Engineering an Efficient Probabilistic Exact Model Counter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Given a formula F , the problem of model counting, also known as #SAT, is to compute the number of satisfying assignments of F . While model counting has emerged as a crucial primitive in diverse domains from quantitative information flow analysis to neural network verification, scalability remains a fundamental challenge despite advances in both exact and approximate counting techniques. We present $$\textsf{Ganak2}$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>Ganak</mml:mi> <mml:mn>2</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> , a novel framework that achieves substantial performance improvements through three key technical innovations: (1) refined residual formula processing incorporating SAT-specific techniques while maintaining seamless state transitions, (2) dual independent set framework maintaining distinct SAT-eligibility and decision sets, and (3) chronological backtracking specifically adapted to model counting. Our empirical evaluation on 1600 previous model counting competition instances demonstrates that $$\textsf{Ganak2}$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>Ganak</mml:mi> <mml:mn>2</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> successfully computes counts for 1121 instances within the one hour time limit, compared to 1032 instances by the prior state of the art approach, representing an 8.7% improvement. This progress is especially remarkable considering the extensive development and refinement of model counting tools over the years, driven by yearly competitive evaluation in the field.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".