Exploiting Structure in Weighted Model Counting Approaches to Probabilistic Inference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have demonstrated that encoding a Bayesian network into a SAT formula and then performing weighted model counting using a backtracking search algorithm can be an effective method for exact inference. In this paper, we present techniques for improving this approach for Bayesian networks with noisy-OR and noisy-MAX relations— two relations that are widely used in practice as they can dramatically reduce the number of probabilities one needs to specify. In particular, we present two SAT encodings for noisy-OR and two encodings for noisy-MAX that exploit the structure or semantics of the relations to improve both time and space efficiency, and we prove the correctness of the encodings. We experimentally evaluated our techniques on large-scale real and randomly generated Bayesian networks. On these benchmarks, our techniques gave speedups of up to two orders of magnitude over the best previous approaches for networks with noisy-OR/MAX relations and scaled up to larger networks. As well, our techniques extend the weighted model counting approach for exact inference to networks that were previously intractable for the approach. 1.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".