arxiv: v1 [cs.cc] 19 Jan 2016

Transcription

1 Extended Abstract SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM OF K-SAT/K-COL PHASE TRANSITION LOCATION Changqing Liu ClinTFL Ltd. arxiv: v1 [cs.cc] 19 Jan 2016 As general theories, currently there are concentration inequalities (of rando walk) only for the cases of independence and artingale differences. In this paper, the concentration inequalities are extended to ore general situations. In ters of the theory presented in the paper, the condition of independence is y = constant and artingale difference s is y = 0. This paper relaxes these conditions to 2 y y u i L; i.e. can vary. Further, the concentration inequalities are extended to branching rando walk, the applications of which solve soe long standing open probles, including the well known probles of K-SAT and K-COL phase transition locations, aong others. 1. Introduction. Let G N,M be a graph of N vertices with M edges, e 1 e 2...e M where e i is (x i, y i ), a pair of vertices. Sparse graphs, where M = O(N), are considered here. 3-coloring proble (3-COL) is to color the graph so that no two adjacent vertices are colored with the sae color. Or alternatively, 3-coloring proble is to find a 3-value assignent so that (1.1) where M C i = T (True) i=1 C i = x i y i called clause, x i and y i are drawn randoly fro the n vertices. is defined by, x y = T iff x y. If K colors are allowed, (1.1) represents a proble of K-coloring. Further, if C i contains ore than two variables, (1.1) is a hypergraph K-coloring proble. Siilarly, K-SAT is to find a truth value (two-value) assignent to (1.1) where v (i) 1, v(i) C i = (v (i) 1 v (i) 2...v (i) k ) 2,...v(i) k are drawn randoly fro { x 1, x 1, x 2, x 2,..., x N, x N } and is defined by, x y = T iff x y = T. If a forula (i.e. M i=1 C i) can be satisfied (i.e. M i=1 C i = T ) by an assignent, the forula is said satisfiable It has been conjectured that there exists a critical point α 3 such that if N < α 3 alost all forulae are satisfiable, if N > α 3 alost all forulae are unsatisfiable. For k 3, researchers focus on proving upper bound and lower bound and asyptotic threshold ([1], [2] and reference therein). K-SAT is odeled as spin-glass like syste in statistics physics and analogous estiates of the thresholds are obtained, though it is not known how siilar these odels are to K-SAT, and how far they deviate fro it. The goal of this paper is to derive rigorous results of the phase transition location of K-SAT/K-COL, for K=2, 3, 4,... Keywords: Large deviation, Concentration inequality, Satisfiability, Colorability, K-SAT Phase transition, K-SAT Threshold, Branching rando walk 1

2 2 2. Methodology. Actually, traditional K-SAT/K-COL phase transition phenoenon is the tip of the iceberg, where relation between probability of satisfiability and (or /N), naely function P(r), is concerned. P(r) is virtually P(r, A). But the paraeter of algorith A is always oitted since it is always a coplete algorith. We consider P(r, A). Specifically, P(r, x) is considered where x = i N and i is the nuber of variables fixed (frozen) beforehand. In other words, it is partial solution space that is provided to algoriths for searching, where x 1 = 1, x 2 = 1,... x i = 1 for SAT. In 3-SAT for exaple, phase transition begins at {x, z} = {0.145, 3.183} (where x = i N, z = N ), and all the way through to the end point of {0, 4.396} which is the location of 3-SAT phase transition in the traditional sense. Randoly drawing a satisfiable forula is a process of branching rando walk (BRW). If u i is deterinistic, as opposed to rando, satisfiable forulae of length account for Π 1 (1 u i) 3, with factors of (2N) 3 being oitted. In this case, ethod of differential equation can be used to solve u i. To show the required rando paraeters in a process of rando graph evolution are deterinistic is the task of so called Differential Equation Method (DEM). However, so far there has been no theoretical foundation for this ethod (DEM). The existing concentration inequalities or large deviation theory are not applicable to processes of rando graph evolution which are branching rando walk. We need a new theory, concentration inequality in branching rando walk. This is the second contribution of this paper, which ay be of independent interest. 