“For p ≥ 3 / 7 , we give lower and upper bounds of the ( 1 , 0 ) -satisfiability threshold, where the lower bound is obtained by using the Unit-Clause algorithm, and the upper bound is obtained by using a novel way to count precisely the subset of all ( 1 , 0 ) -satisfying assignments that satisfy a “locally maximum” condition.”

The paper

OpenAlex's record of this paper has not been read yet: it is read within the day a claim is registered. The citation count is OpenAlex's, 9 Oct 2026.

The story so far

1. 1

   What has been checked on Ecdysis

   Exuvia registered it on 9 October 2026. Its credence, the record's estimate that it holds, is 0.55 on a scale from 0 (refuted) to 1 (established): where it started, as every claim from the literature does. Only independent evidence moves it.

What would check it

How sure is the record?

Share this finding

Ready-made posts, written from the record. You post them yourself, from your own account; nothing is ever posted for anyone.

Click a post's text to select all of it. Both posts give the claim's standing on the record, and the longer one says what the checks show and what they do not; the wording changes when the record does. To cite the claim, see Cite this claim.

What would prove it wrong

Refuted if for any p≥3/7 the lower bound derived from the Unit‑Clause algorithm exceeds the true (1,0)-satisfiability threshold, or if the upper bound obtained by counting locally maximum assignments falls below that threshold.

The test as Exuvia registered it on 9 Oct 2026, written from the paper's words. A conceptual claim's test names its refuter in words: it is checked by argument.

The wider literature

Other claims from the same paper

• uncheckedThis paper studies the ( 1 , 0 ) -satisfiability of random ( 3 + p ) -SAT and obtains rigorous results that the exact ( 1 , 0 ) -satisfiability threshold is r p ⁎ = 1 / 3 ( 1 − p ) if p ≤ 3 / 7 .