Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Scalable Counting of Minimal Trap Spaces and Fixed Points in Boolean Networks

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Counting minimal trap spaces in Boolean networks reduces to projected answer set counting, and a hashing-based approximate counter handles networks up to 5,000 variables.

desk verdict First practical counting method for minimal trap spaces and a genuinely new perturbation-to-projected-ASP reduction; the scalability caveat about unsafe formulas is real but not fatal. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06013 v2 pith:OJPOQDW4 submitted 2025-06-06 cs.LO

Mohimenul Kabir , Van-Giang Trinh , Samuel Pastva , Kuldeep S Meel This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LO
keywords computationalsystemsbiologyBooleannetworkfixedpointtrapspaceanswersetcountingprojectedabstractargumentationlogicprogramming
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that the number of minimal trap spaces of a Boolean network — the smallest subspaces of its state space that, once entered, cannot be exited, with fixed points as the special case where every variable is pinned — can be computed or approximated without listing them one by one. It defines six counting problems: total counts, counts restricted to a phenotype, and counts of perturbations that make a phenotype appear, and reduces each to answer set counting on a program whose answer sets stand in one-to-one correspondence with the objects being counted. The load-bearing reduction, Theorem 14, converts the perturbation-counting problem into a projected answer set count over new variables that encode knockouts and over-expressions, so each perturbation is counted once regardless of how many trap spaces it creates. Experiments on 645 Boolean networks, including real-world gene regulatory models and random networks up to 5,000 variables, show the hashing-based approximate counter outperforming enumeration-based and BDD-based baselines. If the reduction is right, phenotype robustness — the fraction of perturbations that preserve a biological trait — becomes computable at scale, with implications for abstract argumentation and logic programming, where the same objects appear as preferred extensions and regular models.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the translation of a Boolean network into a disjunctive answer set program whose answer sets mirror the network's minimal trap spaces. The tsconj encoding introduces atoms $p(v)$, $n(v)$ per variable with the rule $p(v) \vee n(v) \leftarrow \top$, so an answer set encodes whether $v$ is fixed to 1, fixed to 0, or free (both atoms present means the free value $\star$); the trap-space condition $m(f_v) \le_s m(v)$ is rendered as rules $\gamma(v) \leftarrow \gamma(\mathrm{NNF}(f_v))$ and $\gamma(\neg v) \leftarrow \gamma(\mathrm{NNF}(\neg f_v))$, where $\gamma$ introduces auxiliary atoms for disjunctions. The one-to-one correspondence is conditional on a syntactic safeness requirement — no conjunction of a variable and its negation appears in the NNF of $f_v$ or of $\neg f_v$ — with a DNF fallback for unsafe formulas. Fixed points are the same program plus constraints forbidding the free value. A phenotype $\beta$ becomes the program $\mathrm{ToASP}(\beta)$ of integrity constraints that pin chosen variables to 0, 1, or $\star$, following the idea of faceted answer set navigation. The perturbation gadget of Definition 13 is what makes counting perturbations a projection: each perturbable variable $v$ is replaced by three variables with $g_v = \neg v_k \wedge (v_o \vee f_v)$, $g_{v_k} = v_k$, $g_{v_o} = v_o \wedge \neg v_k$, and the count is taken with respect to the projection atoms for the flags, so multiple satisfying trap spaces under one perturbation collapse to one counted perturbation. The hashing-based approximate answer set counter ApproxASP supplies the counting engine with a PAC guarantee; because the projection atoms are few, the XOR constraints used by the hashing estimates stay small, which the paper identifies as the main reason for the counter's strong performance on the perturbation problems.

