alphaFeedback

WorksMathematics

Linear Variance of the Random 3-SAT Hitting Time

AI contributions
  • unreleased internal OpenAI model
View details
Ancillary data
3 proof or workflow links
View

Abstract

For random 3-SAT on n Boolean variables, with independent uniformly signed clauses on three distinct variables sampled with replacement, we prove that the first unsatisfiable prefix has variance Θ(n)\Theta(n). The upper bound removes the logarithmic loss in the earlier variance estimate; the matching lower bound follows from Wilson's transition-width theorem.

Introduction

Fix an integer n≥3n \ge3. A proper 3-clause is a disjunction of three literals on distinct variables among x1,…,xnx_1,\ldots,x_n. Let C1,C2,…C_1,C_2,\ldots be independent clauses, each uniform among the 8(n3)8\binom{n}{3} proper 3-clauses. Thus the signs are fair and independent, and whole clauses may repeat. Write

Fm=⋀j=1mCj,Hn=min⁡{m≥1:Fm is unsatisfiable}.F_m=\bigwedge_{j=1}^{m} C_j,\qquad H_n=\min\{m\ge1:F_m\text{ is unsatisfiable}\}.

where F0F_0 is the empty, satisfiable formula. The random variable HnH_n records the location of the satisfiability transition in the clause process.

Theorem 1.1. There is an absolute constant C<∞C<\infty such that

Var⁡(Hn)≤Cn(n≥3).\operatorname{Var}(H_n)\le Cn \qquad(n\ge3).

There are also absolute constants c>0c>0 and n0n_0 such that Var⁡(Hn)≥cn\operatorname{Var}(H_n)\ge cn for n≥n0n\ge n_0. In particular, Var⁡(Hn)=Θ(n)\operatorname{Var}(H_n)=\Theta(n) as n→∞n\to\infty.

The new assertion is the upper bound. We give its proof in full. The lower bound follows from Wilson’s quantitative separation of satisfiability levels [7] [Corollary 4]; Section 5 includes the short deduction, with the integer endpoints treated explicitly.

Context and contribution

Friedgut proved sharpness of the random kk-SAT threshold for every fixed k≥2k\ge2 [5] [Theorem 1.3]. Quantifying the width of that transition is a finer problem. Wilson showed that, for k≥3k\ge3, a fixed decrease in the satisfiability probability requires at least a constant times n\sqrt{n} additional clauses [7]. More recently, Carenini obtained an O(n/log⁡n)O(n/\log n) central clause-window bound for fixed k≥3k\ge3, including independently sampled proper constraints [3] [Corollaries 7.10–7.11]. Her subsequent paper [2] [Theorems 1.1 and 1.3, Corollary 1.2], made public on October 5, 2026, proves for every fixed k≥3k\ge3 a central window bound Ok,η(n1/2+1/k)O_{k,\eta}(n^{1/2+1/k}) at each fixed 0<η<1/20<\eta<1/2 and a hitting-time variance bound Ok(n1+2/k)O_k(n^{1+2/k}). Together with the Abbe–Montanari criterion, her result establishes the limiting satisfiability threshold for every fixed k≥3k \ge3. We credit Carenini with priority for the resolution of the satisfiability conjecture. The present paper concerns the sharper fluctuation question for three-literal clauses.

A bound on a fixed central window alone does not control the variance, which also depends on the tails. In the other direction, Theorem 1.1 and Wilson’s lower bound show that the clause window over which satisfiability drops from 1−η1-\eta to η\eta has order n\sqrt{n} for every fixed 0<η<1/20 < \eta< 1/2; see Corollary 5.2.

The companion preprint Variance of the Random kk-SAT Hitting Time [6] develops a clause-omission and root-test framework. It proves variance Θk(n)\Theta_k(n) for every fixed k≥4k \ge4 and an upper bound O(nlog⁡n)O(n \log n) for k=3k=3. Our argument uses that framework, which we reprove here, and replaces its critical occupation estimate in the three-literal case. The companion has broader general-kk and capped formulations; the present paper concerns the uncapped proper 3-clause process defined above.

The new ingredient is a family of potentials for an arbitrary set SS of Boolean assignments. Let qj(S)q_j(S) be the probability that jj independent random proper 2-clauses leave no assignment in SS, and put

Pd(S)=∑j=0d−1qj(S),d≥1.P_d(S) = \sum_{j=0}^{d-1} q_j(S), \qquad d \ge1.

The potential increases when SS shrinks and is bounded by dd. Section 2 proves that qd(S)3/2q_d(S)^{3/2}, for nonempty SS, is controlled by the expected increment of PdP_d under a random 3-clause, up to a small error. Summing those increments gives a direct bound on the accumulated values of qd3/2q_d^{3/2}. This is the step that removes the logarithmic loss.

