Use of Gray Decoding for Implementation of Symmetric Functions

Part of the IFIP International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 291)

We study a problem of reduction of the number of product terms in representation of totally symmetric Boolean functions by Sum of Products (SOP) and Fixed Polarity Reed-Muller (FPRM) expansions. We propose a method, based on the Gray decoding, for reduction of the number of product terms, and, consequently, the implementation cost of the symmetric functions. The method is founded on the principles of linear transformations of the input variables of an initial function. It provides significant simplification both of the SOPs and the FPRMs representations of the functions. Mathematical analysis as well as experimental results demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed method.


Autocorrelation Function Linear Transformation Boolean Function Symmetric Function Product Term 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    J.T. Astola and R.S. Stankovic, Fundamentals of Switching Theory and Logic Design: A Hands on Approach, Springer-Verlag New York, 2006.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Chrzanowska-Jeske and Z. Wang, “Mapping of symmetric and partially-symmetric functions to the CA-type FPGAs” proc. of the 38th Midwest Symposium on Circuits and Systems, vol. 1, pp. 290–293, Aug 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. L. Dietmeyer, “Generating minimal covers of symmetric functions,” IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp. 710–713, May 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Drechsler, B. Becker, “Sympathy: fast exact minimization of fixed polarity Reed-Muller expressions for symmetric functions,” Proc. of the European Design and Test Conference, pp. 91 – 97, March 1995.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Drechsler and B. Becker, “EXOR transforms of inputs to design efficient two-level AND-EXOR adders,” IEE Electronic Letters, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 201–202, Feb. 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    F. Gray, “Pulse code communication,” March 17, 1953 (filed Nov. 1947). U.S. Patent 2.632,058.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    W. Günther, R. Drechsler, “BDD minimization by linear transforms”, Advanced Computer Systems, pp. 525–532, 1998.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S.L. Hurst, D.M. Miller, J.C. Muzio, Spectral Techniques in Digital Logic, Academic Press, Bristol, 1985.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Jain, D. Moundanos, J. Bitner, J.A. Abraham, D.S. Fussell and D.E. Ross, “Efficient variable ordering and partial representation algorithm,” Proc. of the 8th International Conference on VLSI Design, pp. 81–86, Jan. 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Jakob, P.S. Sivakumar, V.D. Agarwal, “Adder and comparator synthesis with exclusive-OR transform of inputs”, Proc. 1st Int. Conf. VLSI Design, pp. 514–515, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Kannurao and B. J. Falkowski, “Identification of complement single variable symmetry in Boolean functions through Walsh transform,” Proceedings of the International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS), 2002.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M.G. Karpovsky, Finite Orthogonal Series in the Design of Digital Devices, John Wiley, 1976.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M.G. Karpovsky, E.S. Moskalev, “Utilization of autocorrelation characteristics for the realization of systems of logical functions,” Avtomatika i Telemekhanika, No. 2, 1970, 83–90, English translation Automatic and Remote Control, Vol. 31, pp. 342–350, 1970.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M.G. Karpovsky, R.S. Stankovic and J.T. Astola, “Reduction of sizes of decision diagrams by autocorrelation functions,” IEEE Trans. on Computers, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 592–606, May 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    O. Keren, I. Levin and R.S. Stankovic, “Linearization of Functions Represented as a Set of Disjoint Cubes at the Autocorrelation Domain,” Proc. of the 7th International Workshop on Boolean Problems, pp. 137–144, Sept. 2006.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    B. G. Kim, D.L. Dietmeyer, “Multilevel logic synthesis of symmetric switching functions,” IEEE Trans. on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, Vol.10, No. 4O, pp. 436–446, Apr. 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    E.J., Jr. McCluskey, “Detection of group invariance or total symmetry of a Boolean function,” Bell Systems Tech. Journal, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 1445–1453, 1956.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ch. Meinel, F. Somenzi, T. Tehobald, “Linear sifting of decision diagrams and its application in synthesis,” IEEE Trans. CAD, Vol. 19, No. 5, 2000, 521–533.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    D. Moller, J. Mohnke, and M. Weber, “Detection of symmetry of Boolean functions represented by ROBDDs,” Proc. of the International Conference on Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD), 1993, pp. 680684.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    C. Moraga, “Introducing disjoint spectral translation in spectral multiple-valued logic design”, IEE Electronics Letters, 1978, Vol. 14, No. 8, pp. 248–243, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    C. Moraga, “On some applications of the Chrestenson functions in logic design and data processing”, Mathematic and Computers in Simulation, Vol. 27, pp. 431–439, 1985.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    E.I. Nechiporuk, “On the synthesis of networks using linear transformations of variables”, Dokl. AN SSSR. Vol. 123, No. 4, pp. 610–612, Dec. 1958.MATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    S. Panda, F. Somenzi, and B. Plessier, “Symmetry detection and dynamic variable ordering of decision diagrams,” Proc. of the International Conference on Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD), 1994.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    T. Sasao, Logic Synthesis and Optimization, Springer, 1993.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    T. Sasao, Switching Theory for Logic Synthesis, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Feb. 1999Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    T. Sasao, “A new expansion of symmetric functions and their application to non-disjoint functional decompositions for LUT type FPGAs”, IEEE Int. Workshop on Logic Synthesis, IWLS-2000, May 2000.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    C. E. Shannon, “The Synthesis of Two-Terminal Switching Circuits,” Bell System Technical Journal, Vol. 28, pp. 59–98, Jan. 1949.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    R.S. Stankovic, J.T. Astola, “Some remarks on linear transform of variables in adders,” Proc. 5th Int. Workshop on Applications of Reed-Muller Expression in Circuit design, Starkville, Mississippi, USA, Aug. 10–11, pp. 294–302, 2001.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    D. Varma and E.A. Trachtenberg, “Design automation tools for efficient implementation of logic functions by decomposition,” IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 901–916, Aug. 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    K.H. Wang and J.H. Chen, “Symmetry Detection for Incompletely Specified Functions,” Proc. of the 41st Conference on Design Automation Conference, (DAC’04), pp. 434–437, 2004.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    G. Wolfovitz “The complexity of depth-3 circuits computing symmetric Boolean functions,” Information Processing Letters, vol. 100, No. 2, pp. 41 – 46, Oct. 2006.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    S.N. Yanushkevich, J.T. Butler, G.W. Dueck, V.P. Shmerko, “Experiments on FPRM expressions for partially symmetric logic functions”, Proc. 30th Int. Symp. on Multiple-Valued Logic, Portland, Oregon USA, 141–146, May 2000.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    J.S. Zhang, A. Mishchenko, R. Brayton, M. Chrzanowska-Jeske, “Symmetry detection for large Boolean functions using circuit representation, simulation, and satisfiability”, Proceedings of the 43rd annual conference on Design automation, pp. 510–515, 2006.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag US 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bar-Ilan UniversityIsrael
  2. 2.Tel-Aviv UniversityIsrael
  3. 3.Nis UniversitySerbia

Personalised recommendations