Learning Branching Heuristics for Propositional Model Counting
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Propositional model counting, or #SAT, is the problem of computing the number of satisfying assignments of a Boolean formula. Many problems from different application areas, including many discrete probabilistic inference problems, can be translated into model counting problems to be solved by #SAT solvers. Exact #SAT solvers, however, are often not scalable to industrial size instances. In this paper, we present Neuro#, an approach for learning branching heuristics to improve the performance of exact #SAT solvers on instances from a given family of problems. We experimentally show that our method reduces the step count on similarly distributed held-out instances and generalizes to much larger instances from the same problem family. It is able to achieve these results on a number of different problem families having very different structures. In addition to step count improvements, Neuro# can also achieve orders of magnitude wall-clock speedups over the vanilla solver on larger instances in some problem families, despite the runtime overhead of querying the model.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it