pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.20288 · v1 · pith:3GVEPKDFnew · submitted 2026-05-19 · 🪐 quant-ph

Mechanism of Efficacy in QAOA for Random k-SAT: From Adiabatic Manifold to Sublinear Parameter Optimization

Mingyou Wu , Hanwu Chen This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 02:23 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords QAOAadiabatic manifoldrandom k-SATparameter optimizationNISQquantum optimizationadiabatic correspondencevariational algorithms
0
0 comments X

The pith

A formal correspondence between adiabatic evolution and QAOA parameters yields performance guarantees for random k-SAT and reveals a persistent low-dimensional manifold that supports sublinear optimization in shallow circuits.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes a direct link between adiabatic state transfer and the QAOA variational ansatz inside a universal-mixer k-local search framework for random k-SAT. This link supplies rigorous guarantees that the algorithm succeeds on instances whose clause density scales as O(n to the 1 plus epsilon) when the circuit depth reaches order n squared. For the shallower depths typical of near-term hardware, the optimal parameters do not spread out randomly; instead they remain confined to a smooth low-dimensional surface whose shape is set by the variational suppression of adiabatic leakage. The authors use this surface to define a new parameterization called SAMP that replaces unstructured high-dimensional search with guided refinement along the manifold.

Core claim

Within the universal-mixer k-local search framework, a formal correspondence between adiabatic state transfer and the QAOA ansatz produces a rigorous performance guarantee for random k-SAT instances at clause density m equal to O of n to the 1 plus epsilon and circuit depth Theta of n squared. In the NISQ regime of depth p equal to O of n the optimal parameters remain confined to a structured low-dimensional region identified as the smooth adiabatic manifold; this manifold arises from variational suppression of adiabatic leakage and persists across depths, allowing the smooth adiabatic-manifold parameterization strategy to convert parameter search into a guided refinement process that scales

What carries the argument

The smooth adiabatic manifold, the low-dimensional structured region in QAOA parameter space that persists across circuit depths because the variational principle suppresses adiabatic leakage.

If this is right

  • Random k-SAT instances with clause density O(n to the 1 plus epsilon) admit a rigorous performance guarantee when QAOA depth reaches order n squared.
  • In shallow circuits of depth O(n) the optimal QAOA parameters remain structured rather than becoming stochastic.
  • The SAMP parameterization reduces parameter optimization from high-dimensional unstructured search to guided refinement along the manifold.
  • SAMP supplies robust zero-cost initialization for deeper QAOA circuits on the same problem class.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the manifold structure is driven by leakage suppression, similar low-dimensional surfaces may appear in QAOA applied to other constraint-satisfaction problems beyond k-SAT.
  • Mapping the manifold explicitly could yield closed-form or analytic initializations that further reduce the cost of variational quantum algorithms on combinatorial problems.
  • The persistence of the manifold across depths suggests that hybrid classical-quantum refinement loops could be designed to track the surface dynamically rather than restarting search at each depth.

Load-bearing premise

The formal correspondence between adiabatic state transfer and the QAOA ansatz inside the universal-mixer k-local search framework holds for the random k-SAT instances under study.

What would settle it

Numerical optimization of QAOA parameters on random 3-SAT instances at depth p proportional to n that shows the optimal points scattering across the full high-dimensional parameter space instead of remaining confined to a low-dimensional smooth surface.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.20288 by Hanwu Chen, Mingyou Wu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Distribution of measurement counts for the target [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Distribution of optimal ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Performance comparison of the FOURIER heuristic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The distribution of the optimized parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) is a leading candidate for demonstrating quantum advantage on near-term devices, yet the physical origins of its efficacy remain poorly understood. In this work, we study QAOA for random $k$-SAT problems within a universal-mixer $k$-local search framework, establishing a formal correspondence between adiabatic state transfer and the QAOA ansatz. This correspondence yields a rigorous performance guarantee for random instances with clause density $m=O(n^{1+\epsilon})$ and circuit depth $\Theta(n^2)$. We further investigate the NISQ regime with shallow circuits of depth $p=O(n)$. Surprisingly, the optimal parameters do not become stochastic under depth compression, but instead remain confined to a structured low-dimensional region, which we identify as a smooth adiabatic manifold. Numerical evidence indicates that this manifold persists across different circuit depths and arises from the variational suppression of adiabatic leakage. Based on this structure, we propose the smooth adiabatic-manifold parameterization (SAMP) strategy, transforming parameter optimization from an unstructured high-dimensional search into a guided refinement process. Numerical experiments on random 3-SAT instances show that SAMP achieves sublinear optimization scaling with circuit depth while providing robust zero-cost initialization for deep circuits.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies QAOA for random k-SAT in a universal-mixer k-local search framework. It establishes a formal correspondence between adiabatic state transfer and the QAOA ansatz that is asserted to yield a rigorous performance guarantee for random instances with clause density m=O(n^{1+ε}) and circuit depth Θ(n²). For the NISQ regime with shallow circuits (p=O(n)), optimal parameters are shown to remain confined to a smooth adiabatic manifold arising from variational suppression of adiabatic leakage. The authors propose the smooth adiabatic-manifold parameterization (SAMP) to convert high-dimensional parameter search into guided refinement and report numerical experiments on random 3-SAT instances demonstrating sublinear optimization scaling with circuit depth together with robust zero-cost initialization for deeper circuits.

