_{\Gamma_{p^{\prime}_{1}, \ldots, p^{\prime}_{r}}(n,p)}[\Phi]. 

464: \]

465: Consequently 

466: \begin{eqnarray*}

467: \Pr_{M(n,p,p_{1}, \ldots, p_{r})}[SAT({\cal P})]\geq 

468: \Pr_{\Gamma_{p^{\prime}_{1}, \ldots, p^{\prime}_{r}}(n,p)}[SAT({\cal P})| \\ 

469: \mbox{ no two constraints on the same set of variables appear in }\Phi 

470: ].

471: \end{eqnarray*}

472: \item On the other hand, there exists $f(n) = 1+o(1)$ such that for 

473: every formula $\Phi$ such that no two constraints on the same set of 

474: variables appear in it, 

475: \[

476: \Pr_{M(n,p,p_{1}, \ldots, p_{r})}(\Phi)\leq f(n) 

477: \Pr_{\Gamma_{p^{\prime}_{1}, \ldots, p^{\prime}_{r}}(n,p)}[\Phi]. 

478: \]

479: Consequently 

480: \begin{eqnarray*}

481: \Pr_{M(n,p,p_{1}, \ldots, p_{r})}[SAT({\cal P})]\leq 

482: (1+o(1))\Pr_{\Gamma_{p^{\prime}_{1}, \ldots, p^{\prime}_{r}}(n,p)}[SAT({\cal P})| \\ 

483: \mbox{ no two constraints on the same set of variables appear in }\Phi 

484: ].

485: \end{eqnarray*}

486: \end{enumerate}

487: \end{claim}

488: 

489: Indeed, consider the set of constraints on a fixed set of given 

490: variables. The probability (under $\Gamma_{p^{\prime}_{1}, \ldots, 

491: p^{\prime}_{r}}$) that a given clause of type $i$ is 

492: included, and none of the others are is equal to 

493: $\frac{pp^{\prime}_{i}}{1- pp^{\prime}_{i}}\cdot 

494: [(1-pp^{\prime}_{1})\ldots (1-pp^{\prime}_{r})]^{k!} $. 

495: But

496: \[

497: \frac{pp^{\prime}_{i}}{1-pp^{\prime}_{i}}= \alpha pp_{i}/k!. 

498: \]

499: 

500: Also 

501: \[

502: 1-pp^{\prime}_{i}= \frac{1}{1+\alpha pp_{i}/k!}, 

503: \]

504: 

505: so, by the definition of $\alpha$, 

506:  

507: \[

508: [(1-pp^{\prime}_{1})\ldots (1-pp^{\prime}_{r})]^{k!}= \frac{1}{\alpha}.

509: \]

510: 

511: This means that the probability that in a given set of constraints 

512: exactly one constraint (of type $i$)  is chosen is equal to $pp_{i}/k!$, 

513: the same as in model $M$. On the other 

514: hand the probability that {\em no} constraint is chosen is equal to  

515: $[(1-pp^{\prime}_{1})\ldots (1-pp^{\prime}_{r})]^{k!}= \frac{1}{\alpha}$. 

516: But the same probability in model $M$ 

517: is $1-p$, and we know that $1-p \geq \frac{1}{\alpha}$. In both model 

518: decisions on different sets of $k$ variables are independent. The 

519: conclusion is that $M$ assigns a larger probability 

520: than $\Gamma_{p^{\prime}_{1}, \ldots, p^{\prime}_{r}}$ to any sample 

521: $x$ to which it assigns positive probability. Point (1) follows. 

522: 

523: Point (2) has a similar proof: by calculus the maximum value of $f(x)$ 

524: is obtained when the $p_{i}$'s are equal, so 

525: \[

526: 0 = f(\alpha) \leq (1+\frac{\alpha p}{rk!})^{rk!} - \alpha \leq 

527: e^{\alpha p} - \alpha. 

528: \]

529: 

530: Since $p=o(1)$, for large enough $n$ $e^{\alpha p} \leq 1+ \alpha p + 

531: (\alpha p)^{2}$, so $(\alpha p)^{2}+ \alpha (p-1) +1 > 0$, in other 

532: words

533: \[

534: \alpha (1-p) \leq 1+ (\alpha p)^{2}.

535: \]

536: 

537: But the ratio of the probabilities associated to any given $\Phi$ by 

538: $M$ and $\Gamma_{p^{\prime}_{1}, \ldots, p^{\prime}_{r}}(n,p)$ verifies 

539: \[

540: \frac{ \Pr_{M(n,p,p_{1}, \ldots, 

541: p_{r})}(\Phi)}{\Pr_{\Gamma_{p^{\prime}_{1}, \ldots, p^{\prime}_{r}}(n,p)}[\Phi]}\leq [\alpha (1-p)]^{rk! 

542: {{n}\choose {k}}}\leq (1+ (\alpha p)^{2})^{rk! {{n}\choose {k}}}. 

543: \]

544: Since $p=\theta(n^{1-k})$ and $k\geq 3$ the right-hand side is a 

545: function of $n$ that is $1+o(1)$. 

546: 

547: To prove the result it is enough to observe that for $k\geq 3$ the 

548: expected number of times a random formula in $\Gamma_{p^{\prime}_{1}, 

549: \ldots, p^{\prime}_{r}}(n,p)$ contains two different 

550: clauses on the same set of variables is $o(1)$, since that will imply 

551: that the satisfaction probabilities in the two models are related by a 

552: $1-o(1)$ factor. 

553: Indeed, this number is 

554: \[

555: {{n}\choose {k}} \cdot [\sum_{\alpha,\beta} 

556: \frac{pp^{\prime}_{\alpha}pp^{\prime}_{\beta}}{(k!)^{2}}], 

557: \]

558: 

559: where indices $\alpha,\beta$ span the set of different pairs of clauses 

560: from a group. 

561: Since each group is finite (contains $rk!$ clauses) and 

562: $p=\theta(n^{1-k})$, this expected value is $\theta(n^{2-k})$, which is $o(1)$ for 

563: $k\geq 3$. 

564: \qed

565: 

566:  

567: \begin{definition} 

568: Constraint $C_{2}$ is {\em an implicate of $C_{1}$}

569:  iff every satisfying assignment for $C_{1}$ satisfies $C_{2}$.  

570: \end{definition} 

571: 

572: 

573: \begin{definition} 

574: A boolean constraint $C$ {\em strongly depends on a literal} if 

575: it has an unit clause as an implicate. 

576: \end{definition} 

577: 

578: \begin{definition} 

579: A boolean constraint $C$ {\em strongly depends on a 2-XOR relation} if 

580: $\exists i,j\in \overline{1,k}$ 

581: such that constraint ``$x_{i}\neq x_{j}$'' is an implicate of $C$. 

582: \end{definition} 

583: 

584: Our result is: 

585: 

586: \begin{theorem}\label{dichotomy:threshold} 

587: Consider a generalized satisfiability problem $SAT({\cal P})$ (that is 

588: not 

589: trivially satisfiable by the ``all zeros'' or ``all ones'' 

590: assignment). Let ${\cal C}= supp({\cal P})$.   

591: \begin{enumerate}

592: \item if some constraint in ${\cal C}$ strongly depends on one 

593: component then $SAT({\cal P})$ has a coarse threshold. 

594: \item if some constraint in ${\cal C}$ strongly depends on a 

595: 2XOR-relation then $SAT({\cal P})$ has a coarse threshold. 

596: \item in all other cases $SAT({\cal P})$ has a sharp threshold. 

597: \end{enumerate}

598: \end{theorem}

599:  

600: \begin{proof}

601: 

602: \begin{enumerate}

603: \item 

604: Suppose some clause $C$ implies a unit clause. We claim that $SAT({\cal 

605: P})$ has a coarse threshold in the region where the expected number of 

606: clauses is $\theta(\sqrt{n})$. 

607: 

608: That the probability that such a formula is bounded away from zero in 

609: this region it is easy to see: consider a random formula with $c\sqrt n$ 

610: constraints, and let $H$ be the $k$-uniform formula hypergraph. 

611: The expected number of pairs of edges $C_{i}$, $C_{j}$ that have 

612: nonempty intersection is 

613: \[

614: {{c\cdot \sqrt n}\choose {2}}\cdot (1 - \frac{{{n-k}\choose {k} 

615: }}{{{n}\choose {k} }})\leq \frac{(ck)^{2}}{2}

616: \]

617: 

618: Therefore with constant positive probability (that depends on $c$), all 

619: vertices will have degree at most 1 in the hypergraph $H_{n}$, and the 

620: formula will be satisfiable. 

621: 

622: If, on the other hand, both positive and negative unit clauses 

623: are implicates of constraints in ${\cal P}$ then one can adapt the 

624: well-known lower bound on the probability of intersection of two 

625: random sets of size $\theta(\sqrt{n})$ to show that, with constant 

626: probability a random formula will contain two contradictory unit 

627: clauses as implicates, and be unsatisfiable. 

