ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Random MAX SAT, random MAX CUT, and their phase transitions
Full text PdfPdf (1.07 MB)
Source Symposium on Discrete Algorithms archive
Proceedings of the fourteenth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms table of contents
Baltimore, Maryland
SESSION: Session 5B table of contents
Pages: 364 - 373  
Year of Publication: 2003
ISBN:0-89871-538-5
Authors
Don Coppersmith  IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights NY
David Gamarnik  IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights NY
Mohammad Hajiaghayi  M.I.T., Cambridge MA
Gregory B. Sorkin  IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights NY
Sponsors
: SIAM Activity Group on Discrete Mathematics
SIGACT: ACM Special Interest Group on Algorithms and Computation Theory
Publisher
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics  Philadelphia, PA, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 7,   Downloads (12 Months): 28,   Citation Count: 3
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  

ABSTRACT

With random inputs, certain decision problems undergo a "phase transition". We prove similar behavior in an optimization context.Specifically, random 2-SAT formulas with clause/variable density less than 1 are almost always satisfiable, those with density greater than 1 are almost always unsatisfiable, and the "scaling window" is in the density range 1 ± Θ (n-1/3). We prove a similar phase structure for MAX 2-SAT: for density c < 1, the expected number of clauses satisfiable is [cn] -- Θ(1/n); within the scaling window it is [cn] -- Θ(1); and for c > 1, it is ¾[cn] + Θ(n). (Our results include further detail.)For random graphs, a maximization version of the giant-component question behaves quite differently from 2-SAT, but MAX CUT behaves similarly.For optimization problems, there is also a natural analog of the "satisfiability threshold conjecture". Although here too it remains just a conjecture, it is possible that optimization problems may prove easier to analyze than their decision analogs, and may help to elucidate them.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
{BFW02} Tom Bohman, Alan M. Frieze, and Nicholas C. Wormald, Avoiding a giant component II, Unpublished manuscript, February 2002.
 
7
{Bo198} Béla Bollobás, Modern graph theory, Springer, New York, 1998.
 
8
{CR92a} Vasěk Chvátal and Bruce Reed, Mick gets some (the odds are on his side), 33th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (Pittsburgh, PA, 1992), IEEE Comput. Soc. Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 1992, pp. 620--627.
 
9
{CR92b} Vasěk Chvátal, Mick gets some (the odds are on his side), 33th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (Pittsburgh, PA, 1992), IEEE Comput. Soc. Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 1992, pp. 620--627.
 
10
{FdlV92} Wenceslas Fernandez de la Vega, On random 2-SAT, Manuscript, 1992.
 
11
{Fri991 Ehud Friedgut, Necessary and sufficient conditions for sharp thresholds of graph properties, and the k-SAT problem, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 12 (1999), 1017--1054.
 
12
13
14
 
15
{JS02} Svante Janson and Gregory B. Sorkin, Personal communication, 2002.
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
{Spe94} Joel H. Spencer, Ten lectures on the probabilistic method, second ed., SIAM, 1994.
 
20
 
21
{Wor95} Nicholas C. Wormald, Differential equations for random processes and random graphs, Ann. Appl. Probab. 5 (1995), no. 4, 1217--1235.


Collaborative Colleagues:
Don Coppersmith: colleagues
David Gamarnik: colleagues
Mohammad Hajiaghayi: colleagues
Gregory B. Sorkin: colleagues