Here is how the potential enters the variance proof. For n≥6n \ge6, cap HnH_n at 10n10n and let DiD_i be the delay caused by omitting the clause at index ii, without renumbering later clauses. The coordinate-omission form of the Efron–Stein inequality bounds the capped variance by ∑iEDi2\sum_i \mathbb{E}D_i^2 [4, 1]. Fixing the omitted clause singles out its three variables as roots. If that clause is pivotal, every remaining solution has the unique root assignment that falsifies it. Flipping each root gives an independent family of necessary tests on the nonroot solution set, except when another clause meets two or more roots. Section 3 constructs this exposure and proves the test bound.

Let dd be the larger of 11 and the number of clauses other than CiC_i among the first 10n10n that meet a root. At a given index, let SS be the nonroot solution set of the omitted-clause prefix with the roots fixed to their falsifying assignment, and write p=qd(S)p=q_d(S). With no collisions, the three test families each have at most dd clauses and give a pivotality bound p3p^3. For p>0p>0, the potential gives a conditional remaining-duration bound O(d3/2p−3/2)O(d^{3/2}p^{-3/2}) and bounds the conditional expected sum of p3/2p^{3/2}, while SS is nonempty, by O(d3/2)O(d^{3/2}). The identity 3−3/2=3/23-3/2=3/2 thus yields a conditional squared-delay bound O(d3)O(d^3). The root-incidence count dd has bounded moments uniformly in nn. Section 4 carries out this calculation and averages the rare collision cases, obtaining EDi2=O(1)\mathbb{E}D_i^2=O(1) uniformly in ii. Finally, Section 5 removes the cap using an elementary first-moment tail bound and proves the matching lower bound.

Throughout, a random proper aa-clause on a specified variable set is uniform over the clauses using aa distinct variables and independent fair signs. Independent collections are sampled with replacement. All unspecified constants are absolute.

A potential for killing assignment sets

We first work on u≥3u \ge3 variables, independently of the clause process. The aim is to bound a power of a short-clause killing probability by the drift of a bounded, monotone potential. For S⊆{0,1}uS \subseteq\{0,1\}^{u} and a clause CC, let

S[C]={z∈S:z⊨C}.S[C] = \{z \in S : z \models C\}.

For j≥0j \ge0, define qj(S)q_j(S) as the probability that jj independent random proper 22-clauses kill SS, meaning that no member of SS satisfies them all. In particular,

qj(∅)=1(j≥0),q0(S)=0(S≠∅).q_j(\varnothing) = 1 \quad(j \ge0), \qquad q_0(S) = 0 \quad(S \ne\varnothing).

The quantity qj(S)q_j(S) is nondecreasing both in jj and when SS shrinks. Set β=3/2\beta= 3/2 for the rest of the paper.

Lemma 2.1 (One-clause comparison). For a nonempty assignment set SS, let ha(S)h_a(S) be the probability that one random proper aa-clause kills SS, for a=2,3a = 2,3. Then

h2(S)β≤3h3(S)+u−3.h_2(S)^\beta\le3h_3(S) + u^{-3}.

Proof. A coordinate is frozen if it is constant throughout SS. Let bb be the number of frozen coordinates. A clause kills all of SS exactly when all its variables are frozen and each literal has the falsifying sign. Consequently,

ha(S)=(b)a2a(u)a,a=2,3,h_a(S) = \frac{(b)_a}{2^a(u)_a}, \qquad a = 2,3,

where (t)a=t(t−1)⋯(t−a+1)(t)_a = t(t-1)\cdots(t-a+1), with value zero for integers 0≤t<a0 \le t < a. Since b≤ub \le u,

h2(S)≤b2u.\sqrt{h_2(S)} \le\frac{b}{2u}.

For b≥3b \ge3 we also have

h3(S)h2(S)=b−22(u−2)≥b6u,\frac{h_3(S)}{h_2(S)} = \frac{b-2}{2(u-2)} \ge\frac{b}{6u},

which proves h2(S)3/2≤3h3(S)h_2(S)^{3/2} \le3h_3(S) in this case. For b≤1b \le1 the left side is zero. For b=2b = 2 it is [2u(u−1)]−3/2≤u−3[2u(u-1)]^{-3/2} \le u^{-3}, proving (2.1).

The error term accounts for sets with exactly two frozen coordinates: a 2-clause can kill such a set, whereas a proper 3-clause cannot. The following lemma turns the one-clause comparison into the potential estimate needed along a decreasing sequence of assignment sets.