628: 

629: The proof is similar in the case when only one type of unit clauses 

630: (w.l.o.g 

631: assume it's the positive unit clauses) are implicates of constraints in 

632: ${\cal C}$. Since $SAT({\cal C})$ is not trivial there exists a 

633: constraint $C_{1}\in {\cal C}$ with an implicate of the type 

634: $\overline{x_{1}}\OR \ldots \OR \overline{x_{b}}$, $b\geq 2$. We deal first with the 

635: case when there exists a constraint 

636: $C_{2}\neq C_{1}$ such that $C_{2}$ has an unit clause as implicate. 

637: Then it is easy to construct a formula $F$ consisting of $b$ copies of  

638: $C_{1}$and one copy of $C_{2}$ that implies the (unsatisfiable) formula 

639: $\{x_{1}, \ldots, x_{b},\overline{x_{1}}\OR \ldots \OR 

640: \overline{x_{b}}\}$. 

641: It is easy to see that the expected number of copies of $F$ in a random 

642: instance of $SAT({\cal P})$ with $\theta(\sqrt{n})$ clauses is 

643: constant, 

644: so the probability that the instance is unsatisfiable is bounded away 

645: from zero. 

646: 

647: Finally, in the case when the only constraint in ${\cal C}$ that has an 

648: unit 

649: implicate is $C_{1}$. In this case one can use a trick similar to that 

650: used 

651: in the last paragraph of subsection~\ref{all:together}: we use half of 

652: the 

653: random copies of $C_{1}$ to imply (random) unit clauses, and the other 

654: half 

655: to imply (random) copies of $\overline{x_{1}}\OR \ldots \OR 

656: \overline{x_{b}}$. This way we can produce, with constant probability, a copy of 

657: the formula $F$. 

658: 

659: \item 

660: Suppose now that $C$ does not fall in the first case but 

661: has a 2XOR implicate. In this case Creignou and 

662: Daud\'{e} have shown when ${\cal P}$ is the uniform distribution 

663: (and this extends directly to the case of a general 

664: probability distribution as well) that $p_{1/2}= \Omega(n^{1-k}))$ and  

665: the expected number of constraints is $\theta{n}$. Let $c_{SAT({\cal 

666: P})}\cdot n$ be the expected number of constraints corresponding to 

667: $p_{1/2}$. Then there exists $\delta > 0 $ such that, for every $n$, 

668: $c_{SAT({\cal P})}= c_{SAT({\cal P})}(n) > \delta$. 

669: 

670: Let us consider a random formula with  $c\cdot n$ of constraints. 

671: By the well known result on triangles in random graphs it follows that 

672: with positive probability one can use $C$ to create a ``contradictory

673: triangle''. Therefore it is easy to see that for every $c>0$ 

674: the satisfaction probability is bounded away from 1. It is easy to see 

675: than this statement, together with the fact that $c_{SAT({\cal P})}(n) 

676: > \delta$ together imply that $SAT({\cal P})$ has a coarse threshold.  

677:    

678: \item 

679: We will concentrate in 

680: the sequel on the last one. As discussed previously, for $k\geq 3$ 

681: Molloy's model can be mapped onto 

682: a version of the constraint probability model. In the case $k=2$ we can 

683: establish the existence of a sharp 

684: threshold in a direct manner, by the same method as the one used by 

685: Chv\'{a}tal and Reed for 2-SAT \cite{mickgetssome} 

686: (the complete proof of this case will be presented in the full 

687: version).  Indeed, by the first two points of the Theorem, and the assumption 

688: $k=2$ 

689: the only possible constraints in ${\cal P}$ can be constraints $x\OR 

690: y$, $\overline{x} \OR \overline{y}$, $\overline{x}\OR y$, $x \OR 

691: \overline{y}$, $x=y$, and 

692: the first two are always present.   

693: 

694: Let us now consider the case $k\geq 3$, using the modified version of 

695: the constant probability model. We note first that there exists a simple 

696: observation

697:  that allows us to reduce the problem to the case when ${\cal P}$ is 

698: the uniform probability: the Friedgut-Bourgain 

699: result on sharp/coarse threshold properties in monotone problems 

700: \cite{friedgut:k:sat} uses the following result, an easy consequence of the 

701: Mean Value Theorem: 

702: if a monotonic property $A$ does {\em not}  have a sharp threshold 

703: (under model $\Gamma(n.p)$) then there exists $p^{*}=p(n)$ and a constant 

704: $C>0$ such that (for 

705: infinitely many $n$) 

706: 

707: \begin{equation}\label{coarse}

708: p^{*}\cdot I(p^{*}) < C,

709: \end{equation}

710: 

711: where $I(p^{*})=\frac{d\mu_{p}(A)}{dp}|_{p=p^{*}}$. 

712: 

713: The same argument works when $A$ is considered under model 

714: $\Gamma_{p_{1},\ldots p_{r}}(n,p)$. Moreover, it is an easy consequence of Russo's 

715: Lemma for $\Gamma_{p_{1},\ldots p_{r}}(n,p)$

716: that if equation~\ref{coarse} holds for $p^{*}$ and some tuple 

717: ${p_{1},\ldots p_{r}}$, then it also holds (with a different constant $C$) for  

718: $p^{*}$ and 

719: tuple $p_{1}= \ldots p_{r}=1/r$. In other words it is enough to obtain 

720: a contradiction to the assumption that $SAT({\cal P})$ did not have a 

721: sharp 

722: threshold in the case when ${\cal P}$ is the uniform probability, which 

723: is what we show next. 

724: 

725: \subsection{A base case} 

726: 

727: To prove the theorem in the uniform case we will first consider a 

728: ``base case'' that is 

729: easier to  

730: explain, and will be of use in solving the general case: let $a,b$ be 

731: two integers 

732: (not necessarily equal), both greater or equal to 2. Let $S$ be a set 

733: consisting of two constraints $C_{1}, C_{2}$ of arity $a$,

734: respectively $b$, specified by 

735: $C_{1}= \overline{x_{1}}\OR \ldots \overline{x_{a}}$, $C_{2}= x_{1}\OR 

736: \ldots x_{b}$. One can represent $SAT(S)$ in the framework of 

737: Definition~\ref{model}

738: by ``simulating'' $C_{1}$, $C_{2}$ by suitable constraints of arity 

739: $\max\{a,b\}$. 

740: 

741: We first outline how to prove that $SAT(S)$ has a sharp threshold: 

742: we apply the Friedgut-Bourgain result \cite{friedgut:k:sat} and infer 

743: that if 

744: $SAT(S)$ did not have a sharp  threshold than, for some $\epsilon, 

745: \delta_{0}, K>0$ and some probability 

746: $p=p(n)\in [p_{\epsilon}, p_{1-\epsilon}]$ 

747: 

748: \begin{enumerate}

749: \item either $ 

750: \Pr_{p=p(n)} [\Phi \mbox{ contains some } F\in \overline{SAT}\mbox{ 

751: with }|F|\leq K] > \delta_{0}$, or  

752: \item there exists a fixed satisfiable formula $F_{0}$, $|F_{0}|\leq K$  

753: such that $

754: \Pr_{p=p(n)} [\Phi \AND F_{0} \in \overline{SAT}] - \Pr [ \Phi \in 

755: \overline{SAT}] > 

756: \delta_{0}$. 

757: 

758: \end{enumerate} 

759: 

760: One easy observation is that in the second alternative we can always 

761: assume 

762: that $F$ consists of a conjunction of 

763: unit clauses: if $F$ is satisfiable and satisfies (2), then so does 

764: the conjunction of unit clauses specifying 

765: one satisfying assignment of $F$. The first alternative is eliminated 

766: by a result (Proposition 4.6) from 

767: \cite{creignou:daude:sat2002}. 

768: The key to disproving the second alternative, in the case of $k$-SAT, 

769: is 

770: a geometric result, Lemma 5.7 in \cite{friedgut:k:sat}. 

771: We restate it here for completeness. 

772: 

773: 

774: \begin{lemma}\label{friedgut}

775: For a sequence $A=(A_{n})$ of subsets of the $n$-dimensional hypercube, 

776:  $A\subseteq \{0,1\}^{n}$, define $A$ to be {\em 

777: $(d,m,\epsilon)$-coverable} if the probability for a union 

778: of a random choice of $d$ subcubes (hyperplanes) of codimension $m$ to 

779: cover $A$ is greater than $\epsilon$ for large enough $n$. 

780:  

781: Let $f(n)$ be any function that tends to infinity as $n\goesto \infty$. 

782: For fixed $k$, $d$, and $\epsilon$ any $A$ that is 

783: $(d,1,\epsilon)$-coverable is $(f(n),k, \epsilon)$-coverable. 

784: \end{lemma}

785: 

786: The connection with satisfiability can be explained as follows: the set 

787: $A$ 

788: in the application of the Lemma~\ref{friedgut} will (intuitively) refer 

789: to the set of satisfying assignments of random formula $\Phi$. 

790: Hyperplanes 

791: of codimension 1 are associated to unit clauses, more precisely to the 

792: set 

793: of assignments {\em forbidden} by a given unit clause. The fact that 

794: $A$ 

795: can be covered with probability $\epsilon$ by a union of $d$ random 

796: hyperplanes of codimension 1 parallels the fact that with probability 

797: $\epsilon$, 

798: $\Phi \AND F_{0}$ becomes unsatisfiable. This is what the result of 

799: Friedgut-Bourgain gives us (for $\epsilon = \delta_{0}$, under the 

800: assumption that $k$-SAT does not have a sharp 

801: threshold). Hyperplanes of 

802: codimension $k$ correspond to the set of assignments forbidden by a 

803: given $k$-clause, and the conclusion of the geometric lemma is that adding 

804: any small (but unbounded) number $f(n)$ of random 

805: $k$-CNF clauses to random formula $\Phi$ boosts the probability of {\em 

806: not} being satisfiable at least as much as the addition of the 

807: (constantly many) unit clauses in $F_{0}$.   