3. Branching rando walk vs. rando walk. Let (S n ) i=1,2,... be a real-valued rando process, one-diensional rando walk, S n = X 1 + X X n ; X i = S i S i 1. In the following, we give a BRW version of Chernoff bound for waring up, P r( Q n (α) na λ) 2e 1 2 cλ2 /n where Q n (α) is α quantile and α [e 1 2 cλ2 /n, 1 e 1 2 cλ2 /n ]. Throughout, generation index n will be oitted when no confusion can arise. Unlike traditional view, here BRW is siply described by < (u), p(x) > where (u) is the expectation of offsprings (branching factor) of a parent at position u and p(x) is the children s displaceent (relative to their parent s position) p.d.f, the probability (or proportion) density function, or ass probability if in discrete cases. We refer a realization of BRW as a tree. Let z (n) 1, z (n) 2,... be an enueration of the positions of the particles (leaves) in the nth generation and Z (n) its population; i.e. Z (n) = {z (n) 1, z (n) 2,...}. There should appear an index on each tree in the notation which we oit. Let u i denote x 1 + x x i, where x i is children s displaceent at generation i. The p.d.f of (x 1, x 2,..., x n ) is n i=1 p i(x i ) i (u i ) n x 1,...x n i=1 p i(x i ) i (u i ) or n i=1 p i(x i ) i (u i )dx 1 dx 2...dx n (3.1) n i=1 p i(x i ) i (u i )dx 1 dx 2...dx n which gives the proportion density of (x 1, x 2,..., x n ) in the whole forest. Theore 3.1. For BRW of independent branching (i.e. birth rate is independent of birthplace), P r( Q n (α) na λ) 2e 1 2 cλ2 /n

3 4. An extension of concentration inequalities. So far concentration inequalities (of rando walk) have not been extended enough for our purpose; we need concentration inequalities for the case of su S n = X 1 +X X n where X i is neither bounded nor artingale differences. Let s first introduce a siple and elegant inequality due to [3] and [4]. Given here is the version fro [4] which iproves [3]. Lea 4.1. If E(X) = 0, then for all δ > 0 and t /δ [0, 1] In particular, E(e tx ) e t2 E(e X ), when δ = 1 E(e tx ) 1 + (t/δ) 2 E(e δ X ) e (t/δ)2 E(e δ X ) 3 Theore 4.1. (Azua s Inequality) (In the full paper) We now show what else can ake the concentration inequality hold, other than independence and artingale difference. Let E i 1 abbreviate E( u i 1 ) where u i 1 = (X 1 + X X i 1)/N. Note, for different purposes, we soeties use Y i, soeties S i and soeties u i ; they are the sae thing but lower case u i refers to scaled variable. Define Doob s (or McDiarid s) artingale d i = E i (X i X n ) E i 1 (X i X n ) So S n ES n = n i=1 d i d i = E i (X i ) E i 1 (X i ) + l>i (E i (X l ) E i 1 (X l )) = X i E i 1 (X i ) + l>i (E i (X l ) E i 1 (X l )) It is easy to check that E i 1 (d i ) = 0. Given u i 1, E i (X l ) is a function of X i. E i 1 (X l ) = E Xi {E i (X l )} where E Xi ( ) takes expectation with respect to X i. Lea 4.2. If E i (X l ) E i 1 (X l X i = 0) L X i N for i < l, then (4.1) E i (X l ) E i 1 (X l ) L X i N + LE i 1 X i N Lea 4.3. Let A denote 1 + L M N. If (4.2) E i (X l ) E i 1 (X l X i = 0) L X i N for i < l, and E(e δa X i u i 1 ) K (exponential oent existence) for a constant δ > 0, i = 1, 2,..., then (4.3) P r[ S n ES n λ] 2e δ2 4K 2 λ2 n Obviously, Poisson distribution P oisson(λ i ) eets the exponential oent condition.