Lemma 2.2 (Potential drift). For every integer d≥1d \ge1, put

Pd(S)=∑j=0d−1qj(S).P_d(S) = \sum_{j=0}^{d-1} q_j(S).

Then 0≤Pd(S)≤d0 \le P_d(S) \le d, and PdP_d is nondecreasing when SS shrinks. If CC is an independent random proper 3-clause on the uu variables, then

1{S≠∅}qd(S)β≤dβ−1(3EC[Pd(S[C])−Pd(S)]+du−3).(1)\mathbf{1}_{\{S \ne\varnothing\}}q_d(S)^\beta\le d^{\beta-1}\left(3\mathbb{E}_C[P_d(S[C])-P_d(S)] + du^{-3}\right). \tag*{(1)}

Proof. Fix j≥0j \ge0, and let YY be the subset of SS surviving jj independent random proper 2-clauses. Adding one more such clause gives

qj+1(S)−qj(S)=E[1{Y≠∅}h2(Y)].(2)q_{j+1}(S)-q_j(S)=\mathbb{E}\left[1_{\{Y\ne\varnothing\}}h_2(Y)\right]. \tag*{(2)}

Adding instead the independent 3-clause CC gives

EC[qj(S[C])−qj(S)]=E[1{Y≠∅}h3(Y)].(3)\mathbb{E}_C[q_j(S[C])-q_j(S)]=\mathbb{E}\left[1_{\{Y\ne\varnothing\}}h_3(Y)\right]. \tag*{(3)}

Indeed, in either order of adding the clauses, the increase in killing probability is precisely the probability that the old surviving set is nonempty and the final clause kills it. Products with the indicators in these formulas are defined to be zero when YY is empty. Jensen’s inequality and Lemma 2.1 imply

(qj+1(S)−qj(S))β≤3EC[qj(S[C])−qj(S)]+u−3.\left(q_{j+1}(S)-q_j(S)\right)^\beta\le3\mathbb{E}_C[q_j(S[C])-q_j(S)]+u^{-3}.

For nonempty SS, the nonnegative successive differences telescope to qd(S)q_d(S), because q0(S)=0q_0(S)=0. Thus the power-sum inequality yields

qd(S)β≤dβ−1∑j=0d−1(qj+1(S)−qj(S))β,q_d(S)^\beta\le d^{\beta-1}\sum_{j=0}^{d-1}\left(q_{j+1}(S)-q_j(S)\right)^\beta,

and summing the preceding bound proves (2.2). For empty SS, its left side is zero and its right side is nonnegative. The bounds and monotonicity of PdP_d follow directly from those of qjq_j.

Clause deletion and independent root tests

We now reduce the variance bound to a uniform squared-delay estimate. The root exposure and root-flip tests in this section follow the clause-omission framework of [6], Section 3; all details needed here are included.

Assume n≥6n \ge6, set L=10nL=10n, and let T=min⁡(Hn,L)T=\min(H_n,L). For 1≤i≤L1\le i\le L, omit CiC_i while retaining the original indices:

Bm(i)=⋀1≤j≤mj≠iCj.B_m^{(i)}=\bigwedge_{\substack{1\le j\le m\\j\ne i}} C_j.

Let T(i)T^{(i)} be the first index at which this omitted-clause process is unsatisfiable, capped at LL, and set Di=T(i)−T≥0D_i=T^{(i)}-T\ge0. Both capped variables are functions of the first LL clauses, and T(i)T^{(i)} does not depend on CiC_i.

Lemma 3.1 (Coordinate omission). The capped hitting time satisfies

Var⁡(T)≤∑i=1LEDi2.(4)\operatorname{Var}(T)\le\sum_{i=1}^{L}\mathbb{E}D_i^2. \tag*{(4)}

Proof. This is the coordinate-omission form of the Efron–Stein inequality; see [1 Section 3.2, Equation (3.6)]. For completeness, write Fi=σ(C1,…,Ci)\mathcal{F}_i=\sigma(C_1,\ldots,C_i) and ΔiX=E[X∣Fi]−E[X∣Fi−1]\Delta_iX=\mathbb{E}[X\mid\mathcal{F}_i]-\mathbb{E}[X\mid\mathcal{F}_{i-1}]. Independence and the omission of CiC_i give ΔiT(i)=0\Delta_iT^{(i)}=0, so ΔiT=−ΔiDi\Delta_iT=-\Delta_iD_i. Orthogonality of conditional-expectation projections implies E(ΔiDi)2≤EDi2\mathbb{E}(\Delta_iD_i)^2\le\mathbb{E}D_i^2. Summing the orthogonal martingale differences of TT proves (3.1).