808: 

809: For small enough $f(n)$ this statement can be directly refuted, by 

810: concentration results for the binomial distribution (Lemma 5.6  in 

811: \cite{friedgut:k:sat}). A simpler 

812: and more general way to derive it is given as

813: Lemma 3.1 in \cite{achlioptas:friedgut:kcol}.  

814: 

815: The same outline works for the case we consider. To state the geometric 

816: result we need, however, to 

817: work with two types of hyperplanes: 

818: 

819: \begin{definition}

820: Let $H_{n}=\{0,1\}^{n}$ be the $n$-dimensional hypercube, and let 

821: $w_{i}$ denote the value of the $i$'th 

822: bit of element $w\in H_{n}$. 

823: A {\em positive hyperplane of codimension $d$} is a subset of points 

824: of  $H_{n}$ defined by a system of equations $

825: x_{i_{1}}= \ldots = x_{i_{d}}=1$, where the $x_{i}$'s are distinct 

826: variables. Negative hyperplanes have 

827: a similar definition. 

828: \end{definition}

829: 

830: Our version of the geometric Lemma is 

831: 

832: \begin{lemma}\label{geometric} 

833: For a sequence $A=(A_{n})$ of subsets of the $n$-dimensional hypercube, 

834:  $A_{n}\subseteq \{0,1\}^{n}$  define $A$ to be {\em $(n_{1}, d_{1}, 

835: d_{2},m_{1}, m_{2},\epsilon)$-coverable} if the probability of a union        

836: of a random choice of $d_{1}$ negative hyperplanes of codimension 

837: $m_{1}$ 

838: and $d_{2}$ positive hyperplanes of codimension $m_{2}$ to cover 

839: $A_{n}$ is at least $\epsilon$ if 

840: $n\geq n_{1}$. Let $f(n)$, $g(n)$ be any 

841: functions that tends to infinity as $n\goesto \infty$. For fixed 

842: $k_{1}$,$k_{2}$, $d$, and $0<\delta <\epsilon$, 

843: there exists $n_{2}$ that depends on $k_{1}, k_{2}, d,\epsilon,\Delta, 

844: n_{1}$ (but {\em not} $A$) such that for any 

845: $n\geq n_{2}$ any $A_{n}\subseteq \{0,1\}^{n}$ that is 

846: $(n_{1},d_{1},d_{2},1,1,\epsilon)$-coverable is 

847: $(n_{2},f(n),g(n),k_{1},k_{2}, \epsilon - \delta)$-coverable. 

848: \end{lemma}

849: We will in fact prove a stronger version of the Lemma: 

850: 

851: \begin{lemma}\label{geometric:2} 

852: For a sequence $A=(A_{n})$ of subsets of the $n$-dimensional hypercube, 

853: assume that  

854: \[

855: \Pr[A\subseteq H_{1}\cup \ldots H_{d}]\geq \epsilon

856: \]

857: 

858: for all $n\geq n_{1}$, 

859: where the $H_{i}$'s are random hyperplanes of codimension 1, 

860: $d_{1}$ of them negative, $d_{2}$ of them positive. 

861: 

862: 

863: Let $f(n)$, $g(n)$ be any 

864: functions that tends to infinity as $n\goesto \infty$. For fixed 

865: $k_{1}$,$k_{2}$, $d$, and $\delta >0$, 

866: there exists $n_{*}=n(n_{1},d_{1},d_{2},k_{1}, k_{2}, 

867: \epsilon,\delta,f,g)$, (however it does {\em not} depend on $A$) 

868: such that for any 

869: $n\geq n_{*}$ and any $i$, $0\leq i\leq d$

870: \begin{equation}\label{conclusion}

871: Pr[A\subseteq P_{1}\cup \ldots \cup P_{\frac{if(n)}{d}}\cup N_{1}\ldots 

872: \cup N_{\frac{ig(n)}{d}}\cup H_{i+1}\cup 

873: \ldots \cup H_{d}]\geq 

874: Pr[A\subseteq H_{1}\cup \ldots \cup H_{d}]-\frac{i\delta}{d},  

875: \end{equation}

876: 

877: where the $N_{i}$'s are random negative hyperplanes of codimension 

878: $k_{1}$ and the 

879: $P_{i}$'s are random positive hyperplanes of codimension $k_{2}$. 

880: \end{lemma}

881: 

882: \begin{proof} 

883: 

884: It is easy to see that one can assume that $d|f(n)$, $d|g(n)$ (since it 

885: is enough to prove the lemma for 

886: $\overline{f}(n)=d\lfloor f(n)/d \rfloor$, $\overline{g}(n)=d\lfloor 

887: g(n)/d \rfloor$). 

888:  

889: We will prove the lemma by double induction on $d_{1}, d_{2}$. By 

890: symmetry we only need to consider two ``base cases:'' \\

891: 

892: {\bf Case 1: $d_{1}=0$, $d_{2}=1$} \\

893: 

894: In this case (and the dual, $d_{1}=1$, $d_{2}=0$) we can replace, for 

895: $i=1$, 

896:  equation~\ref{conclusion}

897: by the stronger: 

898: \begin{equation}\label{conclusion:d=1}

899: \Pr[A\subseteq P_{1}\cup \ldots \cup P_{f(n)}\cup N_{1}\ldots \cup 

900: N_{g(n)}]\geq 

901: 1-\delta.  

902: \end{equation} 

903: 

904: The hypothesis implies that for $n\geq n_{1}$ 

905: there exist $n\cdot \epsilon$ positive hyperplanes of codimension $1$ 

906: such that 

907: \[

908: A_{n} \subseteq P^{(n)}_{1}\cap \ldots \cap P^{(n)}_{n\cdot \epsilon}. 

909: \]

910: 

911: We will assume, w.l.o.g., in what follows that $A$ is in fact {\em 

912: equal} to 

913: the right hand side. 

914: If $KP$ is a random positive hyperplane of 

915: codimension $k_{1}$ 

916: then 

917: \[

918: \Pr[A \not \subseteq KP] = 1-\frac{{{n\cdot \epsilon}\choose 

919: {k_{1}}}}{{{n}\choose {k_{1}}}}. 

920: \]  

921: 

922: Indeed, suppose KP is specified by the (random set of) equations  

923: $x^{(n)}_{1}= \ldots =x^{(n)}_{k_{1}}=1$. The condition that 

924: $A\subseteq KP$ is 

925: equivalent to 

926: \[

927: \{x^{(n)}_{1}, \ldots x^{(n)}_{k_{1}}\} \subseteq \{p^{(n)}_{1}, 

928: \ldots, p^{(n)}_{n\cdot \epsilon}\}, 

929: \]

930: 

931: where $\{p^{(n)}_{1}, \ldots, p^{(n)}_{n\cdot \epsilon}\}$ are the 

932: literals that 

933: specify the hyperplanes $P^{(n)}_{1}, \ldots, P^{(n)}_{n\cdot 

934: \epsilon}$.  

935: 

936: Thus the probability that $A$ is included in the union of $g(n)$ random 

937: positive hyperplanes $KP_{i}$ of codimension $k_{1}$ is at least $1 - 

938: \Pr[ (\forall i): A\not \subseteq KP_{i}]$, which is equal to 

939: \[

940: 1 - (1-\frac{{{n\cdot \epsilon}\choose {k_{1}}}}{{{n}\choose 

941: {k_{1}}}})^{g(n)} \sim 1- (1-\epsilon^{k_{1}})^{g(n)}\goesto 1 \mbox{ 

942: as } 

943: n\goesto \infty.

944: \]

945: 

946: It follows that there exists $n_{*}=n(n_{1},d_{1},d_{2},k_{1}, k_{2}, 

947: \epsilon,\delta,f,g)$

948: such that for $n\geq n_{*}$ the 

949: left-hand side is larger than $1-\delta$. 

950: 

951: \vspace{5mm}

952: {\bf Case 2: $d_{1}+d_{2}>1$} \\

953: 

954: It is enough to prove that there exists 

955: $n_{i}=n(n_{1},d_{1},d_{2},k_{1}, k_{2}, \epsilon,\delta,f,g,i)$

956: such that~\ref{conclusion} holds, for a fixed value of $i$, $0\leq i 

957: \leq d$, when 

958: $n\geq n_{i}$. Then we can take $n_{*}=max\{n_{i}\}$. 

959: 

960: We prove this on induction on $i$. The claim is clearly true for $i=0$. 

961: Assume, therefore, that 

962: the claim is true up to $i$; we will prove it for  $i+1$. 

963: 

964: Denote for all $j$

965: \[

966: p_{j}= \Pr[A \subseteq P_{1}\cup \ldots \cup 

967: P_{\frac{(j-1)f(n)}{d}}\cup N_{1}\cup \ldots \cup 

968: N_{\frac{(j-1)g(n)}{d}}\cup H_{j}\cup \ldots \cup H_{d}]. 