What would settle it

Generate a Boolean network of a few hundred variables whose update functions deliberately contain conjunctions of a variable and its negation in NNF, encode it with tsconj, and check whether the program size or the counter runtime blows up past the 5,000-second limit; alternatively, compare the approximate counter's estimate against the exact count on small networks with known counts and check whether the observed tolerance exceeds the claimed $(1+\varepsilon)$ bound more often than the allowed confidence parameter $\delta$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the discovery is that counting problems for minimal trap spaces and fixed points of Boolean networks — C-MTS-1..3 and C-FIX-1..3 — can be solved by exact or approximate answer set counting. The minimal trap spaces of a network $f$ are captured one-to-one by the answer sets of the tsconj program, which for each variable $v$ uses atoms $p(v)$ and $n(v)$ to record whether $v$ is fixed to 1, fixed to 0, or free, together with rules derived from the negation normal forms of $f_v$ and $\neg f_v$; adding the constraint $\bot \leftarrow p(v), n(v)$ for every $v$ yields the fASP program whose answer sets are exactly the fixed points. A phenotype is added as a small set of integrity constraints via the ToASP translation, with correctness proved in Theorems 10 and 11. The genuinely new step is for perturbations under phenotype control: rather than modifying the encoding, the network itself is extended by two fresh variables $v_k$ and $v_o$ per perturbable variable $v$, with $g_v = \neg v_k \wedge (v_o \vee f_v)$, so that three-valued assignments to the perturbation flags encode knockout, over-expression, or no change; the perturbation count is then the projected answer set count $\#\mathrm{PASP}(P\text{-tsconj}(g) \cup \mathrm{ToASP}(\beta), \Omega)$ over the perturbation atoms $\Omega$ (Theorem 14, with Theorem 15 as the fixed-point analogue). The paper reports that the approximate counter solves 644 of 645 instances for C-MTS-3 and all 645 for C-FIX-3, on the benchmark of 245 real-world and 400 randomly generated networks up to 5,000 variables, with observed tolerances around 0.007 on average, well below the theoretical $\varepsilon = 0.8$ guarantee.