The exposure and its two filtrations

Fix ii and condition on the value of CiC_i until further notice. All probabilities and expectations in this section and in Section 4, until the final averaging step, are in this conditional law. Write Bm=Bm(i)B_m = B_m^{(i)}. Call the three variables of CiC_i the roots, denote their set by RR, and let w∈{0,1}Rw \in\{0,1\}^{R} be the unique root assignment falsifying CiC_i. There are u=n−3≥3u=n-3\ge3 nonroot variables.

For i≤m<Li\le m<L, define

Am={Bm is satisfiable and Bm∧Ci is unsatisfiable}={T≤m<T(i)}.A_m=\{B_m\text{ is satisfiable and }B_m\wedge C_i\text{ is unsatisfiable}\}=\{T\le m<T^{(i)}\}.

The processes agree before ii, so

Di=∑m=iL−11Am.(5)D_i=\sum_{m=i}^{L-1}\mathbf{1}_{A_m}. \tag*{(5)}

For i≤m≤Li\le m\le L, let Sm⊆{0,1}uS_m\subseteq\{0,1\}^{u} consist of the nonroot assignments that, together with ww, satisfy BmB_m. The sets SmS_m decrease with mm. On AmA_m, the set SmS_m is nonempty, and every solution of BmB_m has root assignment ww.

We will retain two independent sources of randomness: clauses driving the evolution of SmS_m, and clauses testing possible root flips. For every index j≤Lj\le L other than ii, first reveal the subset of RR met by CjC_j and all signs on that subset. Classify the index as follows:

  • An ordinary clause meets no root; leave all its contents hidden.

  • A test clause meets exactly one root, whose literal is true under ww; leave its two nonroot literals hidden.

  • For every other clause, reveal all its remaining contents.

Let E\mathcal{E} be the sigma-field of this exposure, including the information at future indices. Let ZZ count the exposed indices meeting at least one root, and let VV count those meeting at least two roots. The latter clauses are called collisions. Set d=max⁡{1,Z}d=\max\{1,Z\}. The counts Z,V,dZ,V,d and the complete schedule of clause types are E\mathcal{E}-measurable.

Conditional on E\mathcal{E}, the hidden ordinary clauses are independent uniform proper 3-clauses on the nonroots, and the hidden nonroot parts of the test clauses are independent uniform proper 2-clauses there. These two collections are also independent of each other. To see this, condition first on the root subset and its signs separately at each index. Every permitted signed nonroot part remains equiprobable, and the original product law across indices is preserved. Revealing the remaining contents at the other indices does not change the law of the hidden coordinates.

For i≤m≤Li\le m\le L, define

Gm=E∨σ(ordinary contents through index m),Hm=Gm∨σ(test parts through index m).\mathcal{G}_m=\mathcal{E}\vee\sigma(\text{ordinary contents through index }m), \qquad \mathcal{H}_m=\mathcal{G}_m\vee\sigma(\text{test parts through index }m).

The set SmS_m is Gm\mathcal{G}_m-measurable: all test clauses are already true under ww, whatever their nonroot parts. The event AmA_m is Hm\mathcal{H}_m-measurable, because this larger sigma-field knows all clauses of BmB_m. Future ordinary contents remain fresh given Hm\mathcal{H}_m. Finally, put

pm=qd(Sm).p_m=q_d(S_m).

The quantity pmp_m is Gm\mathcal{G}_m-measurable and nondecreasing in mm. Keeping the tests out of Gm\mathcal{G}_m will allow us to estimate pivotality after using Hm\mathcal{H}_m to estimate the remaining duration.

Necessary tests for root flips

Lemma 3.2 (Root-test bound). For i≤m<Li \le m < L, conditional on Gm\mathcal{G}_m,

P(Am∣Gm)≤1{Sm≠∅}pm3on {V=0},(6)\mathbb{P}(A_m \mid\mathcal{G}_m) \le\mathbf{1}_{\{S_m \ne\varnothing\}}p_m^3 \qquad\text{on } \{V=0\}, \tag*{(6)}
P(Am∣Gm)≤1{Sm≠∅}pm2on {V=1}.(7)\mathbb{P}(A_m \mid\mathcal{G}_m) \le\mathbf{1}_{\{S_m \ne\varnothing\}}p_m^2 \qquad\text{on } \{V=1\}. \tag*{(7)}

Proof. Call a root xx available at time mm if no collision through index mm, excluding ii, has its literal on xx as the unique root literal true under ww. A collision excludes at most one root, so at least 3−V3-V roots are available. Availability is E\mathcal{E}-measurable.