969: \]

970: 

971: To accomplish that it is enough to show that 

972: \begin{equation}\label{inductive:step}

973: p_{i+1}\geq p_{i}-\delta, 

974: \end{equation} 

975:  

976: By the Bayes formula: 

977:  

978: \begin{eqnarray*}\label{bayes}

979: p_{i}=\Pr[A \subseteq P_{1}\cup \ldots \cup P_{\frac{(i-1)f(n)}{d}}\cup 

980: N_{1}\cup \ldots \cup 

981: N_{\frac{(i-1)g(n)}{d}}\cup H_{i}\cup \ldots \cup H_{d}]  =  \\

982:  =  \sum_{B} 

983: \ Pr[B\subseteq H_{i}| A\setminus (P_{1}\cup \ldots \cup 

984: P_{\frac{(i-1)f(n)}{d}}\cup N_{1}\cup \ldots \cup 

985: N_{\frac{(i-1)g(n)}{d}}) = B] \cdot \\

986: \cdot \Pr[A\setminus (P_{1}\cup \ldots \cup P_{\frac{(i-1)f(n)}{d}}\cup 

987: N_{1}\cup \ldots \cup 

988: N_{\frac{(i-1)g(n)}{d}}) = B]

989: \end{eqnarray*} 

990: 

991: Assume without loss of generality that $H_{i}$ is a positive 

992: hyperplane. 

993: 

994: Let $\gamma= \frac{\delta}{2d}$. Let 

995: \[

996: C_{\gamma}=\{B\subseteq \{0,1\}^{n}: Pr[B\subset P] > \gamma\}.

997: \]

998: 

999: Let $\alpha$ be the sum of those terms in~\ref{bayes} corresponding to 

1000: sets $B\in C_{\gamma}$, 

1001: and let $\beta$ be the sum corresponding to sets $B\in 

1002: \overline{C_{\gamma}}$. 

1003: 

1004: From the definition of $C_{\gamma}$ it follows that 

1005: \[

1006: 0\leq \beta \leq \gamma,  

1007: \]

1008:  therefore

1009: \begin{eqnarray*}\label{inequality} 

1010: \Pr[A\setminus (P_{1}\cup \ldots \cup P_{\frac{(i-1)f(n)}{d}}\cup 

1011: N_{1}\cup \ldots \cup 

1012: N_{\frac{(i-1)g(n)}{d}}) \in C_{\gamma}]\geq \\ 

1013: \geq \frac{1}{\gamma}\cdot [\Pr[A \subseteq P_{1}\cup \ldots \cup 

1014: P_{\frac{(i-1)f(n)}{d}}\cup N_{1}\cup \ldots \cup 

1015: N_{\frac{(i-1)g(n)}{d}}\cup H_{i}\cup \ldots \cup H_{d}] -\gamma]= \\

1016: = \frac{1}{\gamma}\cdot [p_{i}-\gamma].

1017: \end{eqnarray*} 

1018: 

1019: On the other hand 

1020: 

1021: \begin{eqnarray*}\label{bayes:2}

1022: p_{i+1}=\Pr[A \subseteq P_{1}\cup \ldots \cup P_{\frac{if(n)}{d}}\cup 

1023: N_{1}\cup \ldots \cup 

1024: N_{\frac{ig(n)}{d}}\cup H_{i+1}\cup \ldots \cup H_{d}]  =  \\

1025:  =  \sum_{B} 

1026: \ Pr[B\subseteq P_{\frac{(i-1)f(n)}{d}+1}\cup \ldots \cup 

1027: P_{\frac{if(n)}{d}} 

1028: \cup N_{\frac{(i-1)g(n)}{d}+1}\cup \ldots \cup N_{\frac{ig(n)}{d}}| \\

1029: A\setminus (P_{1}\cup \ldots \cup P_{\frac{(i-1)f(n)}{d}}\cup N_{1}\cup 

1030: \ldots \cup 

1031: N_{\frac{(i-1)g(n)}{d}}) = B] \cdot \\

1032: \cdot \Pr[A\setminus (P_{1}\cup \ldots \cup P_{\frac{(i-1)f(n)}{d}}\cup 

1033: N_{1}\cup \ldots \cup 

1034: N_{\frac{(i-1)g(n)}{d}}) = B]

1035: \end{eqnarray*} 

1036: 

1037: Let $\overline{f}(n)=f(n)/d$, $\overline{g}(n)= g(n)/d$. Since the 

1038: $N_{i}$'s, $P_{i}$'s 

1039: are random hyperplanes, one can 

1040: rewrite the previous recurrence as 

1041: 

1042: \begin{eqnarray*}\label{bayes:3}

1043: p_{i+1}=\Pr[A \subseteq P_{1}\cup \ldots \cup P_{\frac{if(n)}{d}}\cup 

1044: N_{1}\cup \ldots \cup 

1045: N_{\frac{ig(n)}{d}}\cup H_{i+1}\cup \ldots \cup H_{d}]  =  \\

1046:  =  \sum_{B} 

1047: \Pr[B\subseteq P_{1}\cup \ldots \cup P_{\overline{f(n)}} 

1048: \cup N_{1}\cup \ldots \cup N_{\overline{g(n)}}| \\

1049: A\setminus (P_{1}\cup \ldots \cup P_{\frac{(i-1)f(n)}{d}}\cup N_{1}\cup 

1050: \ldots \cup 

1051: N_{\frac{(i-1)g(n)}{d}}) = B] \cdot \\

1052: \cdot \Pr[A\setminus (P_{1}\cup \ldots \cup P_{\frac{(i-1)f(n)}{d}}\cup 

1053: N_{1}\cup \ldots \cup 

1054: N_{\frac{(i-1)g(n)}{d}}) = B]

1055: \end{eqnarray*} 

1056: 

1057: 

1058: Since all terms are nonnegative, one can obtain a lower bound on the 

1059: left-hand size of this 

1060: latter terms by only considering those $B\in C_{\gamma}$. 

1061: 

1062: Applying the induction hypothesis from case one for all $B\in 

1063: C_{\gamma}$ and 

1064: $n\geq 

1065: n_{i}=n_{*}(n_{1},0,1,k_{1},k_{2},\gamma,\delta,\overline{f},\overline{g})$,  we 

1066: infer that for all such $B$, 

1067: \[

1068: \Pr[B\subseteq P_{1}\cup \ldots \cup P_{\overline{f(n)}} 

1069: \cup N_{1}\cup \ldots \cup N_{\overline{g(n)}}]\geq (1-\gamma), 

1070: \]

1071: therefore 

1072: \begin{eqnarray*}

1073: p_{i+1}= \Pr[A \subseteq P_{1}\cup \ldots \cup P_{\frac{if(n)}{d}}\cup 

1074: N_{1}\cup \ldots \cup 

1075: N_{\frac{ig(n)}{d}}\cup H_{i+1}\cup \ldots \cup H_{d}]\geq \\

1076: (1-\gamma)\cdot 

1077: \sum_{B\in C_{\gamma}} Pr[A\setminus (P_{1}\cup \ldots \cup 

1078: P_{\frac{(i-1)f(n)}{d}}\cup N_{1}\cup \ldots \cup 

1079: N_{\frac{(i-1)g(n)}{d}}) = B] \\

1080: = (1-\gamma) \cdot Pr[A\setminus (P_{1}\cup \ldots \cup 

1081: P_{\frac{(i-1)f(n)}{d}}\cup N_{1}\cup \ldots \cup 

1082: N_{\frac{(i-1)g(n)}{d}})\in C_{\gamma}] \\ 

1083: \geq \frac{(1-\gamma)}{\gamma}\cdot [\Pr[A \subseteq P_{1}\cup \ldots 

1084: \cup P_{\frac{(i-1)f(n)}{d}}\cup N_{1}\cup \ldots \cup 

1085: N_{\frac{(i-1)g(n)}{d}}\cup H_{i}\cup \ldots \cup H_{d}] -\gamma] = \\

1086: \frac{(1-\gamma)}{\gamma}\cdot [p_{i}-\gamma].  

1087: \end{eqnarray*}

1088: 

1089: Since $\gamma \leq 1$, 

1090: \[

1091: p_{i+1}\geq (1-\gamma)\cdot (p_{i}-\gamma)= p_{i} - \gamma \cdot 

1092: [1+p_{i}-\gamma]\geq p_{i}-2\gamma.  

1093: \]

1094: 

1095: which is precisely equation~\ref{inductive:step} (that we wanted to 

1096: prove). 

1097: 

1098: \end{proof}

1099: \qed

1100: 

1101: \subsection{How to contradict Lemma~\ref{geometric}}

1102: 

1103: It is now easy to infer the fact that $SAT(S)$ has a sharp threshold, 

1104: by 

1105: using the previous lemma with $d_{1}= |F_{0}\cap Var|$, 

1106: $d_{2}=|F_{0}|-d_{1}$, 

1107: $k_{1}=b$, $k_{2}=a$, $\epsilon = \delta_{0}$, $\Delta = \delta_{0}/2$ 

1108: and a refutation of the geometric lemma similar to the 

1109: one for 3-SAT.  

