Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pseudo-Boolean model counting involves computing the number of satisfying assignments of a given pseudo-Boolean (PB) formula. In recent years, PB model counting has seen increased interest partly owing to the succinctness of PB formulas over typical propositional Boolean formulas in conjunctive normal form (CNF) at describing problem constraints. In particular, the research community has developed tools to tackle exact PB model counting. These recently developed counters follow one of the two existing major designs for model counters, namely the bottom-up model counter design. A natural question would be whether the other major design, the top-down model counter paradigm, would be effective at PB model counting, especially when the top-down design offered superior performance in CNF model counting literature. In this work, we investigate the aforementioned top-down design for PB model counting and introduce the first exact top-down PB model counter, PBMC. PBMC is a top-down search-based counter for PB formulas, with a new variable decision heuristic that considers variable coefficients. Through our evaluations, we highlight the superior performance of PBMC at PB model counting compared to the existing state-of-the-art counters PBCount, PBCounter, and Ganak. In particular, PBMC could count for 1849 instances while the next-best competing method, PBCount, could only count for 1773 instances, demonstrating the potential of a top-down PB counter design.
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 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".