4 4 Corollary 4.2. Lea 4.3 holds if the condition (4.2) is replaced by (4.4) E(X l u i ) E(X l u i) L u i u i for i < l (Lipschitz continuity) Proof. By letting u i = 1 N (X X i 1 +X i ) and u i = 1 N (X X i 1 +X i ) where X i = 0, the conditions of Lea 4.3 are et. The Lipschitz continuity condition of Corollary 4.2 is easily verifiable in practice, though it is a bit stronger than Lea 4.3; e.g. in rando graphs processes like K-COL, K-SAT, degree restricted graph process etc. Reark. In the case of independence, E i (X l ) = E(X l ) and thus E i (X l ) E i 1 (X l ) = 0. In the case of artingale difference, E i (X l ) is zero for l > i. In both, (E i (X l ) E i 1 (X l )) = 0 l>i and d i is reduced to X i E(X i ) and X i, respectively. In this case, condition of bounded difference, or finite exponential oent, a alone iplies the concentration inequalities. It is easy to understand that the conditional expected increent of Y t, E(X t u i ), can be written as y/, where y and t are scaled variables. Then the condition above for the concentration inequalities can be rephrased as 2 y u i L. A very special case is 2 y u i = 0, the case of independence (where y y is constant) or artingale difference ( = 0). The following theore provides easily verifiable conditions for concentration inequality in general cases where u i ( y y ) 0; i.e. is not constant along the direction of increasing u i. Let λ i (u i ) and ν i (u i ) denote E(X i+1 u i ) and E(Xi+1 2 u i) respectively; i.e. they are functions of u i. Let λ i denote dλ i(u i ) du i, ν i denote dν i(u i ) du i, λ i the second order derivative and so on. We shall use ter sooth function to ean that the first several orders of derivatives exist. Theore 4.3. If E(e δa Xi u i 1 ) K (existence of an exponential oent), then in the area where λ i and ν i are sooth, the concentration inequality holds. In other words, there is equivalence between the soothness of ū and the concentration inequality. We see fro the above proof that Lipschitz continuity of E(f(u n )) is ultiately down to the boundedness of derivatives of f, λ, ν. So far we are only concerned with second derivatives for our purpose. To show the existence of higher derivatives of E(f(u n )), we need to expand the function in higher Taylor order and then build recurrence relations the sae way as above. The next section addressing BRW ay need the for which we shall oit the proof. 5. Concentration inequalities in the context of BRW. We will use lowercase to denote scaled easure, and uppercase for non-scaled ones; for exaple, Y i = X 1 +X X i, u i = x 1 +x x i where x i = X i /N. Unlike current BRW theory, in this paper distribution about (the nuber of) offspring is not needed and neither any assuption about the point process characterizing children otion. It is observed that any BRW can be forally described as i (u i )p i (X i )

5 5 where the branching factor i dependents on the birthplace u i, and p i (X i ) := p(x i u i 1 ) is the probability density function, pdf, of children s displaceent which is dependent of the birthplace as well. Intuitively, if branching factor is saller in farther area (fro the ean path) than the nearer, the BRW should be ore concentrative than without branching (or branching factor = 1). In other words, if you squeeze population towards its ean by reducing the birth rate in the reote area, then population distribution should be ore concentrative. In ters of K-SAT, the