1110: 

1111: The conclusion of the Geometric Lemma (similar to the one for $k$-SAT) 

1112: is that, by adding any number $f(n)$ of copies of $x_{1}\OR \ldots \OR 

1113: x_{a}$ 

1114: and $g(n)$ copies of $\overline{x_{1}}\OR \ldots \OR x_{b}$ suffices to 

1115: boost the unsatisfiability probability by a constant. 

1116: 

1117: However, Lemma 3.1 from \cite{achlioptas:friedgut:kcol} asserts that 

1118: adding up to $o(\sqrt(n))$ random clauses is not enough to boost the 

1119: unsatisfiability 

1120: probability by more than $o(1)$. 

1121: 

1122: Because of the nature of the random model, adding $H(n)=o(\sqrt(n))$ 

1123: random clauses insures that w.h.p. we have $\Theta(H(n))$ copies 

1124: of each type of clause, as long as $H(n)$ grows faster than some power 

1125: of $n$. Taking the number of such copies to be the functions 

1126: $f(n)$, $g(n)$ contradicts the consequence of the Geometric Lemma. 

1127: 

1128: 

1129: Note that we do {\em not} make use of all the details of the random 

1130: model (such as the precise number of copies of each clause in random 

1131: instances at $p=p(n)$), but only that: 

1132: \begin{itemize}

1133: \item the expected number of copies of both $C_{1}$ and $C_{2}$ in a 

1134: random formula at $p=p(n)$ is unbounded. This is enough to make the 

1135: analog 

1136: of Lemma 3.1 from \cite{achlioptas:friedgut:kcol} work.  

1137: \item  the clauses are independent. 

1138: \end{itemize}  

1139: 

1140: \subsection{Putting it all together} \label{all:together}

1141: 

1142: In the previous section we have proved a geometric lemma that is used 

1143: to prove that the above-defined set $SAT(S)$ has a sharp threshold. 

1144: 

1145: Consider now a set ${\cal C}$ of constraints that satisfies the 

1146: condition (3) 

1147: of the theorem. Since $SAT({\cal C})$ is not trivially satisfied by the 

1148: ``all zero'' (all ones) assignment, there exist constraints $C_{1}$, 

1149: $C_{2}$ in ${\cal C}$ and $a,b \geq 1$ such that $C_{1}\models x_{1}\OR 

1150: \ldots x_{a}$, 

1151: $C_{2}\models \overline{x_{1}}\OR \ldots \OR \overline{x_{b}}$. In fact 

1152: $a,b \geq 2$, otherwise some constraint in ${\cal C}$ would strongly 

1153: depend on one variable. 

1154: 

1155: Just as in the base case, condition (i) in the Friedgut-Bourgain result 

1156: is eliminated by the result of Creignou and Daud\'{e}, and  the formula 

1157: $F_{0}$ in condition 

1158: (ii) can be assumed to consist of a conjunction of unit clauses.

1159: Reflecting this fact, the geometric lemma needed for the

1160: general case has the same hypothesis as 

1161: the one of Lemma~\ref{geometric}: the set $A$ can be covered by a union 

1162: of random hyperplanes of codimension 1. 

1163: However, the covering desired in the conclusion no longer consists 

1164: of hyperplanes, but of (general) sets of points in the hyperplane, 

1165: corresponding to sets of assignments forbidden by a certain constraint 

1166: $C$. 

1167: 

1168: The critical observation (easiest to make in the case when $C_{1}\neq 

1169: C_{2}$ )

1170: is that {\bf Lemma~\ref{geometric} implies the geometric result we need 

1171: for this case}: 

1172: since $C_{1}\models x_{1}\OR \ldots x_{a}$, the ``forbidden set'' 

1173: associated to  $C_{1}$ contains the ``forbidden set'' associated to 

1174: constraint 

1175: $x_{1}\OR \ldots x_{a}$ in Lemma~\ref{geometric}, the hyperplane 

1176: $x_{1}= \ldots = x_{a}=0$. A similar result holds for $C_{2}$ 

1177: and the positive hyperplanes. 

1178: 

1179: Thus each ``covering set'' in a conclusion of the (general case of 

1180: the ) geometric lemma contains a corresponding ``covering set'' from 

1181: the conclusion of Lemma~\ref{geometric}. In other words {\bf the 

1182: geometric lemma for $SAT({\cal C})$ follows from the geometric lemma for the 

1183: base case by monotonicity}.  

1184: 

1185: All is left to show is that the analog of Lemma 3.1 from

1186: \cite{achlioptas:friedgut:kcol} also 

1187: works in this general case. We have previously observed that this 

1188: amounts 

1189: to showing that the expected number of copies of $C_{1}$, $C_{2}$ in 

1190: a random formula is unbounded. But Proposition 3.5 in 

1191: \cite{creignou:daude:sat2002} (slightly generalized to probability distributions ${\cal 

1192: P}$ that are not uniform) and the details of the random model imply 

1193: that in fact this number is linear. 

1194: 

1195: A simple modification of this argument holds when $C_{1}=C_{2}$. To see 

1196: this, note that in the proof of the fact that 

1197: Lemma~\ref{geometric} holds for {\em some} small enough (but unbounded) 

1198: $f(n),g(n)$ is enough to obtain a contradiction. 

1199:  

1200: The expected number of copies of $C_{1}$ in a random formula is linear, 

1201: denote it by $h(n)$. Dividing the set of such copies into two (random) 

1202: sets of cardinality $h(n)/2$ yields 

1203: infinitely many random copies of $C_{1}$ 

1204: used to imply  $x_{1}\OR \ldots \OR x_{a}$ in the previous argument

1205: and infinitely many  copies used to imply   

1206: $\overline{x_{1}}\OR \ldots \OR \overline{x_{b}}$. We then apply the 

1207: same strategy as in the first case. 

1208: 

1209: To summarize: the proof follows from the corresponding 

1210: argument for the base case by monotonicity. It 

1211: critically uses the fact that we are {\em not} in cases (i) or (ii) of 

1212: the Theorem, since it is only under these conditions when the first 

1213: alternative in the 

1214: Friedgut-Bourgain argument can be eliminated. 

1215: 

1216: 

1217: \end{enumerate} 

1218: \end{proof}

1219: \qed

1220: 

1221: \section{3-SAT has a first-order phase transition}

1222: 

1223: \begin{theorem}\label{3sat:first-order}

1224: $k$-SAT, $k\geq 3$ has a first-order phase transition. In other words

1225: there exists  

1226: $\eta > 0 $ such that  for every sequence $p = p(n)$

1227:  we have 

1228: \begin{equation}\label{jump} 

1229: \lim_{n\goesto \infty} \Pr_{p=p(n)}[\Phi \in SAT] = 0 \implies

1230: \lim_{n\goesto \infty}\Pr_{p=p(n)}[ \frac{|Spine(\Phi)|}{n}\geq \eta]= 

1231: 1. 

1232: \end{equation}  

1233: \end{theorem}

1234: 

1235: \begin{proof}

1236: 

1237: We start by giving a simple sufficient condition for a literal to

1238: belong to the spine of the formula: 

1239: 

1240: \begin{claim}\label{spine:unsat}

1241: Let $\Phi$ be a minimally unsatisfiable formula, and let $x$ be a

1242: literal that appears in $\Phi$. Then $x\in Spine(\Phi)$. 

1243: \end{claim}

1244: \begin{proof}

1245: Let $C$ be a clause that contains $x$. By the minimal unsatisfiability

1246: of $\Phi$, $\Phi \setminus \{C\} \in SAT$. On the other hand $\Phi 

1247: \setminus \{C\}

1248: \AND \{x\} \in \overline{SAT}$, otherwise $\Phi$ would also be

1249: satisfiable. 

1250: Thus $x \in Spine(\Phi \setminus \{C\})$. 

1251: \end{proof}

1252: \qedbox

1253: 

1254: Thus, to show that 3-SAT has a first-order phase transition it is 

1255: enough to show that a random unsatisfiable formula contains w.h.p. 

1256: a minimally unsatisfiable subformula containing a linear number of 

1257: literals. A way to accomplish this is by using the two ingredients of 

1258: the Chv\'{a}tal-Szemer\'{e}di proof \cite{chvatal:szemeredi:resolution} 

1259: that random 3-SAT has exponential

1260: resolution size w.h.p. They are explicitly stated to make the 

1261: argument self-contained:   

1262: 

1263: \begin{claim} 

1264: There exists a constant $\delta>0$ such that for every constant $c>c_{3 

1265: SAT}$ with high 

1266: probability (as $n\goesto \infty$) a random formula $\Phi$ with $n$ 

1267: variables and $cn$ 

1268: clauses has no minimally unsatisfiable subformula of size less than 

1269: $\delta \cdot n$.  

1270: \end{claim}

1271: 

1272: \begin{claim}

1273: There exists $\eta >0$ so that w.h.p. for every $c>c_{3-SAT}$ all 

1274: subformulas 

1275: of a random formula $\Phi$ having between $(\delta/2)\cdot n$ and 

1276: $\delta\cdot n$

1277: clauses contain at least $\eta\cdot n$ (pure) literals (corresponding 

1278: to different variables).  