For an available root xx, the nonroot parts of its test clauses through mm must kill SmS_m on AmA_m. Otherwise, take z∈Smz \in S_m satisfying all these parts and flip only xx in the assignment (w,z)(w,z). Every clause of BmB_m remains satisfied. A clause with no true root literal under ww already has a satisfied nonroot literal, which is unchanged. A clause with a true root literal other than the one on xx keeps that literal. Finally, a clause whose unique true root literal is on xx cannot be a collision, by availability; it is therefore a test clause for xx, and zz satisfies its nonroot part. The flipped assignment also satisfies CiC_i, contradicting AmA_m.

Given Gm\mathcal{G}_m, the test families for distinct roots remain independent collections of random proper 2-clauses, independent of SmS_m. Each family has at most Z≤dZ \le d members, so its probability of killing SmS_m is at most qd(Sm)=pmq_d(S_m)=p_m. On V=0V=0 all three roots are available; on V=1V=1 at least two are. Taking these necessary independent events proves the two inequalities, including the cases pm=0p_m=0 or Sm=∅S_m=\varnothing.

Occupation and squared deletion delays

We continue with ii and CiC_i fixed. Our goal is EDi2=O(1)\mathbb{E}D_i^2=O(1), uniformly in the value of the fixed clause. The root tests bound the chance that a delay is present; the potential will bound how long that delay can continue.

Lemma 4.1 (Conditional occupation estimate). With K=7K=7, for every i≤m<Li \le m < L,

E[∑s=mL−11{Ss≠∅}psβ | Hm]≤Kdβ.(8)\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{s=m}^{L-1}\mathbf{1}_{\{S_s \ne\varnothing\}}p_s^\beta\,\middle|\, \mathcal{H}_m\right] \le Kd^\beta. \tag*{(8)}

Proof. Suppose s+1s+1 is ordinary, a fact known under E\mathcal{E}. Then Ss+1=Ss[Cs+1]S_{s+1}=S_s[C_{s+1}], and Cs+1C_{s+1} is still a uniform proper 3-clause on the nonroots given Hs\mathcal{H}_s. Lemma 2.2 gives

1{Ss≠∅}psβ≤3dβ−1E[Pd(Ss+1)−Pd(Ss)∣Hs]+dβu−3.\mathbf{1}_{\{S_s \ne\varnothing\}}p_s^\beta\le3d^{\beta-1}\mathbb{E}\left[P_d(S_{s+1})-P_d(S_s)\mid\mathcal{H}_s\right]+d^\beta u^{-3}.

Condition on Hm\mathcal{H}_m and sum over such ss. Every potential increment is nonnegative, even at nonordinary steps. Thus, pathwise,

∑m≤s<Ls+1 ordinary(Pd(Ss+1)−Pd(Ss))≤Pd(SL)−Pd(Sm)≤d.\sum_{\substack{m \le s < L\\s+1\ \text{ordinary}}}\left(P_d(S_{s+1})-P_d(S_s)\right)\le P_d(S_L)-P_d(S_m)\le d.

The tower property therefore bounds the contribution of the ordinary steps by 3dβ+Ldβu−33d^\beta+Ld^\beta u^{-3}. There are at most ZZ remaining steps: all indices s+1s+1 in question exceed ii, and every nonordinary index meets a root. Each remaining summand is at most one. Since Z≤d≤dβZ \le d \le d^\beta, u=n−3≥n/2u=n-3 \ge n/2, and n≥6n \ge6, the full sum is bounded by

3dβ+Ldβu−3+Z≤(4+80n2)dβ≤7dβ.3d^\beta+Ld^\beta u^{-3}+Z\le\left(4+\frac{80}{n^2}\right)d^\beta\le7d^\beta.

Corollary 4.2 (Remaining duration). For i≤m<Li\le m<L,

E[∑s=mL−11As | Hm]≤Wm,Wm={min⁡{L,Kdβpm−β},pm>0,L,pm=0.(9)\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{s=m}^{L-1}\mathbf{1}_{A_s}\,\middle|\,\mathcal{H}_m\right]\le W_m,\qquad W_m= \begin{cases} \min\{L,Kd^\beta p_m^{-\beta}\}, & p_m>0,\\ L, & p_m=0. \end{cases} \tag*{(9)}

In particular, WmW_m is measurable with respect to the smaller sigma-field Gm\mathcal{G}_m.

Proof. For s≥ms\ge m, we have ps≥pmp_s\ge p_m, and AsA_s implies Ss≠∅S_s\ne\varnothing. If pm>0p_m>0, divide (8) by pmβp_m^\beta. The count is always at most LL, giving both the minimum and the case pm=0p_m=0. Measurability follows from that of dd and pmp_m.

The two estimates now have the compatible conditioning we need: the duration estimate knows whether AmA_m has occurred, while its upper bound WmW_m does not reveal the test parts. We can therefore multiply it by the independent-test probability from Lemma 3.2.

