Abstract
We prove exponential lower bounds on the running time of the state-of-the-art exact model counting algorithms—algorithms for exactly computing the number of satisfying assignments, or the satisfying probability, of Boolean formulas. These algorithms can be seen, either directly or indirectly, as building Decision-Decomposable Negation Normal Form (decision-DNNF) representations of the input Boolean formulas. Decision-DNNFs are a special case of d-DNNFs where d stands for deterministic. We show that any knowledge compilation representations from a class (called DLDDs in this article) that contain decision-DNNFs can be converted into equivalent Free Binary Decision Diagrams (FBDDs), also known as Read-Once Branching Programs, with only a quasi-polynomial increase in representation size. Leveraging known exponential lower bounds for FBDDs, we then obtain similar exponential lower bounds for decision-DNNFs, which imply exponential lower bounds for model-counting algorithms. We also separate the power of decision-DNNFs from d-DNNFs and a generalization of decision-DNNFs known as AND-FBDDs.
We then prove new lower bounds for FBDDs that yield exponential lower bounds on the running time of these exact model counters when applied to the problem of query evaluation in tuple-independent probabilistic databases—computing the probability of an answer to a query given independent probabilities of the individual tuples in a database instance. This approach to the query evaluation problem, in which one first obtains the lineage for the query and database instance as a Boolean formula and then performs weighted model counting on the lineage, is known as grounded inference. A second approach, known as lifted inference or extensional query evaluation, exploits the high-level structure of the query as a first-order formula. Although it has been widely believed that lifted inference is strictly more powerful than grounded inference on the lineage alone, no formal separation has previously been shown for query evaluation. In this article, we show such a formal separation for the first time. In particular, we exhibit a family of database queries for which polynomial-time extensional query evaluation techniques were previously known but for which query evaluation via grounded inference using the state-of-the-art exact model counters requires exponential time.
- 2014. The SDD Package: Version 1.1.1. Retrieved January 31, 2014, from http://reasoning.cs.ucla.edu/sdd/.Google Scholar
- Sheldon B. Akers. 1978. Binary decision diagrams. IEEE Trans. Comput. 27, 6 (1978), 509--516. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fahiem Bacchus, Shannon Dalmao, and Toniann Pitassi. 2003. Algorithms and complexity results for #SAT and Bayesian inference. In FOCS. 340--351. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Roberto J. Bayardo, Jr., and J. D. Pehoushek. 2000. Counting models using connected components. In AAAI. 157--162. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Paul Beame, Russell Impagliazzo, Toniann Pitassi, and Nathan Segerlind. 2010. Formula caching in DPLL. ACM Trans. Comput. Theory 1, 3 (2010). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Paul Beame, Henry A. Kautz, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2004. Towards understanding and harnessing the potential of clause learning. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 22 (2004), 319--351. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Paul Beame, Jerry Li, Sudeepa Roy, and Dan Suciu. 2013. Lower bounds for exact model counting and applications in probabilistic databases. In UAI. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Paul Beame, Jerry Li, Sudeepa Roy, and Dan Suciu. 2014. Counting of query expressions: Limitations of propositional methods. In ICDT. 177--188.Google Scholar
- Paul Beame and Vincent Liew. 2015. New limits for knowledge compilation and applications to exact model counting. In UAI. 131--140. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Paul Beame, Guy Van den Broeck, Eric Gribkoff, and Dan Suciu. 2015. Symmetric weighted first-order model counting. In PODS. 313--328. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Eli Ben-Sasson and Avi Wigderson. 2001. Short proofs are narrow—Resolution made simple. J. ACM 48, 2 (Mar. 2001), 149--169. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Beate Bollig and Ingo Wegener. 1998. A very simple function that requires exponential size read-once branching programs. Inf. Process. Lett. 66, 2 (April 1998), 53--57. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Randal E. Bryant. 1986. Graph-based algorithms for boolean function manipulation. IEEE Trans. Comput. 35, 8 (1986), 677--691. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nilesh N. Dalvi and Dan Suciu. 2012. The dichotomy of probabilistic inference for unions of conjunctive queries. J. ACM 59, 6 (2012), 30. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Adnan Darwiche. 2001a. Decomposable negation normal form. J. ACM 48, 4 (2001), 608--647. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Adnan Darwiche. 2001b. On the tractable counting of theory models and its application to truth maintenance and belief revision. J. Appl. Non-Class. Logic. 11, 1--2 (2001), 11--34.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Adnan Darwiche. 2011. SDD: A new canonical representation of propositional knowledge bases. In IJCAI 2011, Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 819--826. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Adnan Darwiche and Pierre Marquis. 2002. A knowledge compilation map. J. Artif. Int. Res. 17, 1 (Sept. 2002), 229--264. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Martin Davis, George Logemann, and Donald Loveland. 1962. A machine program for theorem-proving. Commun. ACM 5, 7 (1962), 394--397. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Martin Davis and Hilary Putnam. 1960. A computing procedure for quantification theory. J. ACM 7, 3 (1960), 201--215. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pedro Domingos and Daniel Lowd. 2009. Markov Logic: An Interface Layer for Artificial Intelligence. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Carla P. Gomes, Ashish Sabharwal, and Bart Selman. 2009. Model counting. In Handbook of Satisfiability. IOS Press, 633--654.Google Scholar