1279: \end{claim}

1280: 

1281: The argument is now transparent: if $\Phi$ is unsatisfiable then

1282: w.h.p. a minimally unsatisfiable subformula $\Xi$ of $\Phi$ has 

1283: size at least $\delta n$. By the second claim, applied to an arbitrary 

1284: subformula of $\Xi$ of size $(3\delta n)/4$, we infer that w.h.p. $\Xi$ 

1285: contains at least many $\eta\cdot n$ different variables.  

1286: 

1287: \end{proof}

1288: 

1289: 

1290: 

1291: \section{First-order phase transitions and resolution complexity 

1292: of  random generalized satisfiability problems} 

1293: 

1294: In this section we extend the previous result (and the connection 

1295: between first-order phase transitions and resolution complexity) to 

1296: other 

1297: classes of satisfiability problems. Interestingly, we find that a 

1298: condition 

1299: Molloy investigated in \cite{molloy-stoc2002} is a sufficient condition 

1300: for the 

1301: existence of a first-order phase transition. 

1302: 

1303: It turns out that there are differences between the case of random 

1304: $k$-SAT and the general case that force us to employ an 

1305: alternative definition of the spine. The most obvious one is that 

1306: formula (~\ref{spine:initial}) involves 

1307: negations of variables, whereas Molloy's model does not. But it has 

1308: more serious problems: consider for example {\em $k$-uniform hypergraph 

1309: 2-coloring}

1310: specified as $SAT(\{C_{0}\})$, where $C_{0}(x_{1}, \ldots, x_{k})$ has 

1311: the interpretation ``not all of $x_{1}, \ldots x_{k}$ are equal''. 

1312: Because of the built-in symmetry to permuting colors 0 and 1,  the 

1313: spine of {\em any} instance is empty (under 

1314: definition~\ref{spine:initial}). 

1315: Similar phenomena have appeared before (and forced a different 

1316: definition of the backbone/spine) 

1317: in  {\em k-coloring \cite{frozen:development}} (symmetry = permutation 

1318: of colors) or {\em graph partition} \cite{graph-partition:transition} 

1319: (symmetry = permutation of sides). 

1320: There are other ways (to be detailed in the journal version of the 

1321: paper) in which the original definition of the 

1322: spine behaves differently in the general case than in that of random 

1323: $k$-SAT. Our solution is to define the concept of spine of a 

1324: random instance of a satisfiability problem $SAT(\cal P)$ in a slightly 

1325: different way. The definition  is consistent with those in 

1326: \cite{frozen:development}, \cite{graph-partition:transition}. 

1327: 

1328: \begin{definition}$

1329: Spine(\Phi) = \{ x\in Var | (\exists) \Xi \subseteq \Phi, \Xi \in SAT, 

1330: (\exists) C\in {\cal C}, x\in C,\mbox{ such that } 

1331: \Xi \AND C  \in \overline{SAT}\}$. 

1332: 

1333: \end{definition} 

1334: 

1335: It is easy to see that, for $k$-CNF formulas whose (original) spine 

1336: contains at 

1337: least three literals a variable $x$ is in the (new version of the) 

1338: spine if and only if either $x$ or $\overline{x}$ 

1339: were present in the old version. In particular the new definition does 

1340: not change the order of the 

1341: phase transition of random $k$-SAT. Moreover the proof of 

1342: Claim~\ref{spine:unsat} carries over to the general case.  

1343: The {\em resolution complexity} of an instance $\Phi$ of $SAT({\cal 

1344: P})$ is defined as the resolution complexity of the formula obtained by 

1345: converting each constraint of $\Phi$ to CNF-form. 

1346: 

1347: 

1348: \begin{definition} Let ${\cal P}$ be such that $SAT({\cal P})$ has a 

1349: sharp 

1350: threshold.

1351: Problem $SAT({\cal P})$ has a {\em first-order phase transition} if

1352: there exists  

1353: $\eta > 0 \mbox{ such that  for every sequence }  p = p(n)$

1354:  we have 

1355: \begin{equation}\label{jump:general} 

1356: \lim_{n\goesto \infty} \Pr_{p=p(n)}[\Phi \in SAT] = 0 \implies

1357: \lim_{n\goesto \infty}\Pr_{p=p(n)}[ \frac{|Spine(\Phi)|}{n}\geq \eta]= 

1358: 1. 

1359: \end{equation}  

1360: If, on the other hand, for every $epsilon >0$ there exists $p^{\epsilon}(n)$ 

1361: with 

1362: \begin{equation}\label{jump:continuous} 

1363: \lim_{n\goesto \infty} \Pr_{p=p^{\epsilon}(n)}[\Phi \in SAT] = 0 \mbox{ and }

1364: \lim_{n\goesto \infty}\Pr_{p=p(n)}[ \frac{|Spine(\Phi)|}{n}\geq \epsilon]= 

1365: 0 

1366: \end{equation} 

1367: we say that $SAT({\cal P})$ has a {\em second-order phase 

1368: transition}\footnote{strictly speaking the order of the 

1369: phase transition is {\em at least two}.}.   

1370: \end{definition} 

1371: 

1372: A first observation is that a second-order phase transition 

1373: has computational implications: 

1374: 

1375: \begin{theorem}\label{second:order} 

1376: Let ${\cal P}$ be such $SAT({\cal P})$ has a second-order phase 

1377: transition. Then for every constant

1378: $c>\overline{lim}_{n\goesto \infty} c_{SAT({\cal P})}(n)$, and {\em 

1379: every $\alpha>0$}, random formulas of constraint density $c$ 

1380: have w.h.p. resolution complexity $O(2^{k\cdot \alpha \cdot n})$.  

1381: \end{theorem} 

1382: 

1383: \begin{proof} 

1384: 

1385: By the analog of Claim~\ref{spine:unsat} for the general case, if 

1386: $SAT({\cal P})$ has a second-order phase transition) 

1387: then for every $c>c_{SAT({\cal P})}$ and for every $\alpha>0$, 

1388: minimally unsatisfiable subformulas of 

1389: a random formula $\Phi$ with constraint density $c$ have w.h.p. size at 

1390: most $\alpha \cdot n$.  

1391: Consider 

1392: the backtrack tree of the natural DPLL algorithm (that tries to 

1393: satisfies clauses one at a time) 

1394: on such a minimally unsatisfiable subformula $F$. By the usual 

1395: correspondence between DPLL trees and resolution 

1396: complexity (e.g. \cite{beame:dp}, pp. 1) it yields a resolution proof 

1397: of the unsatisfiability of $\Phi$

1398: having size at most $2^{k\cdot \alpha \cdot n+1}$.   

1399: 

1400: \end{proof}

1401: \qed

1402: 

1403: \begin{definition} 

1404: For a formula $F$ define $

1405: c^{*}(F)= \max\{ \frac{|Constraints(G)|}{|Var(G)|}: \emptyset \neq G 

1406: \subseteq F\}$. 

1407: \end{definition} 

1408: 

1409: The next result gives a sufficient condition for a generalized 

1410: satisfiability problem 

1411: to have a first-order phase transition. 

1412: 

1413: \begin{theorem} \label{sufficient:first-order} 

1414: Let $C$ be a set of constraints such that $SAT({\cal C})$ has a sharp 

1415: threshold. If 

1416: there exists $\epsilon > 0$ such that for every minimally unsatisfiable 

1417: formula $F$ it holds 

1418: that 

1419: \[

1420: c^{*}(F) > \frac{1+\epsilon}{k-1}

1421: \] 

1422: then for every ${\cal P}$ with $supp({\cal P})=C$  

1423: 

1424: $SAT({\cal P})$ has a first-order phase transition.  

1425: 

1426: \end{theorem} 

1427: \begin{proof} 

1428: 

1429: We first recall the following concept from \cite{chvatal:szemeredi:resolution}: 

1430: 

1431: \begin{definition} 

1432: Let $x,y>0$. A $k$-uniform hypergraph with $n$ vertices is {\em ($x$,$y$)-sparse} if every set of $s\leq xn$ vertices contains at most $ys$ edges.  

1433: \end{definition} 

1434: 

1435: We also recall Lemma 1 from the same paper.  

1436: \begin{lemma}\label{sparsity:hypergraph}  

1437: Let $k,c>0$ and $y$ be such that $(k-1)y>1$. Then w.h.p. the random $k$-uniform hypegraph with $n$ vertices and $cn$ edges is $(x,y)$-sparse, where 

1438: \begin{eqnarray*}

1439: \epsilon = y-1/(k-1), \\

1440: x = (\frac{1}{2e}(\frac{y}{ce})^{y})^{1/\epsilon}, \\

1441: \end{eqnarray*} 

1442: \end{lemma} 

1443: 

1444: The critical observation is that the existence of a minimally 

1445: unsatisfiable formula of size $xn$ and with $c^{*}(F) > \frac{1+\epsilon}{k-1}$ 

1446: implies that the 

1447: $k$-uniform hypergraph associated to the given formula is {\em  not}  

1448: $(x,y)$-sparse, for $y= 

1449: \frac{\epsilon}{k-1}$. 

