Random 3-SAT: The Plot Thickens

Constraints

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 243-261

  Coarfa, Cristian ^a   Demopoulos, Demetrios D ^a   Aguirre, Alfonso San Miguel ^a   Subramanian, Devika ^a   Vardi, Moshe Y ^a  

^a Rice University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; BOOLEAN ALGEBRA; COMBINATORIAL MATHEMATICS; POLYNOMIALS; RANDOM NUMBER GENERATION;

MATHEMATICAL INEQUALITIES;

COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY;

EID: 0041781760     PISSN: 13837133     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1025671026963     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (50)

1. Achlioptas, D. (2000). Setting two variables at a time yields a new lower bound for random 3-SAT. In Proc. 32th ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing, pages 28-37.
2. Achlioptas, D., Bemame, P., & Molloy, M. (2001). A sharp threshold in proof complexity. In Proc. 33rd ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing, pages 337-346.
3. Beame, P., Karp, R. M., Pitassi, T., & Saks, M. E. (1998). On the complexity of Unsatisfiability proofs for random k-CNF formulas. In Proc. 30th ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing, pages 561-571.
4. Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E. M., Fujita, M., & Zhu, Y. (1999). Symbolic model checking using SAT procedures instead of BDDs. In Proc. 36th Conf. on Design Automation, pages 317-320.
5. Bixby, R. E. (1992). Implementing the Simplex method: the initial basis. ORSA J. on Computing, 4(3): 267-284.
6. Bixby, R. E. (1994). Progress in linear programming. ORSA J. on Computing, 6(1): 15-22.
7. Bouquet, F. (1999). Gestion de la dynamicité et énumération d'implicants premiers: une approche fondée sur les Diagrammes de Décision Binaire. PhD thesis, Université de Provence, France.
8. Broder, A. Z., Frieze, A. M., & Upfal, E. (1993). On the satisfiability and maximum satisfiability of random 3-CNF formulas. In Proc. 4th Annual ACM-SIAM Symp. on Discrete Algorithms, pages 322-330.
9. Bryant, R. E. (1986). Graph-based algorithms for Boolean function manipulation. IEEE Trans. on Computers, 35(8): 677-691.
10. 20 states and beyond. Information and Computation, 98(2): 142-170 (June).
11. Chao, M., & Franco, J. V. (1990). Probabilistic analysis of a generation of the unit-clause literal selection heuristics for the k-satisfiability problem. Information Sciences, 51: 289-314.
12. Cheeseman, P., Kanefsky, B., & Taylor, W. M. (1991). Where the really hard problems are. In Proc. 12th Int 'l Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI '91), pages 331-337.
13. Chvátal, V., & Szemerédi, E. (1988). Many hard examples for resolution. J. of the ACM, 35(4): 759-768.
14. Cocco, S., & Monasson, R. (2001). Statistical physics analysis of the computational complexity of solving random satisfiability problems using backtrack algorithms. European Physical Journal B, 22: 505-531.
15. Cook, S. A., & Mitchell, D. G. (1997). Finding hard instances of the satisfiability problem: a survey. In Du, Gu, & Pardalos, eds., Satisfiability Problem: Theory and Applications, Volume 35 of Dimacs Series in Discrete Math, and Theoretical Computer Science. AMS.
16. Crawford, J. M., & Auton, L. D. (1993). Experimental results on the crossover point in satisfiability problems. AAAI, pages 21-27.
17. Crawford, J. M., & Auton, L. D. (1996). Experimental results on the crossover point in random 3-SAT. Artificial Intelligence, 81(1-2): 31-57.
18. Crawford, J. M., & Baker, A. B. (1994). Experimental results on the application of satisfiability algorithms to scheduling problems. AAAI, 2: 1092-1097.
19. Cullberson, J., & Gent, I. P., (2000). Frozen development in graph coloring. Technical report, Department of Computer Science, University of St. Andrews. APES Research Report APES-19-20004.
20. Davis, M., Logemann, G., & Loveland, D. (1962). A machine program for theorem proving. Comm. of the ACM, 5: 394-397.
21. Dubois, O., Boufkhad, Y., & Mandler, J. (2000). Typical random 3-SAT formulae and the satisfiability threshold. In Proc. 11th Annual ACM-SIAM Symp. on Discrete Algorithms, pages 126-127.
22. Friedgut, E. (1999). Necessary and sufficient conditions for sharp threshold of graph properties and the k-SAT problem. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 12: 1917-1054.
