SAT Requires Exhaustive Search

3 months ago 5

Abstract

In this paper, we identify the distinction between non-brute-force computation and brute-force computation as the most fundamental problem in computer science. Subsequently, we prove, by the diagonalization method, that constructed self-referential CSPs cannot be solved by non-brute-force computation, which is stronger than P ≠ NP. This constructive method for proving impossibility results is very different (and missing) from existing approaches in computational complexity theory, but aligns with Gödel’s technique for proving logical impossibility. Just as Gödel showed that proving formal unprovability is feasible in mathematics, our results show that proving computational hardness is not hard in mathematics. Specifically, proving lower bounds for many problems, such as 3-SAT, can be challenging because these problems have various effective strategies available to avoid exhaustive search. However, for self-referential examples that are extremely hard, exhaustive search becomes unavoidable, making its necessity easier to prove. Consequently, it renders the separation between non-brute-force computation and brute-force computation much simpler than that between P and NP. Finally, our results are akin to Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, as they reveal the limits of reasoning and highlight the intrinsic distinction between syntax and semantics.

Similar content being viewed by others

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  1. Xu K, Li W. Exact phase transitions in random constraint satisfaction problems. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 2000, 12(1): 93–103

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Xu K, Boussemart F, Hemery F, Lecoutre C. A simple model to generate hard satisfiable instances. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2005, 337–342

    Google Scholar 

  3. Xu K, Li W. Many hard examples in exact phase transitions. Theoretical Computer Science, 2006, 355(3): 291–302

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Xu K, Boussemart F, Hemery F, Lecoutre C. Random constraint satisfaction: easy generation of hard (satisfiable) instances. Artificial Intelligence, 2007, 171(8–9): 514–534

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Liu T, Lin X, Wang C, Su K, Xu K. Large hinge width on sparse random hypergraphs. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2011, 611–616

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cai S, Su K, Sattar A. Local search with edge weighting and configuration checking heuristics for minimum vertex cover. Artificial Intelligence, 2011, 175(9–10): 1672–1696

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhao C, Zheng Z. Threshold behaviors of a random constraint satisfaction problem with exact phase transitions. Information Processing Letters, 2011, 111(20): 985–988

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Saitta L, Giordana A, Cornuejols A. Phase Transitions in Machine Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhao C, Zhang P, Zheng Z, Xu K. Analytical and belief-propagation studies of random constraint satisfaction problems with growing domains. Physical Review E, 2012, 85(1): 016106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fan Y, Shen J, Xu K. A general model and thresholds for random constraint satisfaction problems. Artificial Intelligence, 2012, 193: 1–17

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Lecoutre C. Constraint Networks: Targeting Simplicity for Techniques and Algorithms. John Wiley & Sons, 2013

    Google Scholar 

  12. Huang P, Yin M. An upper (lower) bound for Max (Min) CSP. Science China Information Sciences, 2014, 57(7): 1–9

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Xu W, Zhang P, Liu T, Gong F. The solution space structure of random constraint satisfaction problems with growing domains. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2015, 2015: P12006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Liu T, Wang C, Xu K. Large hypertree width for sparse random hypergraphs. Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, 2015, 29(3): 531–540

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Knuth D E. The Art of Computer Programming. Addison-Wesley Professional, 2015

    Google Scholar 

  16. Xu W, Gong F. Performances of pure random walk algorithms on constraint satisfaction problems with growing domains. Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, 2016, 32(1): 51–66

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Fang Z, Li C M, Xu K. An exact algorithm based on MaxSAT reasoning for the maximum weight clique problem. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 2016, 55(1): 799–833

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Wang X F, Xu D Y. Convergence of the belief propagation algorithm for RB model instances. Journal of Software, 2016, 27(11): 2712–2724

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Li C M, Fang Z, Jiang H, Xu K. Incremental upper bound for the maximum clique problem. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 2018, 30(1): 137–153

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Karalias N, Loukas A. Erdős goes neural: an unsupervised learning framework for combinatorial optimization on graphs. In: Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. 2020, 6659–6672

    Google Scholar 

  21. Zhou G, Xu W. Super solutions of the model RB. Frontiers of Computer Science, 2022, 16(6): 166406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gödel K. Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, 1931, 38(1): 173–198

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Calabro C, Impagliazzo R, Paturi R. The complexity of satisfiability of small depth circuits. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Parameterized and Exact Computation. 2009, 75–85

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Turing A M. On computable numbers, with an application to the entscheidungsproblem. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 1937, S2–42(1): 230–265

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Walsh T. SAT v CSP. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming. 2000, 441–456

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cook S A. The complexity of theorem-proving procedures. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. 1971, 151–158

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State Key Laboratory of Complex and Critical Software Environment, Beihang University, Beijing, 100191, China

    Ke Xu

  2. Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Beijing Technology and Business University, Beijing, 100048, China

    Guangyan Zhou

Authors

  1. Ke Xu
  2. Guangyan Zhou

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ke Xu.

Ethics declarations

Ke XU is Deputy Editors-in-Chief of the journal and a co-author of this article. To minimize bias, he was excluded from all editorial decision-making related to the acceptance of this article for publication. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Ke XU received the BE, ME, and PhD degrees from Beihang University, China in 1993, 1996, and 2000, respectively. He is currently a professor of computer science at Beihang University, China. His research interests include phase transitions in computational complexity, algorithm design, logic, graph neural networks, and crowd intelligence.

Guangyan ZHOU received the PhD degree from Beihang University, China in 2015. She is currently an associate professor of mathematics at Beijing Technology and Business University, China. Her research interests include phase transitions in computational complexity, combinatorial optimization, and probabilistic analysis.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xu, K., Zhou, G. SAT requires exhaustive search. Front. Comput. Sci. 19, 1912405 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11704-025-50231-4

Download citation

  • Received: 07 March 2025

  • Accepted: 18 May 2025

  • Published: 04 July 2025

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11704-025-50231-4

Keywords

Read Entire Article