instances with less-constraint have ore descendants than those with ore constraint; at least, the vice versa can not be true. Forally, let Z(u i ) is the total progeny of the particle at position u i. Given u i 1, this is a function of X i, written as Z(X i ). Then we have Assuption 1 (negative association). (5.1) Z(X i ) Z(X i) if X i X i This assuption iplies also that, if f( ) is a onotonically increasing function, then (5.2) f( X i )Z(X i )P (dx i ) f( X i )P (dx i ) Z(X i )P (dx i ) In BRW, a particle reproduces descendants generation by generation. The average ( ) over the whole population is E (M) ( ) ( ) = M P (dx 1 dx 2...dX M ) M P (dx 1 dx 2...dX M ) where i = i (u i 1 +X i /N). This is dependent of the future generations, whereas in RW statistics is independent of future. Therefore any statistical easure in BRW is generation dependent. Define E (M) ( u i ) := E (M) ( )i+1 i+2... i ( ) = k P (dx i+1 dx i+2...dx M ) i+1 i+2... k P (dx i+1 dx i+2...dx M ) By the law of iterated expectations Define E (M) ( ) = E (M) (E (M) i ( )) β i (u i ) := E ((u i + X i+1 /N) u i ) Define S n := E (M) (S n ). The following lea is the counterpart of Lea 4.3 in BRW. The proof is exactly the sae as Lea 4.3, which we oit. Lea 5.1. Let A denote 1 + L M N. If (a) E(M) i 1 (eδa Xi ) K (exponential oent existence) for a constant δ > 0, i = 1, 2,..., and (b) then E (M) i (X l ) E (M) i 1 (X l X i = 0) L X i N for i < l (5.3) P r[ S n S n λ] 2e δ2 4K 2 λ2 n for n M The following theore is the counterpart of Theore 4.3, which gives easily verifiable conditions for BRW concentration inequality (5.3).

6 6 Theore 5.1. If E(e δa X i u i 1 ) K, then in the area where β i (u), λ i (u) and ν i (u) are sooth, the concentration inequality holds. Theore 5.2. Let S i denote S i ES i, ɛ be sall copared with δ, and N 1/2 λ < ɛn, Then E{e δ X i u i 1 (ū i 1 λ N, ū i 1 + λ N )} K (5.4) P r{ S 1 λ S 2 λ... S n λ} (1 2e λ2 4cN ) n We call (ū i 1 λ N, ū i 1 + λ N ) ɛ neighborhood. 6. K-SAT phase transition. 3-SAT. To start with, we are going to prove that proportion of frozen variables of satisfiable forulae is concentrating around their ean. Recall z = N and x = i N so that the proportion of frozen variables u = u(x, z). During the generation of satisfiable forulae, outliers are excluded accounting for only exponentially sall aount. Up to 1 for the kept forulae such a property holds that w.h.p. u reains constant with only 1 N of fluctuation if a clause of 3-SAT, 2-SAT or 1-SAT is reoved or added. The property is referred as constant u. We only consider area far fro singularities. Without confusing we denote u by u for K-SAT forulae of -length (i.e. clauses). It is fact that fix one ore variable, x i+1, u will be increasing, by the rate of du dx. Since the frozen variables ust be constant, either 0 or 1, the forula becoes one ixed with 2-SAT and 3-SAT clauses of all free variables; 2-SAT clause is due to one of its variable is set to 0. du dx is deterined by how any new frozen variables are generated by fixing a free variable, to keep the forula satisfiable; the forer is finite iff the later is finite. Let N f denote nuber of free variables and e the nuber of 2-SAT clauses, i.e. those of the for (x f y f ). A free variable x f has probability p to be contained in a certain one of those e 2-SAT clauses. The nuber of the 2-SAT clauses containing x f is written as deg(x f ) called x f s degree. Siple counting gives p = 2 N f (1 