Model Counting in the Wild

Model counting is a fundamental problem in automated reasoning with applications in probabilistic inference, network reliability, neural network verification, and more. Although model counting is computationally intractable from a theoretical perspective due to its #P-completeness, the past decade has seen significant progress in developing state-of-the-art model counters to address scalability challenges. In this work, we conduct a rigorous assessment of the scalability of model counters in the wild. To this end, we surveyed 11 application domains and collected an aggregate of 2262 benchmarks from these domains. We then evaluated six state-of-the-art model counters on these instances to assess scalability and runtime performance. Our empirical evaluation demonstrates that the performance of model counters varies significantly across different application domains, underscoring the need for careful selection by the end user. Additionally, we investigated the behavior of different counters with respect to two parameters suggested by the model counting community, finding only a weak correlation. Our analysis highlights the challenges and opportunities for portfolio-based approaches in model counting.

Explaining SAT Solving Using Causal Reasoning

The past three decades have witnessed notable success in designing efficient SAT solvers, with modern solvers capable of solving industrial benchmarks containing millions of variables in just a few seconds. The success of modern SAT solvers owes to the widely-used CDCL algorithm, which lacks comprehensive theoretical investigation. Furthermore, it has been observed that CDCL solvers still struggle to deal with specific classes of benchmarks comprising only hundreds of variables, which contrasts with their widespread use in real-world applications. Consequently, there is an urgent need to uncover the inner workings of these seemingly weak yet powerful black boxes. In this paper, we present a first step towards this goal by introducing an approach called CausalSAT, which employs causal reasoning to gain insights into the functioning of modern SAT solvers. CausalSAT initially generates observational data from the execution of SAT solvers and learns a structured graph representing the causal relationships between the components of a SAT solver. Subsequently, given a query such as whether a clause with low literals blocks distance (LBD) has a higher clause utility, CausalSAT calculates the causal effect of LBD on clause utility and provides an answer to the question. We use CausalSAT to quantitatively verify hypotheses previously regarded as "rules of thumb" or empirical findings such as the query above. Moreover, CausalSAT can address previously unexplored questions, like which branching heuristic leads to greater clause utility in order to study the relationship between branching and clause management. Experimental evaluations using practical benchmarks demonstrate that CausalSAT effectively fits the data, verifies four "rules of thumb", and provides answers to three questions closely related to implementing modern solvers.