Proposition 4.3 (Squared delay conditional on the exposure). For every 1≤i≤L1\le i\le L,

E[Di2∣E]≤2K2d31{V=0}+2KLd3/21{V=1}+L21{V≥2}.(10)\mathbb{E}[D_i^2\mid\mathcal{E}] \le2K^2d^3\mathbf{1}_{\{V=0\}}+2KLd^{3/2}\mathbf{1}_{\{V=1\}}+L^2\mathbf{1}_{\{V\ge2\}}. \tag*{(10)}

Proof. For i=Li=L we have Di=0D_i=0. Otherwise, (5) implies

Di2≤2∑m=iL−11Am∑s=mL−11As.D_i^2\le2\sum_{m=i}^{L-1}\mathbf{1}_{A_m}\sum_{s=m}^{L-1}\mathbf{1}_{A_s}.

First condition on Hm\mathcal{H}_m, where AmA_m is known, and apply Corollary 4.2. Then condition on Gm\mathcal{G}_m, where WmW_m is known. Conditioning both estimates down to E\mathcal{E} gives

E[Di2∣E]≤2∑m=iL−1E[WmP(Am∣Gm)∣E].(11)\mathbb{E}[D_i^2\mid\mathcal{E}] \le2\sum_{m=i}^{L-1}\mathbb{E}[W_m\mathbb{P}(A_m\mid\mathcal{G}_m)\mid\mathcal{E}]. \tag*{(11)}

On V=0V=0, Lemma 3.2 bounds the product inside by

Kdβ1{Sm≠∅}pm3−β=Kdβ1{Sm≠∅}pmβ.Kd^\beta\mathbf{1}_{\{S_m\ne\varnothing\}}p_m^{3-\beta} =Kd^\beta\mathbf{1}_{\{S_m\ne\varnothing\}}p_m^\beta.

This remains valid for pm=0p_m=0, because the conditional probability then vanishes. Lemma 4.1 with m=im=i, conditioned further down to E\mathcal{E}, bounds the sum in (11) by 2K2d2β=2K2d32K^2d^{2\beta}=2K^2d^3. On V=1V=1, the same product is at most Kdβpm2−β≤KdβKd^\beta p_m^{2-\beta}\le Kd^\beta when pm>0p_m>0, and is zero when pm=0p_m=0. There are at most LL terms. Finally, on V≥2V\ge2 use Di≤LD_i\le L. The cases are E\mathcal{E}-measurable, proving (10).

Averaging the collision costs

It remains to average the three terms of (10). Although one collision costs a factor LL and two collisions cost L2L^2, their probabilities are correspondingly small.

Lemma 4.4 (Root-incidence moments). Uniformly in n≥6n \ge6, ii, and the fixed value of CiC_i,

Ed3=O(1),E[d3/21{V≥1}]=O(n−1),P(V≥2)=O(n−2).(12)\mathbb{E}d^3 = O(1), \qquad\mathbb{E}[d^{3/2}\mathbf{1}_{\{V\ge1\}}] = O(n^{-1}), \qquad\mathbb{P}(V \ge2) = O(n^{-2}). \tag*{(12)}

Proof. Each of the other L−1L-1 independent clauses meets a specified root with probability 3/n3/n, and contains a specified pair of roots with probability 6/[n(n−1)]6/[n(n-1)]. Union bounds over the three roots and their three pairs give incidence and collision probabilities satisfying

phit≤9n,pcoll≤18n(n−1).p_{\mathrm{hit}} \le\frac{9}{n}, \qquad p_{\mathrm{coll}} \le\frac{18}{n(n-1)}.

The incidence count ZZ is binomial, so

EeZ=(1+(e−1)phit)L−1≤exp⁡(90(e−1)).\mathbb{E}e^Z = (1+(e-1)p_{\mathrm{hit}})^{L-1} \le\exp(90(e-1)).

This uniformly bounded exponential moment gives Ed3=O(1)\mathbb{E}d^3 = O(1).

For each j≠ij \ne i with j≤Lj \le L, let JjJ_j be the event that CjC_j is a collision. Bound 1{V≥1}\mathbf{1}_{\{V\ge1\}} by ∑j≠i1Jj\sum_{j\ne i}\mathbf{1}_{J_j}. Conditional on JjJ_j, the count ZZ is one plus a binomial variable with L−2L-2 trials and success probability phitp_{\mathrm{hit}}; all other clauses retain their original law. Its exponential moment, and hence E[d3/2∣Jj]\mathbb{E}[d^{3/2}\mid J_j], is bounded uniformly. Therefore

E[d3/21{V≥1}]≤∑j≠iP(Jj)E[d3/2∣Jj]≤O(1)(L−1)pcoll=O(n−1).\mathbb{E}[d^{3/2}\mathbf{1}_{\{V\ge1\}}] \le\sum_{j\ne i}\mathbb{P}(J_j)\mathbb{E}[d^{3/2}\mid J_j] \le O(1)(L-1)p_{\mathrm{coll}} = O(n^{-1}).