1450: 

1451: But, according to Lemma~\ref{sparsity:hypergraph}, w.h.p. a random $k$-uniform hypergraph with $cn$ edges is 

1452: $(x_{0},y)$ 

1453: sparse, for $x_{0}=(\frac{1}{2e}(\frac{y}{ce})^{y})^{1/\epsilon}$ (a 

1454: dirrect application of Lemma 1 in their paper). We infer that any formula 

1455: with less than $x_{0}\cdot n /K$ 

1456: constraints is satisfiable, therefore the same is true for any formula 

1457: with $x_{0}\cdot n/K$ clauses picked up from the clausal representation 

1458: of constraints in $\Phi$.  

1459: 

1460: The second condition (expansion of the formula hypergraph) can be 

1461: proved similarly. 

1462: 

1463: \end{proof} 

1464: \qedbox

1465: 

1466: One can give an explicitly defined class of satisfiability 

1467: problems for which the previous result applies: 

1468: 

1469: \begin{theorem}\label{implicates:first-order}

1470: Let ${\cal P}$ be such that $SAT({\cal P})$ has a 

1471: sharp 

1472: threshold. If  {\em no} clause $C\in {\cal C}=supp({\cal P})$ has an 

1473: implicate of 

1474: length 

1475: at most 2 then 

1476: \begin{enumerate}

1477: \item for every minimally unsatisfiable formula $F$

1478: \[

1479: c^{*}(F)\geq \frac{2}{2k-3}. 

1480: \]

1481: Therefore $SAT({\cal P})$ satisfies the conditions of the previous 

1482: theorem, i.e. it has a first-order 

1483: phase transition.  

1484: \item Moreover $SAT({\cal P})$ also has $2^{\Omega(n)}$ 

1485: resolution complexity\footnote{this result subsumes some of the recent results 

1486: in \cite{mitchell:cp02}}.    

1487: \end{enumerate} 

1488: \end{theorem} 

1489: 

1490: \begin{proof}

1491: 

1492: \begin{enumerate}

1493: \item 

1494: For any real $r \geq 1$, formula $F$ and set of clauses $G\subseteq F$, 

1495:  define the {\em $r$-deficiency of $G$}, $\delta_{r}(G)= 

1496: r|Clauses(G)|-|Vars(G)|$. 

1497: 

1498: Also define 

1499: \begin{equation} \label{max}

1500: \delta^{*}_{r}(F)= \max\{\delta_{r}(G): \emptyset \neq G \subseteq F\}

1501: \end{equation} 

1502: 

1503: We claim that for any minimally unsatisfiable $F$, 

1504: $\delta^{*}_{2k-3}(F)\geq 0$. Indeed, 

1505: assume  

1506: this was not true. Then there exists such $F$ such that: 

1507: \begin{equation}\label{deff}  

1508: \delta_{2k-3}(G)\leq 

1509: -1\mbox{ for all }\emptyset \neq G\subseteq F. 

1510: \end{equation} 

1511: \begin{proposition} \label{1-transversal}

1512: Let $F$ be a formula for which condition~\ref{deff} holds. Then there 

1513: exists 

1514: an ordering $C_{1}, \ldots, C_{|F|}$ of constraints in $F$ 

1515: such that each constraint $C_{i}$ contains 

1516: at least $k-2$ variables that appear in {\em no} $C_{j}$, $j<i$. 

1517: \end{proposition} 

1518: 

1519: \begin{proof}

1520: Denote by $v_{i}$ the number of variables that appear in {\em exactly} $i$ constraints of $F$. We have 

1521: \[

1522: \sum_{i\geq 1} i\cdot v_{i} = k\cdot |Constraints(F)|.

1523: \]

1524: 

1525: therefore $2|Var(F)|-v_{1}\leq k\cdot |Constraints(F)|$. This can be 

1526: rewritten as $v_{1}\geq 2|Var(F)|-k|Constraints(F)|> |Constraints(F)|\cdot 

1527: (2k-3 - k)= (k-3)\cdot |Constraints(F)|$ (we have used the upper bound on $c^{*}(F)$. Therefore there exists at least one constraint in $F$  with at least $k-2$ variables that are free in $F$. We set $C_{|F|}=C$ and 

1528: apply this argument recursively to $F\setminus C$.  

1529: \end{proof} 

1530: \qed

1531: 

1532: Call the $k-2$ new variables of $C_{i}$ {\em free in $C_{i}$}. Call the 

1533: other 

1534: two variables {\em bound in $C_{i}$}. Let us show now that $F$ cannot 

1535: be 

1536: minimally unsatisfiable. Construct a satisfying assignment for $F$ 

1537: incrementally: Consider constraint $C_{j}$. At most two of the 

1538: variables in 

1539: $C_{j}$ are bound for $C_{j}$. Since $C$ has no implicates of size at 

1540: most two, 

1541: one can set the remaining variables in a way that satisfies $C_{j}$. 

1542: This yields a satisfying 

1543: assignment for $F$, a contradiction with our assumption that $F$ was 

1544: minimally unsatisfiable. 

1545: 

1546: Therefore $\delta^{*}_{2k-3}(F)\geq 0$, a 

1547: statement equivalent to our conclusion.  

1548: 

1549: \item To prove the resolution complexity lower bound we use the size-width 

1550: connection for resolution complexity obtained in 

1551: \cite{ben-sasson:resolution:width}: 

1552: we prove that there exists $\eta >0$ such that w.h.p. random instances 

1553: of $SAT({\cal P})$ having constraint density $c$ have resolution 

1554: width at least $\eta \cdot n$. 

1555: 

1556: We use the same strategy as in \cite{ben-sasson:resolution:width} 

1557: \begin{enumerate}

1558: \item prove that w.h.p. minimally unsatisfiable subformulas are ``large''. 

1559: \item prove that any clause implied by a satisfiable formula of ``intermediate'' size will contain ``many'' literals.   

1560: \end{enumerate} 

1561: 

1562: Indeed, define for a unsatisfiable formula $\Phi$ and (possibly empty) clause 

1563: $C$

1564: \[

1565: \mu(C)=\min\{|\Xi|: \Xi\subseteq  \Phi, \Xi \models C\}. 

1566: \]

1567: 

1568: \begin{claim}

1569: There exists $\eta_{1}>0$ such that for any $c>0$, w.h.p. 

1570: $\mu(\Box)\geq \eta_{1}\cdot n$ (where  $\Phi$ is a random instance 

1571: of $SAT({\cal P})$ having constraint density $c$). 

1572: \end{claim} 

1573: 

1574: \begin{proof}

1575: In the proof of Theorem~\ref{sufficient:first-order} we have shown that there 

1576: exists $\eta_{0}>0$ such that w.h.p. any unsatisfiable subformula of a given 

1577: formula has at least $\eta_{0} \cdot n$ constraints. Therefore {\em any} 

1578: formula made of {\em clauses} in the CNF-representation of constraints in 

1579: $\Phi$, and which has less than $\eta_{0} \cdot n$ clauses is satisfiable, 

1580: and the claim follows, by taking $\eta_{1} = \eta_{0}$. 

1581: \end{proof} 

1582: \qed 

1583: 

1584: The only (slightly) nontrivial step of the proof, which critically uses the 

1585: fact that constraints in ${\cal P}$ do not have implicates of length at most 

1586: two, is to prove that clause implicates of subformulas of ``medium'' size 

1587: have ``many'' variables. Formally: 

1588: 

1589: \begin{claim}\label{expansion} 

1590: There exists $d>0$ and $\eta_{2}>0$ such that w.h.p., for every clause 

1591: $C$ such that $d/2\cdot n <\mu(C)<=dn$, $|C|\geq \eta_{2}\cdot n$.   

1592: \end{claim} 

1593: 

1594: \begin{proof} 

1595: Take $0<\epsilon$. It is easy to see that if $c^{*}(F)<\frac{2}{2k-3+\epsilon}$ then w.h.p. for every subformula $G$ of $F$, at least $\frac{\epsilon}{3} \cdot |Constraints(G)|$ have at least $k-2$ private variables: Indeed, since 

1596: $c^{*}(G)<\frac{2}{2k-3+\epsilon}$, by a reasoning similar to the one we made 

1597: previously $v_{1}(G)\geq (k-3+\epsilon)|Constraints(G)|$. Since constraints in $G$ have arity $k$, at least $\epsilon/3 \cdot |Constraints(G)|$ have at 

1598: least $k-2$ ``private'' variables. 

1599: 

1600: Choose $y=\frac{2}{2k-3+\epsilon}$ in Lemma~\ref{sparsity:hypergraph} for $\epsilon>0$ a small 

1601: enough constant. Since the problem has a sharp threshold in the region where 

1602: the number of clauses is linear, 

1603: \[

1604: d=\inf\{x(y,c): c>= c_{SAT({\cal P})}\} >0.  

1605: \]

1606: 

1607: W.h.p. all subformulas of $\Phi$ having size less than  

1608: $d/k \cdot n$ have a formula hypergraph that is $(x,y)$-sparse, 

1609: therefore fall under the scope of the previous argument. 

1610: 

1611: Let $\Xi$ be a subformula of $\Phi$, having minimal size, such that 

1612: $\Xi \models C$. We claim: 

1613: 

1614: \begin{claim}

1615: For every clause $P$ of $\Xi$ with $k-2$ ``private'' variables, (i.e. one that does not appear in any other clause), at least one of these ``private'' variables appears in $C$. 

