Scalable Counting of Minimal Trap Spaces and Fixed Points in Boolean Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Boolean Networks (BNs) serve as a fundamental modeling framework for capturing complex dynamical systems across various domains, including systems biology, computational logic, and artificial intelligence. A crucial property of BNs is the presence of trap spaces - subspaces of the state space that, once entered, cannot be exited. Minimal trap spaces, in particular, play a significant role in analyzing the long-term behavior of BNs, making their efficient enumeration and counting essential. The fixed points in BNs are a special case of minimal trap spaces. In this work, we formulate several meaningful counting problems related to minimal trap spaces and fixed points in BNs. These problems provide valuable insights both within BN theory (e.g., in probabilistic reasoning and dynamical analysis) and in broader application areas, including systems biology, abstract argumentation, and logic programming. To address these computational challenges, we propose novel methods based on approximate answer set counting, leveraging techniques from answer set programming. Our approach efficiently approximates the number of minimal trap spaces and the number of fixed points without requiring exhaustive enumeration, making it particularly well-suited for large-scale BNs. Our experimental evaluation on an extensive and diverse set of benchmark instances shows that our methods significantly improve the feasibility of counting minimal trap spaces and fixed points, paving the way for new applications in BN analysis and beyond.
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 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".