Finally, independence at different indices gives

P(V≥2)≤E(V2)=(L−12)pcoll2=O(n−2).\mathbb{P}(V\ge2) \le\mathbb{E}\binom{V}{2} = \binom{L-1}{2}p_{\mathrm{coll}}^2 = O(n^{-2}).

□\square

Combining Proposition 4.3 and Lemma 4.4, and using L=10nL=10n, proves EDi2=O(1)\mathbb{E}D_i^2=O(1) in the law conditional on CiC_i, with a constant independent of its value. We may now remove that conditioning. Lemma 3.1 gives

Var⁡(min⁡{Hn,10n})=O(n)(n≥6).(13)\operatorname{Var}(\min\{H_n,10n\}) = O(n) \qquad(n\ge6). \tag*{(13)}

This completes the deletion argument. No information about the location of the satisfiability threshold was needed.

The uncapped hitting time and the lower bound

Removing the cap

For a fixed assignment, each independent clause is satisfied with probability 7/87/8. A union bound over the 2n2^n assignments gives, for every n≥3n\ge3 and integer m≥0m\ge0,

P(Hn>m)=P(Fm is satisfiable)≤2n(7/8)m.(14)\mathbb{P}(H_n>m)=\mathbb{P}(F_m\text{ is satisfiable})\le2^n(7/8)^m. \tag*{(14)}

In particular HnH_n is finite almost surely and has a finite second moment. For n≥6n \ge6, write T=min⁡{Hn,L}T = \min\{H_n,L\} as before. The integer-valued tail-sum formula yields

E(Hn−T)2=∑j=0∞(2j+1)P(Hn>L+j)≤120(2(7/8)10)n.(15)\mathbb{E}(H_n-T)^2=\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}(2j+1)\mathbb{P}(H_n>L+j) \le120\left(2(7/8)^{10}\right)^n. \tag*{(15)}

Here ∑j≥0(2j+1)rj=(1+r)/(1−r)2=120\sum_{j\ge0}(2j+1)r^j=(1+r)/(1-r)^2=120 for r=7/8r=7/8, and 2(7/8)10<12(7/8)^{10}<1. Since

Var⁡(Hn)≤2Var⁡(T)+2Var⁡(Hn−T)≤2Var⁡(T)+2E(Hn−T)2,\operatorname{Var}(H_n)\le2\operatorname{Var}(T)+2\operatorname{Var}(H_n-T)\le2\operatorname{Var}(T)+2\mathbb{E}(H_n-T)^2,

Equations (13) and (15) give the upper bound in Theorem 1.1 for n≥6n\ge6. For 3≤n<63\le n<6, the same tail bound gives EHn2≤120⋅2n\mathbb{E}H_n^2\le120\cdot2^n, so enlarging the absolute constant covers these finitely many sizes.

Wilson's separation theorem

Define the survival function and its integer level locations by

sn(m)=P(Hn>m),rn(p)=min⁡{m≥0:sn(m)≤p}(0<p<1).s_n(m)=\mathbb{P}(H_n>m),\qquad r_n(p)=\min\{m\ge0:s_n(m)\le p\}\quad(0<p<1).

These locations are finite by (14) and positive because sn(0)=1s_n(0)=1. We use the following consequence of Wilson's theorem for the independent proper-clause model with replacement.

Theorem 5.1 (Wilson [7], Corollary 4). Fix 1>p1>p2>01>p_1>p_2>0. There is a constant a(p1,p2)>0a(p_1,p_2)>0 such that, for all sufficiently large nn, if integers m1,m2m_1,m_2 satisfy sn(m1)≥p1s_n(m_1)\ge p_1 and sn(m2)≤p2s_n(m_2)\le p_2, then

m2−m1≥a(p1,p2)n.m_2-m_1\ge a(p_1,p_2)\sqrt{n}.

Take an=rn(3/4)a_n=r_n(3/4) and bn=rn(1/4)b_n=r_n(1/4). Minimality gives sn(an−1)>3/4s_n(a_n-1)>3/4, whereas sn(bn)≤1/4s_n(b_n)\le1/4. Theorem 5.1, applied at an−1a_n-1 and bnb_n, therefore implies bn−an+1≥a(3/4,1/4)nb_n-a_n+1\ge a(3/4,1/4)\sqrt{n}. Thus

bn−an≥c0n(16)b_n-a_n\ge c_0\sqrt{n} \tag*{(16)}

for an absolute c0>0c_0>0 and all sufficiently large nn. Moreover,

P(Hn≤an)≥14,P(Hn≥bn)=sn(bn−1)>14.\mathbb{P}(H_n\le a_n)\ge\frac{1}{4},\qquad\mathbb{P}(H_n\ge b_n)=s_n(b_n-1)>\frac{1}{4}.