Load-bearing premise

The efficient encoding stays small only when every update function and its negation has a safe negation normal form, meaning no conjunction of a variable and its negation appears; the benchmarks contain almost no unsafe formulas, so the demonstrated scaling would not transfer to networks where unsafe functions are common, since those fall back to a possibly exponential DNF.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Phenotype robustness, defined as the fraction of perturbations that leave a target phenotype realizable, becomes computable for networks where full enumeration is hopeless; the paper's Interferon-1 case study counts over $3^{20}$ perturbations.
  • Because minimal trap spaces and fixed points coincide with preferred extensions and stable extensions of argumentation frameworks, and with regular and stable models of normal logic programs, the same counting pipeline transfers to those formalisms without new encodings.
  • The projection trick ensures each perturbation is counted once rather than each individual solution, so the presence of many satisfying trap spaces under a single perturbation does not inflate the count.
  • Approximate counting with modest tolerance suffices to compare phenotypes, and precision can be tightened when two counts are close; the observed tolerances reported are far below the theoretical $(\varepsilon, \delta)$ bound.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same reduction template — extend the network with control flags and count a projection — could be applied to other network questions, such as counting interventions that eliminate a phenotype or counting minimal trap spaces of a given size, with the projection set keeping the hashing constraints small.
  • The safeness condition marks a testable boundary: networks whose update functions naturally contain clauses like $x \wedge \neg x$ would force the DNF fallback and could erode the scalability advantage, so generating such networks and measuring encoding size would delineate where the method hands back to enumeration.
  • Since trap spaces are independent of the update scheme, the counts hold under both synchronous and asynchronous dynamics, which suggests the approximate counts could serve as a fast pre-filter for attractor enumeration tools.
  • The transfer to argumentation and logic programming is stated through existing equivalences; given the known hardness of counting preferred and stable extensions, the approximate pipeline offers a practical route where exact dynamic programming approaches do not scale.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces six counting problems for Boolean networks: counting minimal trap spaces (C-MTS-1) and fixed points (C-FIX-1), their phenotype-constrained variants (C-MTS-2, C-FIX-2), and counting perturbations that yield a target phenotype (C-MTS-3, C-FIX-3). The proposed methods reduce these tasks to answer-set counting, building on the existing tsconj and fASP encodings, adding a phenotype translation ToASP, and introducing a perturbation network construction g that reduces C-MTS-3 and C-FIX-3 to projected answer-set counting queries. The authors prove the main reductions in the appendix and evaluate approximate counters ApproxASP and ApproxMC against AEON, ADF, clingo, and GANAK on 645 instances with up to 5,000 variables, reporting substantially improved scalability over enumeration- and BDD-based baselines.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a useful contribution: it provides a dedicated counting treatment for minimal trap spaces, connects perturbation counting to projected #PASP, and demonstrates practical scalability through hashing-based approximate counting. The central reduction in Definition 13 is elegant and parameter-free, the experimental comparison uses independent external baselines, and the code and data artifacts are publicly available. The main caveats are that two of the four correctness theorems (Theorems 11 and 15) are only sketched, and the scalability evidence is restricted to Boolean functions satisfying the safeness condition; the DNF fallback for unsafe functions remains untested. These issues are fixable and do not appear to invalidate the central approach.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A, Theorem 11] The proof of Theorem 11 consists of the single sentence 'The proof technique of Theorem 10 can be similarly extended for fixed point counting with the program P-fASP(f).' This theorem is load-bearing for C-FIX-2. A complete proof must show that the one-to-one correspondence between fixed points of f and answer sets of P-fASP(f) is preserved when ToASP(β) is added, and it must explicitly handle the interaction with the fASP constraint ⊥←p(v),n(v), which makes the e=⋆ case of Algorithm 1 infeasible (as required, since fixed points cannot have free variables). Please provide the full proof.
  2. [Appendix A, Theorem 15] The proof of Theorem 15 is similarly only a reference to the technique of Theorem 14. For C-FIX-3 one needs to verify that the projected answer-set count of P-fASP(g)∪ToASP(β) over Ω counts exactly the perturbations σ for which fσ has a fixed point satisfying β. In particular, the proof must show that the fASP constraints force all variables in Δ to be fixed, so that only feasible perturbation encodings (excluding the infeasible vk=vo=1 case) contribute to the projected count. The current one-sentence proof does not establish this.
  3. [Sections 5.1 and 6.1] The scalability claim is conditional on the safeness of both fv and ¬fv for every variable v; when a formula is unsafe, the tsconj encoding substitutes a DNF, which can be exponentially large. Section 6.1 states only that unsafe formulas are 'quite rare' in the 245 real-world models and absent in the 400 random models, without reporting exact counts and without any experiment on instances that trigger the DNF fallback. Because the demonstrated scalability to 5,000-variable networks is therefore limited to safe benchmarks, please report the number of unsafe functions in each benchmark family and either add experiments on unsafe instances or explicitly restrict the scalability claim to networks satisfying the safeness condition.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 6.1, C-MTS-3 paragraph] The sentence 'Here, ApproxASP significantly outperforms even ApproxMC' is not supported by Table 5, which lists only AEON, clingo, and ApproxASP for C-MTS-3; please either report ApproxMC results for this problem or remove the comparison.
  2. [Appendix B, Example 16] In the displayed ASP program for the variable bk, the rules p(bk)←p(bk) and n(bk)←n(bk) appear to be redundant given the choice rule p(bk)∨n(bk)←⊤; if they are intended to encode the identity function gbk=bk, please clarify their role or simplify the presentation.
  3. [Section 6.2] The sentence 'For fixed points, although there were large instances (up to 4000 variables), these did not contain fixed points' is ambiguous: it is unclear whether the large random networks have zero fixed points and how that affects the comparison of counters on large instances. Please clarify.
  4. [Section 4.2] The definition of a phenotype as a conjunction of traits (v↔e) with e∈B⋆ is described informally; since Algorithm 1 treats β as a set of traits, please state explicitly that β is a set (or conjunction) of traits and that the empty phenotype is a tautology.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reductions are proved by explicit bijections, and the self-citations to tsconj and ApproxASP are normal dependencies on prior published tools.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is the reduction of C-MTS-3 to #PASP(P-tsconj(g) ∪ ToASP(β), Ω) in Theorem 14 (Section 5.4). This is not circular: the paper constructs a new network g in Definition 13, proves in Lemma 23 that every minimal trap space of g fixes the perturbation-encoding variables, proves in Lemma 24 that projecting a trap space of g yields a trap space of the corresponding perturbed network fσ, and then proves in Theorem 14 that minimality, phenotype satisfaction, and the projection to Ω establish the required bijection between perturbations and projected answer sets. The trap-space characterization used in those lemmas is imported from the independent Klarner et al. theorem (Theorem 20 of the present paper), not from the counting problems being solved. The phenotype encoding ToASP(β) is a direct constraint translation, and Theorem 10 is proved by a case analysis on Algorithm 1 together with the cited correctness of tsconj; no quantity is defined in terms of the answer it is used to compute. The paper does rely on self-citations: tsconj [68] and fASP [71] include two of the current authors, and ApproxASP [38] includes three of them. However, those are prior published, parameter-free results with their own proofs, they are used as components/tools rather than as substitutes for the reduction, and the experimental claims are benchmarked against external tools (AEON, clingo, ADF, GANAK, ApproxMC). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked to forbid alternatives. The main caveat, stated in Section 6.1, is that unsafe Boolean functions are 'quite rare' in the real-world models and absent in the random models, so the potentially exponential DNF fallback in tsconj is not stress-tested; this is an external-validity limitation of the benchmark, not a circularity in the derivation, because the theorems are explicitly conditional on the safeness condition inherited from [68].