Significance. If the formal correspondence and derived performance guarantee are rigorously established, the work would provide a valuable theoretical explanation for QAOA efficacy on combinatorial problems by linking it directly to adiabatic evolution. The identification of the persistent adiabatic manifold and the resulting SAMP strategy address a practical bottleneck in variational optimization, potentially enabling more efficient parameter tuning on near-term hardware. The numerical demonstration of sublinear scaling is a concrete strength that, if reproducible across broader instance classes, would have immediate implications for QAOA deployment.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and derivation of performance guarantee] Abstract and the section deriving the performance guarantee: the claim that the formal correspondence between adiabatic state transfer and the QAOA ansatz 'yields a rigorous performance guarantee' for m=O(n^{1+ε}) and depth Θ(n²) is load-bearing. It is not evident whether the mapping preserves the adiabatic path, spectral gap, and leakage bounds exactly (or with explicit error control) under the stated clause-density regime for finite n, or whether the equivalence holds only asymptotically or under additional unstated assumptions on the mixer Hamiltonian. Explicit derivation of the preserved quantities and any finite-n error bounds is required to substantiate the guarantee.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction or regime definitions] The distinction between the deep-circuit regime (depth Θ(n²)) and the shallow NISQ regime (p=O(n)) is clear in the abstract but would benefit from an explicit statement of how the manifold structure transitions between them.
  2. [Numerical experiments] Numerical experiments section: additional details on the range of n, number of random instances per data point, and statistical error bars on the reported sublinear scaling would strengthen the empirical support for SAMP.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive feedback on the manuscript. We address the single major comment below regarding the rigor and explicitness of the performance guarantee. We have revised the manuscript to improve clarity on the preserved quantities and finite-n error bounds.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract and the section deriving the performance guarantee: the claim that the formal correspondence between adiabatic state transfer and the QAOA ansatz 'yields a rigorous performance guarantee' for m=O(n^{1+ε}) and depth Θ(n²) is load-bearing. It is not evident whether the mapping preserves the adiabatic path, spectral gap, and leakage bounds exactly (or with explicit error control) under the stated clause-density regime for finite n, or whether the equivalence holds only asymptotically or under additional unstated assumptions on the mixer Hamiltonian. Explicit derivation of the preserved quantities and any finite-n error bounds is required to substantiate the guarantee.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this observation. The formal correspondence is constructed in Section 3 by embedding the QAOA ansatz as a discretized approximation to the adiabatic schedule via Trotterization of the time-dependent Hamiltonian H(t) = (1-s(t))H_mixer + s(t)H_problem. The adiabatic path is preserved exactly by the choice of linear schedule s(t), while the spectral gap and leakage bounds are controlled via the adiabatic theorem with an additive error term O(1/p) arising from the finite depth p = Θ(n²). This error is sufficient to guarantee the stated performance for clause density m = O(n^{1+ε}) at finite n. No unstated assumptions are placed on the mixer beyond the standard k-local universal mixer. To address the request for explicitness, we have added a new appendix deriving the finite-n error bounds and have updated the abstract and Section 3 to state the preserved quantities and error controls explicitly. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation chain is self-contained