Let Hn′H'_n be an independent copy of HnH_n. The two events {Hn≤an,Hn′≥bn}\{H_n\le a_n,H'_n\ge b_n\} and {Hn′≤an,Hn≥bn}\{H'_n\le a_n,H_n\ge b_n\} are disjoint for large nn, each has probability at least 1/161/16, and on each ∣Hn−Hn′∣≥bn−an|H_n-H'_n|\ge b_n-a_n. Consequently,

Var⁡(Hn)=12E(Hn−Hn′)2≥(bn−an)216≥c0216n.\operatorname{Var}(H_n)=\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}(H_n-H'_n)^2\ge\frac{(b_n-a_n)^2}{16}\ge\frac{c_0^2}{16}n.

This completes the proof of Theorem 1.1.

Corollary 5.2 (Fixed central windows). For every fixed 0<η<1/20<\eta<1/2,

rn(η)−rn(1−η)=Θη(n).r_n(\eta)-r_n(1-\eta)=\Theta_\eta(\sqrt{n}).

Proof. The lower bound follows from Theorem 5.1 at rn(1−η)−1r_n(1-\eta)-1 and rn(η)r_n(\eta), absorbing the additive one. For the upper bound, put μn=EHn\mu_n=\mathbb{E}H_n and choose t=(2Cn/η)1/2t=(2Cn/\eta)^{1/2}, with CC from Theorem 1.1. Chebyshev’s inequality gives P(∣Hn−μn∣≥t)≤η/2\mathbb{P}(|H_n-\mu_n|\ge t)\le\eta/2. For every nonnegative integer m≤μn−tm\le\mu_n-t this implies sn(m)≥1−η/2>1−ηs_n(m)\ge1-\eta/2>1-\eta, whereas at m=⌈μn+t⌉m=\lceil\mu_n+t\rceil it implies sn(m)≤η/2<ηs_n(m)\le\eta/2<\eta. Hence rn(1−η)>μn−tr_n(1-\eta)>\mu_n-t and rn(η)≤⌈μn+t⌉r_n(\eta)\le\lceil\mu_n+t\rceil, proving the upper bound. If μn−t<0\mu_n-t<0, the first inequality follows instead from rn(1−η)≥0r_n(1-\eta)\ge0.

The variance bound controls fluctuations around the finite-size mean EHn\mathbb{E}H_n. Neither the proof nor Corollary 5.2 requires a limiting value of EHn/n\mathbb{E}H_n/n or a limiting distribution for the centered hitting time.

References

  1. [1]S. Boucheron, O. Bousquet, G. Lugosi, and P. Massart. Moment inequalities for functions of independent random variables. The Annals of Probability, 33(2):514–560, 2005.DOI
  2. [2]G. Carenini. A polynomial scaling window for random k-SAT and a proof of the satisfiability conjecture. Technical Report TR26-229, Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity, 2026. Published 5 October 2026. https://eccc.weizmann.ac.il/report/2026/229/.eccc.weizmann.ac.il/report/2026/229
  3. [3]G. Carenini. The scaling window of random k-SAT. Technical Report TR26-145, Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity, 2026.arxiv.org/abs/2609.26222
  4. [4]B. Efron and C. Stein. The jackknife estimate of variance. The Annals of Statistics, 9(3):586–596, 1981.DOI
  5. [5]E. Friedgut. Sharp thresholds of graph properties, and the k-SAT problem. Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 12(4):1017–1054, 1999. With an appendix by Jean Bourgain.DOI
  6. [6]OpenAI. Variance of the Random k-SAT Hitting Time. OpenAI Math Release preprint OAI:Variance-of-the-Random-k-SAT-Hitting-Time-September-27-2026, 2026.
  7. [7]D. B. Wilson. On the critical exponents of random k-SAT. Random Structures & Algorithms, 21(2):182–195, 2002.DOI

Paper details

vlnc:W_abp63c58
v1 · latestHistory (1)

published · Fresh — published within the last 30 days

Usage

views · 13

downloads · 0

A view counts once per browser per day, a download each time the PDF is requested.

LicenseRef-OpenAI-public

DOI · 10.83295/pyk9-v9tn

Original source

  • Mathematics

unreleased internal OpenAI model · View statement →

Looking for related papers…
Contents