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces auxiliary variables v_k and v_o for perturbations, but these are logical encoding gadgets, not new physical or mathematical entities with independent evidence. No free parameters are fitted to data; ε and δ are user-chosen algorithm parameters. The central groundings are the cited encoding correctness theorems and the trap-space characterization.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Correctness of the tsconj encoding: answer sets of P-tsconj(f) one-to-one correspond to minimal trap spaces of f (Theorem 2 of [68]).
    Invoked directly in the proof of Theorem 10 and used to justify all C-MTS reductions; proof is referenced to [68] and not reproduced.
  • domain assumption Correctness of the fASP encoding for fixed points from [71].
    Used for C-FIX-1/2/3; cited as prior work with one-to-one correspondence to fixed points.
  • domain assumption Trap space characterization: a subspace m is a trap space iff m(f_v) ≤_s m(v) for every v (Theorem 1 of [44]).
    Used in the proofs of Lemma 23 and Lemma 24 to argue about the perturbed network g.
  • domain assumption PAC guarantees of ApproxASP and ApproxMC: the count is within (1±ε) with probability at least 1−δ.
    Underlies the claim that the returned counts are approximate within guaranteed bounds; the guarantees are from prior papers.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scalable Counting of Minimal Trap Spaces and Fixed Points in Boolean Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OJPOQDW4

@misc{pith2026250606013,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scalable Counting of Minimal Trap Spaces and Fixed Points in Boolean Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OJPOQDW4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06013}
}
read the original 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 {\em 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.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Counting Answer Sets of Disjunctive Answer Set Programs

    cs.LO 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SharpASP-SR counts answer sets of disjunctive logic programs via a polynomial-size subtractive reduction to projected model counting, outperforming prior counters on instances with large answer set counts.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Roux, and Morgan Magnin

    Emna Ben Abdallah, Maxime Folschette, Olivier F. Roux, and Morgan Magnin. ASP -based method for the enumeration of attractors in non-deterministic synchronous and asynchronous multi-valued networks. Algorithms Mol. Biol. , 12(1):20:1--20:23, 2017

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Automated inference of Boolean models from molecular interaction maps using CaSQ

    Sara Sadat Aghamiri, Vidisha Singh, Aur \' e lien Naldi, Tom \' a s Helikar, Sylvain Soliman, Anna Niarakis, and Jinbo Xu. Automated inference of Boolean models from molecular interaction maps using CaSQ . Bioinform. , 36(16):4473--4482, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    ASP and subset minimality: Enumeration, cautious reasoning and MUSes

    Mario Alviano, Carmine Dodaro, Salvatore Fiorentino, Alessandro Previti, and Francesco Ricca. ASP and subset minimality: Enumeration, cautious reasoning and MUSes . Artif. Intell. , 320:103931, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Muise, and Peter James Stuckey

    Rehan Abdul Aziz, Geoffrey Chu, Christian J. Muise, and Peter James Stuckey. Stable model counting and its application in probabilistic logic programming. In AAAI , pages 3468--3474. AAAI Press, 2015

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Rosenblueth, and Octavio Zapata

    Eugenio Azpeitia, Stan Mu \ n oz Guti \' e rrez, David A. Rosenblueth, and Octavio Zapata. Bridging abstract dialectical argumentation and Boolean gene regulation. CoRR , abs/2407.06106, 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.06106 arXiv:2407.06106

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    SAT competition 2017--solver and benchmark descriptions, 2017

    Tomas Balyo, Marijn JH Heule, and Matti J \"a rvisalo. SAT competition 2017--solver and benchmark descriptions, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Propositional semantics for disjunctive logic programs

    Rachel Ben - Eliyahu and Rina Dechter. Propositional semantics for disjunctive logic programs. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. , 12(1-2):53--87, 1994

    work page 1994

  8. [8]

    AEON: attractor bifurcation analysis of parametrised Boolean networks

    Nikola Benes, Lubos Brim, Jakub Kadlecaj, Samuel Pastva, and David Safr \' a nek. AEON: attractor bifurcation analysis of parametrised Boolean networks. In CAV , pages 569--581. Springer, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    Phenotype control of partially specified Boolean networks

    Nikola Benes, Lubos Brim, Samuel Pastva, David Safr \' a nek, and Eva Smij \' a kov \' a . Phenotype control of partially specified Boolean networks. In CMSB , pages 18--35. Springer, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Handbook of Satisfiability , volume 185 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications

    Armin Biere, Marijn Heule, Hans van Maaren, and Toby Walsh, editors. Handbook of Satisfiability , volume 185 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications . IOS Press, 2009

    2009

  3. [11]

    Boolean network modeling in systems pharmacology

    Peter Bloomingdale, Van Anh Nguyen, Jin Niu, and Donald E Mager. Boolean network modeling in systems pharmacology. J. Pharmacokinet. Pharmacodyn. , 45:159--180, 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    Complexity of fixed point counting problems in Boolean networks

    Florian Bridoux, Am \' e lia Durbec, K \' e vin Perrot, and Adrien Richard. Complexity of fixed point counting problems in Boolean networks. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. , 126:138--164, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Meel, and Moshe Y

    Supratik Chakraborty, Kuldeep S. Meel, and Moshe Y. Vardi. A scalable approximate model counter. In Christian Schulte, editor, CP , pages 200--216. Springer, 2013

    2013

  6. [14]

    Meel, and Moshe Y

    Supratik Chakraborty, Kuldeep S. Meel, and Moshe Y. Vardi. Algorithmic improvements in approximate counting for probabilistic inference: From linear to logarithmic SAT calls. In IJCAI , pages 3569--3576. IJCAI/AAAI Press, 2016

    2016

  7. [15]

    Chandra and George Markowsky

    Ashok K. Chandra and George Markowsky. On the number of prime implicants. Discrete Math. , 24(1):7–11, 1978

    1978

  8. [16]

    e l, Laurence Calzone, Andrei Yu. Zinovyev, and Lo \

    St \' e phanie Chevalier, Vincent No \" e l, Laurence Calzone, Andrei Yu. Zinovyev, and Lo \" c Paulev \' e . Synthesis and simulation of ensembles of Boolean networks for cell fate decision. In CMSB , pages 193--209. Springer, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Keith L. Clark. Negation as Failure , page 293–322. Springer US, 1978

    1978

  10. [18]

    A practical account into counting Dung's extensions by dynamic programming

    Ridhwan Dewoprabowo, Johannes Klaus Fichte, Piotr Jerzy Gorczyca, and Markus Hecher. A practical account into counting Dung's extensions by dynamic programming. In LPNMR , pages 387--400. Springer, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Connecting abstract argumentation and Boolean networks

    Yannis Dimopoulos, Wolfgang Dvor \' a k, and Matthias K \" o nig. Connecting abstract argumentation and Boolean networks. In COMMA , pages 85--96. IOS Press, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    A SAT -based algorithm for finding attractors in synchronous Boolean networks

    Elena Dubrova and Maxim Teslenko. A SAT -based algorithm for finding attractors in synchronous Boolean networks. IEEE ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinform. , 8(5):1393--1399, 2011

    2011

  13. [21]

    aspmc: New frontiers of algebraic answer set counting

    Thomas Eiter, Markus Hecher, and Rafael Kiesel. aspmc: New frontiers of algebraic answer set counting. Artif. Intell. , 330:104109, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Consistency of Clark's completion and existence of stable models

    Fran c ois Fages. Consistency of Clark's completion and existence of stable models. Methods Log. Comput. Sci. , 1(1):51--60, 1994

    1994

  15. [23]

    Fichte, Markus Hecher, and Mohamed A

    Johannes K. Fichte, Markus Hecher, and Mohamed A. Nadeem. Plausibility reasoning via projected answer set counting - a hybrid approach. In IJCAI , volume 22, page 2620–2626, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Rushing and strolling among answer sets - navigation made easy

    Johannes Klaus Fichte, Sarah Alice Gaggl, and Dominik Rusovac. Rushing and strolling among answer sets - navigation made easy. In AAAI , pages 5651--5659. AAAI Press, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Treewidth and counting projected answer sets

    Johannes Klaus Fichte and Markus Hecher. Treewidth and counting projected answer sets. In LPNMR , pages 105--119. Springer, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    Counting complexity for reasoning in abstract argumentation

    Johannes Klaus Fichte, Markus Hecher, and Arne Meier. Counting complexity for reasoning in abstract argumentation. J. Artif. Intell. Res. , 80, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Answer set solving with bounded treewidth revisited

    Johannes Klaus Fichte, Markus Hecher, Michael Morak, and Stefan Woltran. Answer set solving with bounded treewidth revisited. In LPNMR , pages 132--145. Springer, 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    How many markers are needed to robustly determine a cell’s type? iScience , 24(11):103292, November 2021

    Stephan Fischer and Jesse Gillis. How many markers are needed to robustly determine a cell’s type? iScience , 24(11):103292, November 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Potassco: The Potsdam answer set solving collection

    Martin Gebser, Benjamin Kaufmann, Roland Kaminski, Max Ostrowski, Torsten Schaub, and Marius Schneider. Potassco: The Potsdam answer set solving collection. AI Commun. , 24(2):107--124, 2011

    2011

  22. [30]

    The stable model semantics for logic programming

    Michael Gelfond and Vladimir Lifschitz. The stable model semantics for logic programming. In ICLP , pages 1070--1080. MIT Press, 1988

    1988

  23. [31]

    Abstract dialectical frameworks are Boolean networks

    Jesse Heyninck, Matthias Knorr, and Jo \ a o Leite. Abstract dialectical frameworks are Boolean networks. In LPNMR , pages 98--111. Springer, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Homan and Sven Kosub

    Christopher M. Homan and Sven Kosub. Dichotomy results for fixed point counting in Boolean dynamical systems. Theor. Comput. Sci. , 573:16--25, 2015

    2015

  25. [33]

    Logic programming for Boolean networks

    Katsumi Inoue. Logic programming for Boolean networks. In IJCAI , pages 924--930. IJCAI/AAAI , 2011

    2011

  26. [34]

    Oscillating behavior of logic programs

    Katsumi Inoue and Chiaki Sakama. Oscillating behavior of logic programs. In Correct Reasoning - Essays on Logic-Based AI in Honour of Vladimir Lifschitz , pages 345--362. Springer, 2012

    2012

  27. [35]

    Some (in)translatability results for normal logic programs and propositional theories

    Tomi Janhunen. Some (in)translatability results for normal logic programs and propositional theories. J. Appl. Non Class. Logics , 16(1-2):35--86, 2006

    2006

  28. [36]

    Unfolding partiality and disjunctions in stable model semantics

    Tomi Janhunen, Ilkka Niemel \" a , Dietmar Seipel, Patrik Simons, and Jia - Huai You. Unfolding partiality and disjunctions in stable model semantics. ACM TOCL , 7(1):1--37, 2006

    2006

  29. [37]

    Mohimenul Kabir, Supratik Chakraborty, and Kuldeep S. Meel. Exact ASP counting with compact encodings. In AAAI , pages 10571--10580. AAAI Press, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Everardo, Ankit K

    Mohimenul Kabir, Flavio O. Everardo, Ankit K. Shukla, Markus Hecher, Johannes Klaus Fichte, and Kuldeep S. Meel. ApproxASP - a scalable approximate answer set counter. In AAAI , pages 5755--5764. AAAI Press, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    A fast and accurate ASP counting based network reliability estimator

    Mohimenul Kabir and Kuldeep S Meel. A fast and accurate ASP counting based network reliability estimator. In LPAR , volume 94, pages 270--287, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    On lower bounding minimal model count

    Mohimenul Kabir and Kuldeep S Meel. On lower bounding minimal model count. TPLP , 24(4):586–605, July 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    Admissibility in probabilistic argumentation

    Nikolai K \" a fer, Christel Baier, Martin Diller, Clemens Dubslaff, Sarah Alice Gaggl, and Holger Hermanns. Admissibility in probabilistic argumentation. J. Artif. Intell. Res. , 74, 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    Minimal intervention strategies in logical signaling networks with ASP

    Roland Kaminski, Torsten Schaub, Anne Siegel, and Santiago Videla. Minimal intervention strategies in logical signaling networks with ASP . TPLP , 13(4-5):675--690, 2013

    2013

  35. [43]

    Towards a theory of biological robustness

    Hiroaki Kitano. Towards a theory of biological robustness. Mol. Syst. Biol. , 3(1):137, 2007

    2007

  36. [44]

    Computing maximal and minimal trap spaces of Boolean networks

    Hannes Klarner, Alexander Bockmayr, and Heike Siebert. Computing maximal and minimal trap spaces of Boolean networks. Nat. Comput. , 14(4):535--544, 2015

    2015

  37. [45]

    Basins of attraction, commitment sets, and phenotypes of Boolean networks

    Hannes Klarner, Frederike Heinitz, Sarah Nee, and Heike Siebert. Basins of attraction, commitment sets, and phenotypes of Boolean networks. IEEE ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinform. , 17(4):1115--1124, 2020

    2020

  38. [46]

    Detection of markers for discrete phenotypes

    Hannes Klarner, Elisa Tonello, Laura Fontanals, Florence Janody, Claudine Chaouiya, and Heike Siebert. Detection of markers for discrete phenotypes. In CSBio , pages 64--68, 2021

    2021

  39. [47]

    Loop formulas for disjunctive logic programs

    Joohyung Lee and Vladimir Lifschitz. Loop formulas for disjunctive logic programs. In ICLP , pages 451--465. Springer, 2003

    2003

  40. [48]

    Dynamics inside the cancer cell attractor reveal cell heterogeneity, limits of stability, and escape

    Qin Li, Anders Wennborg, Erik Aurell, Erez Dekel, Jie-Zhi Zou, Yuting Xu, Sui Huang, and Ingemar Ernberg. Dynamics inside the cancer cell attractor reveal cell heterogeneity, limits of stability, and escape. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. , 113(10):2672–2677, February 2016

    2016

  41. [49]

    Advanced algorithms for abstract dialectical frameworks based on complexity analysis of subclasses and SAT solving

    Thomas Linsbichler, Marco Maratea, Andreas Niskanen, Johannes Peter Wallner, and Stefan Woltran. Advanced algorithms for abstract dialectical frameworks based on complexity analysis of subclasses and SAT solving. Artif. Intell. , 307:103697, 2022

    2022

  42. [50]

    Stable models and an alternative logic programming paradigm

    Victor W Marek and Miroslaw Truszczy \'n ski. Stable models and an alternative logic programming paradigm. In The Logic Programming Paradigm , pages 375--398. Springer, 1999

    1999

  43. [51]

    On CNF conversion for disjoint SAT enumeration

    Gabriele Masina, Giuseppe Spallitta, and Roberto Sebastiani. On CNF conversion for disjoint SAT enumeration. In SAT , pages 15:1--15:16, 2023

    2023

  44. [52]

    Patient-specific Boolean models of signalling networks guide personalised treatments

    Arnau Montagud, Jonas B \'e al, Luis Tobalina, Pauline Traynard, Vigneshwari Subramanian, Bence Szalai, R \'o bert Alf \"o ldi, L \'a szl \'o Pusk \'a s, Alfonso Valencia, Emmanuel Barillot, et al. Patient-specific Boolean models of signalling networks guide personalised treat...

    2022

  45. [53]

    Essai d'une théorie algébrique des nombres entiers, précédé d'une introduction logique à une théorie déductive quelconque

    Alessandro Padoa. Essai d'une théorie algébrique des nombres entiers, précédé d'une introduction logique à une théorie déductive quelconque. Bibliothèque du Congrès International de Philosophie , 3:309--365, 1901

    1901

  46. [54]

    Repository of logically consistent real-world Boolean network models

    Samuel Pastva, David S afr \'a nek, Nikola Bene s , Lubo s Brim, and Thomas Henzinger. Repository of logically consistent real-world Boolean network models. bioRxiv , 2023. URL: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2023/06/12/2023.06.12.544361

    2023

  47. [55]

    Reconciling qualitative, abstract, and scalable modeling of biological networks

    Loïc Paulev \' e , Juraj Kol c \' a k, Thomas Chatain, and Stefan Haar. Reconciling qualitative, abstract, and scalable modeling of biological networks. Nat. Commun. , 11(1):1--7, August 2020

    2020

  48. [56]

    Rozum, Jorge G \' o mez Tejeda Za \ n udo, Xiao Gan, D \' a vid Deritei, and R \' e ka Albert

    Jordan C. Rozum, Jorge G \' o mez Tejeda Za \ n udo, Xiao Gan, D \' a vid Deritei, and R \' e ka Albert. Parity and time reversal elucidate both decision-making in empirical models and attractor scaling in critical Boolean networks. Sci. Adv. , 7(29):eabf8124, July 2021

    2021

  49. [57]

    Metabolic network expansion with answer set programming

    Torsten Schaub and Sven Thiele. Metabolic network expansion with answer set programming. In ICLP , pages 312--326. Springer, 2009

    2009

  50. [58]

    u hlwein, Nensi Ikonomi, Michael K \

    Julian D Schwab, Silke D K \"u hlwein, Nensi Ikonomi, Michael K \"u hl, and Hans A Kestler. Concepts in Boolean network modeling: What do they all mean? Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. , 18:571--582, 2020

    2020

  51. [59]

    Reduction for asynchronous Boolean networks: elimination of negatively autoregulated components

    Robert Schwieger and Elisa Tonello. Reduction for asynchronous Boolean networks: elimination of negatively autoregulated components. Discret. Math. Theor. Comput. Sci. , 25(2), 2023

    2023

  52. [60]

    Shubham Sharma, Subhajit Roy, Mate Soos, and Kuldeep S. Meel. GANAK: A scalable probabilistic exact model counter. In IJCAI , pages 1169--1176. ijcai.org, 2019

    2019

  53. [61]

    Dougherty, and Wei Zhang

    Ilya Shmulevich, Edward R. Dougherty, and Wei Zhang. From Boolean to probabilistic Boolean networks as models of genetic regulatory networks. Proc. IEEE , 90(11):1778--1792, 2002

    2002

  54. [62]

    Gene perturbation and intervention in probabilistic Boolean networks

    Ilya Shmulevich, Edward R Dougherty, and Wei Zhang. Gene perturbation and intervention in probabilistic Boolean networks. Bioinf. , 18(10):1319--1331, 2002

    2002

  55. [63]

    Sequential temporary and permanent control of Boolean networks

    Cui Su and Jun Pang. Sequential temporary and permanent control of Boolean networks. In CMSB , pages 234--251. Springer, 2020

    2020

  56. [64]

    sharpSAT - counting models with advanced component caching and implicit BCP

    Marc Thurley. sharpSAT - counting models with advanced component caching and implicit BCP . In SAT , pages 424--429. Springer, 2006

    2006

  57. [65]

    Phenotype control and elimination of variables in Boolean networks

    Elisa Tonello and Loïc Paulevé. Phenotype control and elimination of variables in Boolean networks. Peer Community Journal , 4, August 2024

    2024

  58. [66]

    Predrag T. Tosic. On the complexity of counting fixed points and gardens of eden in sequential dynamical systems on planar bipartite graphs. Int. J. Found. Comput. Sci. , 17(5):1179--1204, 2006

    2006

  59. [67]

    Tosic and Gul A

    Predrag T. Tosic and Gul A. Agha. On computational complexity of counting fixed points in symmetric Boolean graph automata. In UC , pages 191--205. Springer, 2005

    2005

  60. [68]

    Scalable enumeration of trap spaces in Boolean networks via answer set programming

    Van - Giang Trinh, Belaid Benhamou, Samuel Pastva, and Sylvain Soliman. Scalable enumeration of trap spaces in Boolean networks via answer set programming. In AAAI , pages 10714--10722. AAAI Press, 2024

    2024

  61. [69]

    mpbn: a simple tool for efficient edition and analysis of elementary properties of Boolean networks

    Van - Giang Trinh, Belaid Benhamou, and Lo \" c Paulev \' e . mpbn: a simple tool for efficient edition and analysis of elementary properties of Boolean networks. CoRR , abs/2403.06255, 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.06255 arXiv:2403.06255

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Graphical analysis of abstract argumentation frameworks via Boolean networks

    Van - Giang Trinh, Belaid Benhamou, and Vincent Risch. Graphical analysis of abstract argumentation frameworks via Boolean networks. In ICAART , pages 745--756, 2025

    2025

  63. [71]

    Efficient enumeration of fixed points in complex Boolean networks using answer set programming

    Van - Giang Trinh, Belaid Benhamou, and Sylvain Soliman. Efficient enumeration of fixed points in complex Boolean networks using answer set programming. In CP , pages 35:1--35:19. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum f \" u r Informatik, 2023

    2023

  64. [72]

    Trap spaces of Boolean networks are conflict-free siphons of their Petri net encoding

    Van-Giang Trinh, Belaid Benhamou, and Sylvain Soliman. Trap spaces of Boolean networks are conflict-free siphons of their Petri net encoding. Theor. Comput. Sci. , 971:114073, September 2023

    2023

  65. [73]

    Graphical conditions for the existence, unicity and number of regular models

    Van - Giang Trinh, Belaid Benhamou, Sylvain Soliman, and Fran c ois Fages. Graphical conditions for the existence, unicity and number of regular models. In ICLP , pages 175--187, 2024

    2024

  66. [74]

    Computing attractors of large-scale asynchronous Boolean networks using minimal trap spaces

    Van - Giang Trinh, Kunihiko Hiraishi, and Belaid Benhamou. Computing attractors of large-scale asynchronous Boolean networks using minimal trap spaces. In ACM-BCB , pages 13:1--13:10. ACM , 2022

    2022

  67. [75]

    Mapping the attractor landscape of Boolean networks with biobalm

    Van-Giang Trinh, Kyu Hyong Park, Samuel Pastva, and Jordan C Rozum. Mapping the attractor landscape of Boolean networks with biobalm. Bioinformatics , 41(5):btaf280, 2025

    2025

  68. [76]

    Learning Boolean logic models of signaling networks with ASP

    Santiago Videla, Carito Guziolowski, Federica Eduati, Sven Thiele, Martin Gebser, Jacques Nicolas, Julio Saez - Rodriguez, Torsten Schaub, and Anne Siegel. Learning Boolean logic models of signaling networks with ASP . Theor. Comput. Sci. , 599:79--101, 2015

    2015

  69. [77]

    Rounding meets approximate model counting

    Jiong Yang and Kuldeep S Meel. Rounding meets approximate model counting. In CAV , pages 132--162. Springer, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.