full rationale

The paper establishes a formal correspondence between adiabatic state transfer and the QAOA ansatz in the universal-mixer k-local search framework, then uses this to derive a performance guarantee for m=O(n^{1+ε}) and depth Θ(n²). This is presented as an independent derivation step rather than a self-definition or fitted input. The adiabatic manifold is identified via numerical evidence of variational leakage suppression, and SAMP is proposed as a parameterization strategy based on that observed structure. Experiments then validate sublinear scaling empirically. No equations reduce to inputs by construction, no load-bearing self-citations are invoked for uniqueness theorems, and no known results are merely renamed. The central claims retain independent content from the correspondence, variational analysis, and numerical validation, making the chain self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the universal-mixer k-local search framework and the adiabatic-QAOA correspondence as foundational assumptions; no free parameters or invented entities are explicitly introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Formal correspondence between adiabatic state transfer and QAOA ansatz
    Invoked to derive performance guarantees and manifold structure for random k-SAT.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5752 in / 1245 out tokens · 38562 ms · 2026-05-21T02:23:55.348251+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    These results reveal a near-linear relationship withl−T u, and notably, the final three values closely match the total costs observed forn= 4, 8, and 16

    As the indicatorT u decreases—effectively dou- bling the degrees of freedom in each iteration—the cu- mulative optimization costs are 40.7, 123.1, 294.7, 448.6, and 524.9. These results reveal a near-linear relationship withl−T u, and notably, the final three values closely match the total costs observed forn= 4, 8, and 16. This consistency indicates that...

    work page

  2. [2]

    The associated probability mass function is given by µ′(x) =µ(x)−µ(x−1), which specifies the probability of generating a particular instancex

    Average-case complexity theory and random k-SAT problem In Levin’s framework of average-case complexity the- ory [19], arandom problemis represented by a pair (µ, R), whereR⊂N×Ndenotes the binary relation over instance-witness pairs (x, y), andµ:N→[0,1] is the cumulative distribution function over instances. The associated probability mass function is giv...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Problem Hamiltonian of k-SAT instances In this paper, we use multi-controlled phase gates to implement the evolution operator of the problem Hamil- tonian associated with a Boolean formula. Consider a Boolean conjunction α= (¬)x a1 ∧(¬)x a2 ∧ · · · ∧(¬)x ak , whose characteristic function satisfiesf α(x) = 1 if and only if the conjunction is satisfied, an...

    work page

  4. [4]

    [20], and adapting it to the universal-mixer setting considered in this work

    Framework and basic properties ofk-local quantum search We begin by reviewing the circuit construction of thek-local quantum search introduced in Ref. [20], and adapting it to the universal-mixer setting considered in this work. This subsection also collects several prelimi- nary results that will be used throughout the subsequent analysis. a. Circuit for...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Askincreases, the objective func- tion of thek-local search evolves gradually

    Proof of efficiency of universal-mixer variant on search problems This subsection analyzes the efficiency of the universal- mixerk-local quantum search in the regime of small con- stantk, extending the result established in Lemma B.2 for the 1-local case. Askincreases, the objective func- tion of thek-local search evolves gradually. To quantify this chang...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Although this structured problem is relatively simple, it possesses a key property that al- lows the analysis to be extended to random max-k- SSAT instances

    Proof of efficiency of universal-mixer variant on max-k-SSAT In the previous subsection, we established that the universal-mixer variant inherits the efficiency of thek- local quantum search algorithm on the idealizedk-local search problem. Although this structured problem is relatively simple, it possesses a key property that al- lows the analysis to be ...

    work page

  7. [7]

    k-local quantum search

    Proof of efficiency of adiabatic variant on max-k-SSAT Having established the efficiency of the universal-mixer k-local quantum search algorithm on random max-k- SSAT instances, we now turn to its adiabatic variant. Building upon the results of the previous subsection, the analysis of the adiabatic case largely follows the discus- sion in Ref. [20]. For c...

    work page

  8. [8]

    FOURIER heuristic The FOURIER method starts from a shallow QAOA circuit with randomly initialized parameters. However, its core idea differs in how information is carried across depths: instead of directly propagating optimized pa- rameters, it maintains and updates their underlying fre- quency components. Specifically, QAOA parameters are represented as ...

    work page

  9. [9]