1 N f ) and the ean of deg(x f ) is θ = 2e N f. Those values are not iportant though. The iportant is that x f s degree is of P oisson(θ) distribution. It is easy to check that the 3-SAT (free) clauses contribute O( 1 N ) to du/dx, while behavior of CNF in singularity area (which we do not need to consider) could be extreal where 3-SAT free clauses ay ake significant contribution to du/dx. The sae arguent applies to y f whose degree has also P oisson(θ) distribution (difference of O( 1 N ) between θ s is neglected), and so on. Thus this branching process fors a GaltonWatson tree rooted at x f. The birth rate θ < 1 because du dx <. Denoting the nuber of x f s total progeny by k x, we have P(k x > k) e c k for a positive c (see, e.g, [7], and [8] for ethod). Hence constant u and Theore 5.2 hold for. Let F A i represent that F is satisfiable in partial solution space of x 1 = 1, x 2 = 1,...,x i = 1. It is easy to check that, for a forula of length, F with u, and a randoly drawn variable x fro {x 1, x 1, x 2, x 2,..., x N, x N } (note x is a 1-SAT clause) 1 u = P(xF A i F A i ) = i 2N + P(x i+1f A i F A i ) = i 2N + P(x i+1f A i ) = i P(F A i ) 2N + P(F A i+1 ) P(F A i ) (syetry)

7 7 Denoting P(F k A i ) by P (i) k and noticing P (i) k /P (i) k 1 is a( i N, k N ) we have P (i+1) P (i) = P (i+1) /P (i+1) 1 P (i) /P (i) 1 P (i) 1 = e i+1 k=1 ln{a( N, k N ) a( i N, k N )} = e z 0 ln(a(x,t)) dt x P (i+1) (i+1) 1 /P 2 P (i+1) 2... /P (i) 2 P (i) 2... = k=1 a( i+1 N, k N ) k=1 a( i N, k N ) It follows that 1 u = x 2 + e z 0 ln(a(x,t)) dt x where a(x, z)(= 1 u 3 ) is the branching factor. / z of both sides of the above equation yields (6.1) (1 x 2 u) 3u2 1 u 3 u x u z = 0 called 3-SAT PDE. With the initial condition u = x/2 when z = 0, the solution of (6.1) For K-SAT, z = 2(1 u3 ) 3u 2 ln 1 u x 2 1 2u (6.2) z = 2(1 uk ) Ku K 1 ln 1 u x 2 1 2u The K-SAT PDE was first presented in [9] as conjecture. Fig 1. u(x, z), 3-SAT Fig 2. u(x, z), 2-SAT At the point {x 0, z 0 } = {0.145, 3.183}, u(x, z) starts to split into two surfaces, upper surface S 1 and lower surface S 2 ; in the area of x < and z > 3.183, there are two solutions of u. S 1 and S 2 have overlap area, where u u (x, z) > u l (x, z). u u (x, z) is on the upper surface and u l (x, z) on the lower surface. BRW of satisfiable forula (denoted by SAT F ) generation can also go in i direction, starting at z = /N and x = 1 (i.e. i = N), reducing i by 1 each step. In this direction, SAT F increases (because P (i 1) = P (i) 1 x 1 x/2 u and 1 x 1 x/2 u > 1, by soe calculation), while in direction SAT F decreases because 1 u 3 < 1. In fact, it can go in any direction; for exaple, decreasing i and increasing. Starting fro x = 0.145, z = 3.18, there is a unique line in x-z plane corresponding to two routes of BRW, one in the upper surface and another in the lower surface, such that the nuber SAT F of the upper surface is equal to the lower surface (so that probability of satisfiability

