Auditable Algorithms for Approximate Model Counting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem of model counting, i.e., counting satisfying assignments of a Boolean formula, is a fundamental problem in computer science, with diverse applications. Given #P-hardness of the problem, many algorithms have been developed over the years to provide an approximate model count. Recently, building on the practical success of SAT-solvers used as NP oracles, the focus has shifted from theory to practical implementations of such algorithms. This has brought to focus new challenges. In this paper, we consider one such challenge – that of auditable deterministic approximate model counters wherein a counter should also generate a certificate, which allows a user (often with limited computational power) to independently audit whether the count returned by an invocation of the algorithm is indeed within the promised bounds. We start by examining a celebrated approximate model counting algorithm due to Stockmeyer that uses polynomially many calls to a \Sigma^2_P oracle, and show that it can be audited via a \Pi^2_P formula on (n^2 log^2 n) variables, where n is the number of variables in the original formula. Since n is often large (10’s to 100’s of thousands) for typical instances, we ask if the count of variables in the certificate formula can be reduced – a critical question towards potential implementation. We show that this improvement in certification can be achieved with a tradeoff in the counting algorithm’s complexity. Specifically, we develop new deterministic approximate model counting algorithms that invoke a \Sigma^3_P oracle, but can be certified using a \Pi^2_P formula on fewer variables: our final algorithm uses just (n log n) variables. Our study demonstrates that one can simplify certificate checking significantly if we allow the counting algorithm to access a slightly more powerful oracle. We believe this shows for the first time how the audit complexity can be traded for the complexity of approximate counting.
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 | 0.004 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".