23. Frieze, A., & Suen, S. (1996). Analysis of two simple heuristics for random instances of k-SAT. J. of Algorithms, 20(2): 312-355.
24. Garey, M. R., & Johnson, D. S. (1979). Computers and Intractability, A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
25. Gent, I. P., & Walsh, T. (1994). Easy problems are sometimes hard. Artificial Intelligence, 70(1-2): 335-345.
26. Gent, I. P., & Walsh, T. (1994). The SAT phase transition. In Proc. Euroropean Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pages 105-109.
27. Groote, J. F. (1996). Hiding propositional constants in BDDs. Formal Methods in System Design, 8: 91-96.
28. Groote, J. F., & Zantema, H. (2000). Resolution and binary decision diagrams cannot simulate each other polynomially. Technical report, Department of Computer Science, Utrecht University. Technical Report UU-CS-2000-14.
29. Hogg, T., & Williams, C. P. (1994). The hardest constraint problems: a double phase transition. Artificial Intelligence, 69(1-2): 359-377.
30. Hooker, J. N. (1988). Resolution vs. cutting plane solution of inference problems: some computational experience. Operations Research Letters, 7: 1-7.
31. Jha, S., Lu, Y., Minea, M., & Clarke, E. M. (1997). Equivalence checking using abstract BDDs. In Proc. 1997 Int'l Conf. on Computer Design, pages 332-337.
32. Bayardo, Roberto J. Jr., & Schrag, Robert. (1997). Using CSP look-back techniques to solve real-world SAT instances. In. AAAI/IAAI, pages 203-208.
33. Kautz, H., & Selman, B. (1992). Planning as satisfiability. In Proc. European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 359-379.
34. Kirk, R. E. (1999). Statistics: An introduction, fourth edition. Harcourt Brace, Fort Worth.
35. Kirkpatrick, S., & Selman, B. (1994). Critical behavior in the satisfiability of random formulas. Science, 264: 1297-1301.
36. Larrabee, T., & Tsuji, Y. (1992). Evidence for a satisfiability threshold for random 3CNF formulas. Technical report, University of California, Santa Cruz. Technical report USCS-CRL-92042.
37. Chu Min Li, & Anbulagan. (1997). Heuristics based on unit propagation for satisfiability problems. In IJCAI (1), pages 366-371.
38. Marques Silva, J. P., & Sakallah, K. A. (1999). GRASP-A search algorithm for prepositional satisfiability. IEEE Trans. on Computers, 48(5): 506-521.
39. Mitchell, D. G., & Levesque, H. J. (1996). Some pitfalls for experimenters with random SAT. Artificial Intelligence, 81(1-2): 111-125.
40. Mitzenmacher, M. (1997). Tight thresholds for the pure literal rule. Technical report, Digital System Research Center, Palo Alto, California. SRC Technical Note 1997-011.
41. Monasson, R., Zecchina, R., Kirkpatrick, S., Selman B., & Troyansky, L. (1999). Determining computational complexity from characteristic 'phase transitions'. Nature, 400: 133-137.
42. Nam, G. J., Sakallah, K. A., & Rutenbar, R. A. (1999). Satisfiability-based layout revisited: Detailed routing of complex FPGAs via search-based boolean sat. In Proc. ACM Int'l Symp. on Field-Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA'99), pages 167-175.
43. Selman, B., & Kirkpatrick, S. (1996). Critical behavior in the computational cost of satisfiability testing. Artificial Intelligence, 81(1-2): 273-295.
44. Selman, B., Mitchell, D. G., & Levesque, H. J. (1996). Generating hard satisfiability problems. Artificial Intelligence, 81(1-2): 17-29.
45. Smith, B. M., & Dyer, M. E. (1996). Locating the phase transition in binary constraint satisfaction problems. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 8(1-2): 155-181.
46. Somenzi, F. (1998). CUDD: CU Decision Diagram package, release 2.3.0. Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering. University of Colorado at Boulder.
47. Svenson, P., & Nordahl, M. G. (1999). Relaxation in graph coloring and satisfiability problems. Phys. Rev. E, 59(4): 3983-3999.
48. The VIS Group. (1996). VIS: a system for verification and synthesis. In Alur, R., & Henziger, T., eds., Proc. 8th Int'l Conf. on Computer Aided Verification (CAV '96), LNCS 1102, pages 428-432.
49. Theil, H. (1979). The measurement of inequality by component of income. Economics Letter, 2.
50. Uribe, T. E., & Stickel, M. E. (1994). Ordered binary decision diagrams and the Davis-Putnam procedure. In First Int'l Conf. on Constraints in Computational Logics, Vol. 845 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 34-39, Munich: Springer-Verlag (September).