- Eric Gribkoff and Dan Suciu. 2016. SlimShot: In-database probabilistic inference for knowledge bases. Proc. VLDB 9, 7 (2016), 552--563. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jinbo Huang and Adnan Darwiche. 2005. DPLL with a trace: From SAT to knowledge compilation. In IJCAI. 156--162. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jinbo Huang and Adnan Darwiche. 2007. The language of search. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 29 (2007), 191--219. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Manfred Jaeger and Guy Van den Broeck. 2012. Liftability of probabilistic inference: Upper and lower bounds. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Statistical Relational AI.Google Scholar
- Abhay Kumar Jha and Dan Suciu. 2011. Knowledge compilation meets database theory: Compiling queries to decision diagrams. In ICDT. 162--173. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Abhay Kumar Jha and Dan Suciu. 2013. Knowledge compilation meets database theory: Compiling queries to decision diagrams. Theory Comput. Syst. 52, 3 (2013), 403--440. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Stephen M. Majercik and Michael L. Littman. 1998. Using caching to solve larger probabilistic planning problems. In AAAI. 954--959. Google ScholarDigital Library
- William Joseph Masek. 1976. A Fast Algorithm for the String Editing Problem and Decision Graph Complexity. Master’s thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
- Christian Muise, Sheila A. McIlraith, J. Christopher Beck, and Eric I. Hsu. 2012. Dsharp: Fast d-DNNF compilation with sharpSAT. In Canadian AI. 356--361. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Igor Razgon. 2016. On the read-once property of branching programs and CNFs of bounded treewidth. Algorithmica 75, 2 (2016), 277--294. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ashish Sabharwal. 2009. SymChaff: Exploiting symmetry in a structure-aware satisfiability solver. Constraints 14, 4 (2009), 478--505. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tian Sang, Fahiem Bacchus, Paul Beame, Henry A. Kautz, and Toniann Pitassi. 2004. Combining component caching and clause learning for effective model counting. In SAT.Google Scholar
- Richard P. Stanley. 1997. Enumerative Combinatorics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Dan Suciu, Dan Olteanu, Christopher Ré, and Christoph Koch. 2011. Probabilistic Databases. Morgan 8 Claypool. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Marc Thurley. 2006. sharpSAT: Counting models with advanced component caching and implicit BCP. In SAT. 424--429. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Leslie G. Valiant. 1979. The complexity of enumeration and reliability problems. SIAM J. Comput. 8, 3 (1979), 410--421.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Guy Van den Broeck. 2011. On the completeness of first-order knowledge compilation for lifted probabilistic inference. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 24: 25th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2011. 1386--1394. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Guy Van den Broeck, Wannes Meert, and Adnan Darwiche. 2014. Skolemization for weighted first-order model counting. In KR. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ingo Wegener. 2000. Branching Programs and Binary Decision Diagrams: Theory and Applications. SIAM, Philadelphia, PA. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Exact Model Counting of Query Expressions: Limitations of Propositional Methods
Recommendations
Circuit Treewidth, Sentential Decision, and Query Compilation
PODS '17: Proceedings of the 36th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGAI Symposium on Principles of Database SystemsThe evaluation of a query over a probabilistic database boils down to computing the probability of a suitable Boolean function, the lineage of the query over the database. The method of query compilation approaches the task in two stages: first, the ...
On the tractability of query compilation and bounded treewidth
ICDT '12: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Database TheoryWe consider the problem of computing the probability of a Boolean function, which generalizes the model counting problem. Given an OBDD for such a function, its probability can be computed in linear time in the size of the OBDD. In this paper we ...
Knowledge Compilation Meets Database Theory: Compiling Queries to Decision Diagrams
The goal of Knowledge Compilation is to represent a Boolean expression in a format in which it can answer a range of "online-queries" in PTIME. The online-query of main interest to us is model counting, because of its application to query evaluation on ...
Comments