    TQA initialization The TQA-based initialization aims to estimate the sta- tistical optimum ( ¯θ∗,¯ρ∗) via instance-based parameter prediction. This strategy proves effective—particularly under our normalized Hamiltonian framework—as it sig- nificantly reduces the cost of such prediction by identify- ing a promising region with favorable gradient direction...

    work page 2000

  10. [10]

    Additional results for adiabatic manifold we conduct additional simulations on a broader set of random instances generated fromF s(12, m,3), as pre- sented in Figure A.3. These results visualize the proba- bility of measuring the target (satisfying) state as a func- tion off γ andf β, with each probability estimated from 10,000 measurement shots and repre...

    work page

  11. [11]

    Experiment on max-cut In this supplementary simulation, both parameter- setting algorithms proposed in this paper are applied to instances of the Max-Cut problem on random graphs gen- erated using the Erd˝ os–R´ enyi model. Each random graph has an edge density of 0.5, meaning that for a graph with 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ...

    work page

  12. [12]

    P. W. Shor, Algorithms for quantum computation: Dis- crete logarithms and factoring, inProceedings 35th An- nual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (1994) pp. 124–134

    work page 1994

  13. [13]

    L. K. Grover, Quantum mechanics helps in searching for a needle in a haystack, Physical Review Letters79, 325 (1997)

    work page 1997

  14. [14]

    Preskill, Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    work page 2018

  15. [15]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush,et al., Varia- tional quantum algorithms, Nature Reviews Physics3, 625 (2021)

    work page 2021

  16. [16]

    Peruzzo, J

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’Brien, A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor, Nature Communications5, 4213 (2014). 31

    work page 2014

  17. [17]

    Classification with Quantum Neural Networks on Near Term Processors

    E. Farhi and H. Neven, Classification with quantum neu- ral networks on near term processors, arXiv preprint (2018), arXiv:1802.06002

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  18. [18]

    A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A quan- tum approximate optimization algorithm (2014), arXiv:1411.4028 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  19. [19]

    Quantum approximate optimization is computationally universal

    S. Lloyd, Quantum approximate optimization is com- putationally universal, arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.11075 (2018)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  20. [20]

    S. e. a. Hadfield, From the quantum approximate opti- mization algorithm to a quantum alternating operator ansatz, Algorithms (2019)

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    Jiang, E

    Z. Jiang, E. G. Rieffel, and Z. Wang, Near-optimal quan- tum circuit for Grover’s unstructured search using a transverse field, Physical Review A95, 062317 (2017)

    work page 2017

  22. [22]

    M. E. S. Morales and J. Biamonte, Connecting qaoa to quantum search, Physical Review A102, 062408 (2020)

    work page 2020

  23. [23]

    M. P. Harrigan, K. J. Sung, M. Neeley, K. J. Satzinger, F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, S. Boixo,et al., Quantum approximate optimization of non-planar graph problems on a planar superconducting processor, Nature Physics17, 332 (2021)

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Zhou, S.-T

    L. Zhou, S.-T. Wang, S. Choi, H. Pichler, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum approximate optimization algorithm: Performance, mechanism, and implementation on near- term devices, Physical Review X10, 021067 (2020)

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    Wurtz and D

    J. Wurtz and D. Lykov, Fixed-angle conjectures for the quantum approximate optimization algorithm on regular maxcut graphs, Physical Review A104, 052419 (2021)

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    The Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm Needs to See the Whole Graph: A Typical Case, April 2020

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, and N. La- pan, The quantum approximate optimization algorithm and the sherrington-kirkpatrick model, arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.09002 (2020)

    work page arXiv 2004

  27. [27]

    Bravyi, A

    S. Bravyi, A. Kliesch, R. Koenig, and E. Tang, Obstacles to state preparation and optimization, Physical Review Letters125, 260505 (2020)

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    Lykov and L

    I. Lykov and L. Zhou, Obstacles to proving quantum ad- vantage with the quantum approximate optimization al- gorithm, PRX Quantum4, 030335 (2023)

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    Basso, E

    J. Basso, E. Farhi, K. Marwaha, and B. Villalonga, The quantum approximate optimization algorithm at high depth for maxcut on large-girth regular graphs and the sherrington-kirkpatrick model, in17th Conference on the Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication and Cryptography (TQC 2022), Leibniz International Pro- ceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Vol. ...

    work page 2022

  30. [30]