8 8 is the sae). That eans along this line u jups. The following is to find this critical line. Given that P (i) +1 = (1 u3 )P (i) and P (i 1) = P (i) Along the phase transition curve, it ust be 1 x 1 x (u x/2) = P (i) 1 x 1 x/2 u (1 u 3 u) dz 1 x ( 1 x/2 u u ) dx (1 u 3 l )dz 1 x ( 1 x/2 u l ) = 1 dx Raising both sides of the above equation to power 1 dx yields dz dx = ln(1 x/2 u u) ln(1 x/2 u l ) ln(1 u 3 u) ln(1 u 3 l ) This is the threshold curve, at the end point of which (where x = 0) z is the traditional phase transition location α c. The following table lists soe of the nuerical results (bold nubers). K : best upper bound α c spin glass odel best lower bound K-COL phase transition. Siilar to 3-SAT, let F A i,j represent that F is satisfiable in partial solution space where i variables (nodes) are frozen to 0, 1 and 2 respectively, and j nodes which have satisfiable values at and only at {0, 1}, {0, 2} and {1, 2} respectively. Let x = i N, y = j N, z = N. Let u and u 2 denote (scaled) nubers of variables frozen to one color and two colors respectively in the satisfiable forula. We derive a syste of conservation law equations as follows (details in the full paper), (7.1) { ρ1 z ρ 2 z = f x = f y where ρ 1 = ln(1 2u u 2 x 2y), ρ 2 = ln(1 3u 2u 2 y) and where f = 1 3 ln(1 3u2 6uy). with the following initial condition at z = 0 u = x, u x = 1 u y = 0 u 2 = y (increent of j when z = 0 does not change u) which can and need to be solved nuerically (e.g. [10]). Then critical lines can be obtained as illustrated in 3-SAT earlier. When x approaches to zero the end of the corresponding critical line is the traditional phase transition point. Note, given x, u(y, z) is sooth around the critical line; there is only one single singular point, the start point of the critical line.

9 8. 2-SAT/2-COL, (2 + p)-sat and α d of K-SAT. 2-SAT/2-COL. 2-COL s phase transition behavior is exactly the sae as 2-SAT since the PDEs of the are identical (we oit the proof which is trivial). So far the best result for 2- SAT is Θ(N 1/3 ) of scaling window of transition SAT/UNSAT [11]. Here we present a function relation between clause density and satisfiability probability which holds in the entire area outside (1 Θ(N 1/2 ), 1 + Θ(N 1/2 )). Theore 8.1. Let y denote N of 2-SAT forulae and P r = P r(f is satisfiable). Then the following function holds { < 1 P r = 1 y = ln 1 P r N 1/3 P r > 0 for y / (1 Θ(N 1/2 ), 1 + Θ(N 1/2 ) Proof. (6.2) for K = 2 is y = (1 u2 ) u ln 1 u x 2 1 2u For sall u and x, eploying Taylor expansion and eliinating negligible ters, we have du dx = 1 6u + 2(1 y) Fro this we see that on the line of x = 0, if 1 y N 1/2, u N 1/2 so that P r = N 1 (1 u2 ) = 1. Thus the first half of the theore is proved true. For y > 1 and x = 0, we have y = u 2u by Taylor expansion ( ln 1 2u = u u u3 +...), and hence P r = e N y 1 ln(1 u(t)2 )dt = e N y 1 u(t)2 dt = e N 4 27 (y 1)3 fro which the second half of the theore follows. In the above equation, N 1/2 is oitted. If P r = 50%, y 50 = N 1/3. The table below lists a series of calculated y 50, truncated to two decial places for coparison. It is not easy to find pertaining experiental results published in nuber. [12] is the only one available to the author. The last colun lists the fitting forulae of the for y 50 = C + X N 1/3, by linear regression. N : Regression forula y N 1/3 (R 2 = 99.9%) Sion et al[12] N 1/3 (R 2 = 87%) (2+p)-SAT. A (2+p)-SAT forula is a Boolean CNF forula ixed with (1 p) 2-SAT clauses and p 3-SAT clauses. The phase transition conjecture on (2+p)-SAT also attracts a lot of attention in a couple of areas. Let y be scaled length of 2-SAT forula and z be of 3-SAT. Then 3-SAT PDE using u(x, y) of 2-SAT as initial condition (or vice versa) is this 3u 2 (8.1) z 2(1 u 3 ) + y u 1 u x/2 = ln 1 u2 1 2u Fro this equation, phase transition points of (2+p)-SAT can be found. Roughly, when y = 0 (p = 1), phase transition occurs at z = 4.396, the 3-SAT case. Then adding 2-SAT clauses decreases 9

