Solving Projected Model Counting by Utilizing Treewidth and its Limits
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In this paper, we introduce a novel algorithm to solve projected model counting (PMC). PMC asks to count solutions of a Boolean formula with respect to a given set of projection variables, where multiple solutions that are identical when restricted to the projection variables count as only one solution. Inspired by the observation that the so-called "treewidth" is one of the most prominent structural parameters, our algorithm utilizes small treewidth of the primal graph of the input instance. More precisely, it runs in time O(2^2k+4n2) where k is the treewidth and n is the input size of the instance. In other words, we obtain that the problem PMC is fixed-parameter tractable when parameterized by treewidth. Further, we take the exponential time hypothesis (ETH) into consideration and establish lower bounds of bounded treewidth algorithms for PMC, yielding asymptotically tight runtime bounds of our algorithm. While the algorithm above serves as a first theoretical upper bound and although it might be quite appealing for small values of k, unsurprisingly a naive implementation adhering to this runtime bound suffers already from instances of relatively small width. Therefore, we turn our attention to several measures in order to resolve this issue towards exploiting treewidth in practice: We present a technique called nested dynamic programming, where different levels of abstractions of the primal graph are used to (recursively) compute and refine tree decompositions of a given instance. Finally, we provide a nested dynamic programming algorithm and an implementation that relies on database technology for PMC and a prominent special case of PMC, namely model counting (#Sat). Experiments indicate that the advancements are promising, allowing us to solve instances of treewidth upper bounds beyond 200.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 92 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 May 2023.
Builds on
17 of 92 references.
References · 17
- 2017Multi-shot ASP solving with clingocited by 115
- 2020The Model Counting Competition 2020cited by 24
- 2014Distribution-Aware Sampling and Weighted Model Counting for SATcited by 15
- 2017Answer Set Solving with Bounded Treewidth Revisitedcited by 9
- 2019An Experimental Study of the Treewidth of Real-World Graph Data (Extended Version)cited by 7
- 2020Exploiting Database Management Systems and Treewidth for Countingcited by 7
- 2015Projected Model Countingcited by 6
- 2015Implementing Efficient All Solutions SAT Solverscited by 6
- 2019Lower Bounds for QBFs of Bounded Treewidthcited by 6
- 2018Practical Access to Dynamic Programming on Tree Decompositionscited by 5
- 2020Structural Decompositions of Epistemic Logic Programscited by 5
- 2017Positive-instance driven dynamic programming for treewidthcited by 4
5 more
- 2014A Trichotomy in the Complexity of Counting Answers to Conjunctive Queriescited by 3
- 2013Structural Tractability of Counting of Solutions to Conjunctive Queriescited by 2
- 2016Combining Treewidth and Backdoors for CSPcited by 2
- 2018Exploiting Treewidth for Projected Model Counting and its Limitscited by 2
- 2019Measuring what Matters: A Hybrid Approach to Dynamic Programming with Treewidthcited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1.
1 paper.