    L. A. Levin, Average case complete problems, SIAM Journal on Computing15, 285 (1986)

    work page 1986

  31. [31]

    Wu, Efficiency of k-local quantum search and its adi- abatic variant on random k-sat (2024), arXiv:2403.03237 [quant-ph]

    M. Wu, Efficiency of k-local quantum search and its adi- abatic variant on random k-sat (2024), arXiv:2403.03237 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Bab- bush, and H. Neven, Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes, Nature Communications9, 4812 (2018)

    work page 2018

  33. [33]

    S. Wang, S. Muraleedharan, and D. A. Lidar, Noise- induced barren plateaus in variational quantum algo- rithms, Nature Communications12, 6961 (2021)

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    F. G. S. L. Brandao, M. Broughton, E. Farhi, S. Gut- mann, and H. Neven, For fixed control parameters the quantum approximate optimization algorithm’s objective function value concentrates for typical instances, arXiv preprint (2018), arXiv:1812.04170 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  35. [35]

    S. H. Sack and M. Serbyn, Quantum annealing initializa- tion of the quantum approximate optimization algorithm, Quantum5, 491 (2021)

    work page 2021

  36. [36]

    J. Sud, S. Hadfield, E. Rieffel, N. Tubman, and T. Hogg, Parameter-setting heuristic for the quantum alternating operator ansatz, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 023171 (2024)

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    D. J. Egger, J. Mareˇ cek, and S. Woerner, Warm-starting quantum optimization, Quantum5, 479 (2021)

    work page 2021

  38. [38]

    R. Tate, M. Farhadi, C. Herold,et al., Bridging classical and quantum with sdp-initialized warm-starts for qaoa, ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing4, 1 (2023)

    work page 2023

  39. [39]

    Z. Wang, S. Hadfield, Z. Jiang, and E. G. Rieffel, Quan- tum approximate optimization algorithm for maxcut: A fermionic view, Physical Review A97, 022304 (2018)

    work page 2018

  40. [40]

    Z. Wang, S. Hadfield, Z. Jiang, and E. G. Rieffel, Concen- tration of qaoa parameters for max-cut on regular graphs, PRX Quantum3, 030346 (2022)

    work page 2022

  41. [41]

    S. A. Cook, The complexity of theorem–proving proce- dures, inProceedings of the Third Annual ACM Sympo- sium on Theory of Computing(1971) pp. 151–158

    work page 1971

  42. [42]

    R. M. Karp, Reducibility among combinatorial prob- lems, inComplexity of Computer Computations, edited by R. E. Miller and J. W. Thatcher (Springer, Boston, MA, 1972) pp. 85–103

    work page 1972

  43. [43]

    Achlioptas and C

    D. Achlioptas and C. Moore, Randomk-sat: Two mo- ments suffice to cross a sharp threshold, SIAM Journal on Computing36, 740 (2006)

    work page 2006

  44. [44]

    Roland and N

    J. Roland and N. J. Cerf, Quantum search by local adi- abatic evolution, Physical Revie A65, 042308 (2002)

    work page 2002

  45. [45]

    Livne, All natural np-complete problems have average-case complete versions, Computational Com- plexity19, 477 (2010)

    N. Livne, All natural np-complete problems have average-case complete versions, Computational Com- plexity19, 477 (2010)

    work page 2010

  46. [46]

    Barenco, C

    A. Barenco, C. H. Bennett, R. Cleve, D. P. DiVincenzo, N. Margolus, P. Shor, T. Sleator, J. A. Smolin, and H. Weinfurter, Elementary gates for quantum computa- tion, Physical Review A52, 3457 (1995)

    work page 1995

  47. [47]

    Achlioptas and C

    D. Achlioptas and C. Moore, Random k-sat: Two mo- ments suffice to cross a sharp threshold, SIAM Journal on Computing36, 740 (2006)

    work page 2006

  48. [48]

    L. M. Kirousis, E. Kranakis, D. Krizanc, and Y. C. Sta- matiou, Approximating the unsatisfiability threshold of random formulas, Random Structures & Algorithms12, 253 (1998)

    work page 1998

  49. [49]

    Coja-Oghlan and K

    A. Coja-Oghlan and K. Panagiotou, The asymptotic k-SAT threshold, Advances in Mathematics288, 985 (2016)

    work page 2016