1616: \end{claim} 

1617: 

1618: Indeed, supppose there exists a clause $D$ of $\Xi$ such that none of its 

1619: private variables appears in $C$. 

1620: 

1621: Because of the minimality of $\Xi$ there exists an assignment $F$ that satisfies $\Xi \setminus \{D\}$ but does not satisfy $D$ or $C$. Since $D$ has no implicates 

1622: of size two, there exists an assignment $G$, that differs from $F$ only on 

1623: the private variables of $D$, that satisfies $\Xi$. But since $C$ does not 

1624: contain any of the private variables of $D$, $F$ coincides with $G$ on variables in $C$. The conclusion is that $G$ does not satisfy $C$, which contradicts 

1625: the fact that $\Xi\models C$. 

1626: 

1627: The proof of Claim~\ref{expansion} (and of item 2. of Theorem~\ref{implicates:first-order}) follows: since for any clause $K$ of one of the original constraints $\mu(K)=1$, since $\mu(\Box)>\eta_{1}\cdot n$ and since w.l.o.g. $0<d<\eta_{1}$ (otherwise replace $d$ with the smaller value) 

1628: there exists a clause $C$ such that 

1629: \begin{equation}\label{intermediate}

1630: \mu(C)\in [d/2k \cdot n, d/k \cdot n].

1631: \end{equation}

1632: 

1633: Indeed, 

1634:  let $C^{\prime}$ be a clause in the resolution refutation of $\Phi$ minimal with 

1635: the property that $\mu(C^{\prime})> dn$. Then at least one clause $C$, of the 

1636: two involved in deriving $C^{\prime}$ satisfies equation~\ref{intermediate}.  

1637: 

1638: By the previous claim it 

1639: $C$ contains at least one ``private'' variable from each clause of $\Xi$. Therefore $|C|\geq \eta_{2}\cdot n$, with $\eta_{2}=d/2k\cdot \epsilon$. 

1640:  

1641: \end{proof}

1642: 

1643: \end{enumerate} 

1644:    

1645: \end{proof} 

1646: \qedbox

1647: 

1648: It is instructive to note that the condition in the theorem is violated 

1649: (as expected) by random 2-SAT, as well as by random 1-in-$k$ SAT: the 

1650: formula $C(x_{1}, x_{2}, \ldots, x_{k-1}, x_{k})\AND 

1651: C(\overline{x_{k}}, 

1652: x_{k+1},  \ldots , x_{2k-2}, x_{1})\AND C(\overline{x_{1}}, x_{2k-1}, 

1653: \ldots, x_{3k-3}, \overline{x_{k}})

1654: \AND C(x_{k}, x_{3k-2}, \ldots, x_{4k-4}, x_{1})$ (where $C$ is the 

1655: constraint ``1-in-$k$'') is minimally unsatisfiable, but 

1656: has clause/variable ratio $1/(k-1)$ and implicates 

1657: $\overline{x_{1}} \OR \overline{x_{k}}$ and $x_{1}\OR x_{k}$. 

1658: 

1659: 

1660: It would be tempting to speculate that whenever both $x\OR y$ and 

1661: $\overline{x}\OR \overline{y}$ are implicates of clauses in  ${\cal C}$ 

1662: then 

1663: $SAT({\cal P})$ has a second-order phase transitions for every 

1664: distribution ${\cal P}$ with $supp({\cal P})= {\cal C}$. That is, 

1665: however, {\em 

1666: not} true, at least 

1667: for some distributions ${\cal P}$. Consider the random $(2+p)$-SAT 

1668: model of Monasson et al. 

1669: \cite{2+p:nature}. In this model $p$ is a fixed real in $[0,1]$. A 

1670: random instances of $(2+p)$-SAT with $n$ 

1671: variables and $c\cdot n$ clauses is obtained by choosing $pcn$ random 

1672: clauses of length 3 and $(1-p)cn$ random clauses of length 2. 

1673: It was shown in \cite{2+p:nature} (using the nonrigorous replica 

1674: method) that

1675: \begin{enumerate}

1676: \item $(2+p)$-SAT has a second-order phase transition for $0\leq p \leq 

1677: p_{0}\sim 0.413...$. 

1678: \item the transition becomes first-order for $p > p_{0}$. 

1679: \item when the transition changes from second-order to first-order the 

1680: complexity 

1681: of a certain DPLL algorithm changes from polynomial to exponential. 

1682: \end{enumerate}

1683: 

1684: 

1685: 

1686: Several rigorous results have complemented these findings. Achlioptas 

1687: et al. \cite{2+psat:ralcom97} 

1688: have shown that for $0\leq p \leq 0.4$ the phase transition in 

1689: $(2+p)$-SAT only 

1690: depends on the ``2-SAT part''. One can perhaps use the techniques 

1691: of \cite{scaling:window:2sat} to confirm statement (i). 

1692: 

1693: 

1694: 

1695: It is easily seen that 

1696: $(2+p)$-SAT can be represented in Molloy's framework. 

1697: On the other hand Achlioptas, Beame and Molloy 

1698: \cite{achlioptas:beame:molloy} have shown that for 

1699: those $p$ for 

1700: which $(2+p)$-SAT does {\em not} behave like 2-SAT the resolution 

1701: complexity of 

1702: the problem is exponential. Using Theorem~\ref{second:order} and 

1703: and results in \cite{achlioptas:beame:molloy} we get: 

1704: 

1705: \begin{theorem}\label{2+p-sat:first-order}

1706: Let $p\in [0,1]$ be s.t. there exist $\epsilon >0$ and 

1707: $c<\frac{(1-\epsilon)}{1-p}$ s.t.  

1708: random instances of $(2+p)$-SAT with $n$ variables and $c\cdot n$ 

1709: clauses are w.h.p. unsatisfiable. Then $(2+p)$-SAT 

1710: has a first-order phase transition. 

1711: \end{theorem} 

1712: 

1713: 

1714: It would be interesting to obtain a complete characterization of the 

1715: order of the phase 

1716: transition in an arbitrary problem $SAT({\cal P})$. Such a 

1717: characterization, however, requires substantial advances: Exactly locating the 

1718: ``tricritical point'' $p_{0}$ in random $2+p$-SAT (or merely deciding 

1719: whether it is equal or not to 0.4) is an open problem. A complete 

1720: characterization would yield a solution to this problem as a byproduct. 

1721: 

1722: On the other hand Theorem~\ref{2+p-sat:first-order} suggests an 

1723: interesting conjecture: whenever the location of the phase transition  

1724: is {\em not} determined by the implicates of size at most two in the 

1725: given formula, the phase transition in $SAT({\cal P})$ is first-order. 

1726: Perhaps techniques in \cite{achlioptas:beame:molloy} can help settle 

1727: this question.   

1728: 

1729: 

1730: 

1731: \section{Discussion} 

1732: 

1733: We have shown that the existence of a first-order phase transition 

1734: in a random satisfiability problem is often correlated with a 

1735: $2^{\Omega(n)}$ peak in the complexity of resolution/DPLL algorithms at 

1736: the 

1737: transition point. 

1738: 

1739: As for the extent of the connection it is easy to see that it does not 

1740: extend to a substantially larger class of algorithms: consider random 

1741: $k$-XOR-SAT, the problem of testing the satisfiability of random 

1742: systems of linear equations of size $k$ over ${\bf Z}_{2}$.  

1743: $k$-XOR-SAT is a version of XOR-SAT, one of the polynomial time 

1744: cases of satisfiability from Schaefer's Dichotomy Theorem 

1745: \cite{schaefer-dich}. 

1746: Indeed, 

1747: it is easily solved by Gaussian elimination. But Ricci-Tersenghi et al. 

1748: \cite{zecchina:kxorsat} have presented 

1749: a non-rigorous argument using the replica method that supports 

1750: the existence of a first-order phase transition, and we can show 

1751: this formally (as a direct consequence of 

1752: Theorem~\ref{implicates:first-order}):   

1753: 

1754: \begin{proposition}

1755: Random $k$-XOR-SAT, $k\geq 3$, has a first-order phase transition. 

1756: \end{proposition} 

1757: 

1758: To sum up: {\bf the intuitive argument states that a first-order phase 

1759: transition correlates with a $2^{\Omega(n)}$ lower bound of the 

1760: complexity 

1761: of DPLL algorithms at the transition. This is true in many cases, and 

1762: the underlying reason is that the two phenomena (the jump in the 

1763: order parameter and the resolution complexity lower bound) have 

1764: common causes. However, at least for satisfiability problems, 

1765: this connection does not extend substantially beyond the class of 

1766: DPLL algorithms.} 

1767: 

1768: \section*{Acknowledgments} 

1769: 

1770: I thank Madhav Marathe, Anil Kumar and Cris Moore for useful comments. 

1771: In particular Cris made the observation that led to the realization 

1772: that 

1773: my previous results implied Theorem~\ref{second:order}. 

1774: 

1775: This work has been supported by the Department of Energy under contract 

1776: W-705-ENG-36.

1777: 

1778: %\bibliography{/u1/gistrate/bib/bibtheory}

1779: \bibliography{bibtheory}

1780: 

1781: 

1782: 

1783: \end{document}

1784: 

1785: 

1786: