Solving the model counting problem #SAT, asking for the number of satisfying assignments of a propositional formula, has been explored intensively and has gathered its own community. While most existing solvers are based on knowledge compilation, another promising approach is through contraction in tensor hypernetworks. We perform a theoretical proof-complexity analysis of this approach. For this, we design two new tensor-based proof systems that we show to tightly correspond to tensor-based #SAT solving. We determine the simulation order of #SAT proof systems and prove exponential separations between the systems. This sheds light on the relative performance of different #SAT solving approaches.

Several proof systems for model counting have been introduced in recent years, mainly in an attempt to model #SAT solving and to allow proof logging of solvers. We reexamine these different approaches and show that: (i) with moderate adaptations, the conceptually quite different proof models of the dynamic system MICE and the static system of annotated Decision-DNNFs are equivalent and (ii) they tightly characterise state-of-the-art #SAT solving. Thus, these proof systems provide a precise and robust proof-theoretic underpinning of current model counting. We also propose new strengthenings of these proof systems that might lead to stronger model counters.