10 10 the phase transition point in z, until y reaches 1 when u begins to jup at z = 1. Further, if y > 1 then u is always greater then zero, such that transition SAT/UNSAT does not exist. For z < 1, again letting x = 0 and using Taylor expansion for sall u, we have y = 1 + (1 z) 3u 2 It is seen that only at y = 1 u begins to go uphill fro zero (transition SAT/UNSAT) and u is linearly with y. This 2-SAT like behavior vanishes when z = 1. The value of p at this particular critical point (now we know is 0.5 since both y and z are 1), donated by p c, drew a lot of researchers interest. [14] proved that 2/5 p c < [13] obtained p c = of glass spin odel. Siilarly to 2-SAT, we have for (2+p)-SAT y = { < 1 P r = (1 z) ln 1 P r N 1/3 P r > 0 α d of K-SAT. Back to the surface of u(x, z), upper surface u u and lower surface u l each has an edge line, called l u and l l respectively. These lines are singularities where the derivative of u is infinity. The end point of l u where x = 0, z = (in 3-SAT) is so called α d. Asyptotically, K : α d Mertens et al[15] soe calculation on (6.2) gives α d = 2K K (ln K +d ) where d satisfies d = ln( 1 2 ln K d ). In glass spin odel, α d = 2K K (ln K + d )e e d 2 [15]. REFERENCES [1] D. Achlioptas, A. Naor, and Y. Peres (2005). Rigorous location of phase transitions in hard optiization probles. Nature, 435: , [2] A Coja-Oghlan (2014). The asyptotic k-sat threshold. Proc. 46th STOC, [3] Q. Liu and F. Watbled (2009). Exponential ineqalities for artingales and asyptotic properties of the free energy of directed polyers in a rando environent. Stochastic Process. Appl [4] F. Watbled (2012). Concentration inequalities for disordered odels. ALEA Lat. A. J. Probab. Math. Stat. 9, [5] H. Chernoff (1952). A easure of the asyptotic efficiency of tests of a hypothesis based on the su of observations. Annals of Matheatical Statistics, 23: , 1952 [6] W. Hoeffding (1963). Probability inequalities for sus of bounded rando variables. J. Aer. Statist. Assoc. 58 (1963) [7] N. Alon and J. H. Spencer (2000). The Probabilistic Method. Second Edition, Wiley, New York, 2000, page 162. [8] M. Dwass (1969). The Total Progeny in a Branching Process. J. Appl. Probab., Vol 6, No , [9] C. Liu (1997). Theoretical Location of Phase Transition of SAT Proble. Chapter 4 in A Study on General Optiization Algoriths Based on Coplexity of Incoplete Algorith, Ph.D thesis, Tsinghua University, 1997 [10] R.J. LeVeque (2002). Finite Volue Methods for Hyperbolic Probles. Cabridge University Press (2002). [11] B. Bollobás, C. Borgs, J. Chayes, J.H. Ki, D.B. Wilson (2001). The scaling window of the 2-SAT transition. Rando Structures and Algoriths, 18 (2001) [12] J.C. Sion, J. Carlier, O. Dubois and O. Moulines (1986). Etude statistique de l existence de solutions de probleḿes SAT. Copte Rendu de l Acadeḿie des Sciences de Paris, toe 302, seŕie I, 1986, [13] R. Monasson, R. Zecchina, S. Kirkpatrick, B. Selan, L. Troyansky (1996). Phase transition and search cost in the (2 + p)-sat proble. 4th Workshop on Physics and Coputation, Boston, MA, 1996.

11 11 [14] D. Achlioptas, L. Kirousis, E. Kranakis, and D. Krizanc (1900). Rigorous results for rando (2 + p)-sat. Theoretical Coputer Science, 265(1): , [15] S. Mertens, M. Mézard and and R. Zecchina (2006). Threshold values of Rando K-SAT fro the cavity ethod. Rand. Struct.and Alg. 28, , 2006.