See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/270157420

An Artifical Immune Algorithm to Minimize Ordered Kronecker Functional

Decision Diagrams usin in FPGA

Conference Paper · January 2007

CITATIONS READS

0 130

1 author:

Erkan Duman
Firat University
27 PUBLICATIONS 66 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Erkan Duman on 29 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 INISTA 2007 International Symposium on Innovations in Intelligent Systems and Applications
©Yıldız Technical University
An Artificial Immune Algorithm to Minimize Ordered Kronecker
Functional Decision Diagrams using in FPGAs
Erkan DUMAN1 Hayrettin CAN2
1, 2, 3
: Department of Computer Engineering in Firat University, 23119-ELAZIĞ/TURKEY
1:
erkanduman@firat.edu.tr 2: hcan@firat.edu.tr 3: eakin@firat.edu.tr
Abstract
In this study, we introduce the use of one
Artificial Immune System (AIS) algorithm called
Clonal Selection Algorithm (CSA) in order to
minimize the size of an Ordered Kronecker
Functional Decision Diagram (OKFDD) which
represents a Boolean function as a graph. The size
of such a graph is a critical factor by reason of
OKFDDs are used to derive circuits by
substituting the each nodes with AND/XOR and
NOT gates. This data structure is very useful
representation tool especially in a popular
technology called Field Programmable Gate
Array (FPGA) implementing the Boolean
functions as real hardware gate arrays by
mapping and routing them. Here, CSA was
applied to construct this representation data
structure by choosing its variable ordering and
data type list automatically because the number of
nodes in an OKFDD varies from linear to
exponential depending on these properties. In
experiments, the proposed algorithm based on AIS
was evaluated in a test environment developed in
MATLAB using the logic synthesis and
optimization benchmarks distributed by MCNC.
Index Terms— Artificial immune system,
clonal selection algorithm, circuit design
optimization, FPGA
1. Introduction
OKFDD has been introduced as a very useful
data structure in order to use in computer-aided
design systems for efficient representation and
manipulation of Boolean functions in form of a
graph [8]. As understood from its name, OKFDD
is a general form of Ordered Binary Decision
Diagrams (OBDD) and Ordered Functional
Decision Diagram (OFDD) and allows a more
compact representation than both of them. The
size of such a graph is a critical factor by reason of
OKFDDs are used to derive circuits by
substituting the nodes with AND/XOR and NOT
169
Erhan AKIN3
gates. The number of nodes in the graph varies
from linear to exponential depending on the
properties of variable ordering and decomposition
type list detailed in later. But, the choices of an
optimal variable ordering and a suitable
decomposition type list for an OKFDD is a NP-
hard problem [7]. Here, we address a heuristic
approach to solve this optimization problem which
will be the focus of this study.
The dynamic variable ordering methods had
been tested to solve this problem and shown that it
could be applied here [14]. However, it was not
efficiency about the time consuming and requires
an addition process for choosing decomposition
type list. Thus, the same researchers have decided
to apply genetic algorithm due to need of a
heuristic approach [6]. In this paper, we evaluated
another alternative approach, one form of AIS,
which has some advantages in comparison with
genetic algorithm and others.
AIS algorithms are new computational
techniques inspired from biologically systems like
genetic algorithms or artificial neural networks
and they are belong to the set of general purpose
heuristic methods [1]. While solving engineering
problems, the efficiency of these optimization
techniques constituted by summarizing and
modeling the defense mechanism of the biological
systems have been studied [4,5]. The interest of
AIS and its applicability for many examples in
different areas is increasing over the last decade
because it has some advantages which will be
explained in the following over genetic algorithms
and neural networks. However, it seems that
choosing the best suitable technique among these
is depending on the application characteristics.
AIS algorithms exhibit similarities with genetic
algorithms in aspects of encoding search space,
defining an objective function, having a mutation
operator and a resembling flow diagram. They
convergence the local optimums more quickly but
do not have the same speed about global optimum
as genetic algorithm. Addition, they have been
used to get better performance according to the
other optimization techniques in the areas of
pattern recognition, computer and network
security, dynamically task-scheduling, etc [5]. The
immune and nervous systems are sharing the
capabilities of memory and learning and both are
using the threshold values for definite recognition.
If you had investigated their constructions then
you would be able to observe easily that they were
suitable for different areas at same performance.
In this study, CSA was applied to construct
Let consider a Boolean function f = x1 x 2 + x3 .
The two example OKFDDs of this function and
the corresponding circuit constituted only by
AND, OR and NOT gates are shown in Figure 1
that they are explaining the way how to construct a
circuit from such a graph. This translation process
can be learned in detail Becker’s study [9].
f

OKFDDs by choosing the variable ordering and

the data type list automatically because the x1 pD x1
pD

number of nodes varies from linear to exponential x2

nD x2
nD
depending on these properties. We pointed out that x1
x3 x3 x3
this optimization technique could be an alternative S S

heuristic approach in the problem of the 0 1 1

x2
minimization of OKFDDs. x3

The rest of the paper is organized as follows.

Section 2 gives an introduction of the problem
domain. Section 3 describes the structure of CSA
and section 4 presents the adaptation of this
algorithm for our optimization problem. Section 5
shows the experimental results of the proposed
method and the last section includes the
conclusions.
2. The Problem Domain
Firstly we have to answer the questions of what
are OKFDDs and then how can they be used to
derive logic circuits:
The kronecker functional decision diagram
could be imagined in form of a graph that each
node carries out one of the following three
decompositions in where f is an arbitrary Boolean
(B) function and f : B n → B over the variable set
of X n = {x1 , x 2 ,...., x n } ∈ B n .
f = xi f i0 + xi f i1 Shannon
f = f i0 ⊕ xi f i 2 Positive Davio
f = f i1 ⊕ xi f i 2
Negative Davio
Figure 1: OKFDDs of a function
f = x1 x2 + x3 and derived logic circuit from these
graphs.
We used a few exams in the following of this
section which were selected from the previous
basic studies for explaining the size of the graph
and consequently the size of the corresponding
circuit are influenced by the choices of DTL and
variable ordering list. In the figures of all these
exams, the right and left outgoing edges of each
node xi denote f xi =1 , f xi =0 respectively. For
instance; in Figure 2 it is shown that the number of
nodes in an OKFDD may be changed by choosing
a good DTL. The both graphs in Figure 2
represent the same function f = x1 .x3 + x 2 with
the same variable ordering but the OKFDD on the
right-hand side has small graph size with DTL =
{nD, pD, nD}in comparison with on left . In the
other words, it means that the choice of DTL on
(S) the left-hand side OKFDD is not suitable for this
function as much as on the right.
(pD)
x1
nD
x1
(nD) nD

x2 x2 nD x2
pD
0
If this graph is ordered then the corresponding 1
1 0
x3 nD
kronecker functional decision diagram is called an x3
S
OKFDD. These definitions had been examined 0 1

detailed in Drechsler’s study[7].The term of 1 0

f i0 (x ) = f (x1 , x 2 ,..., xi −1 ,0, xi +1 ,..., x n ) denotes the Figure 2: OKFDDs of a function

cofactor of f with respect to xi = 0 , similarly
denotes the cofactor for xi = 1 and f i 2 is defined
as f i 2 = f i0 ⊕ f i1 ( ⊕ and being the exclusive
OR and NOT operation respectively). A
decomposition type list (DTL) in an OKFDD is
denoted by d = (d1 , d 2 ,..., d n ) where
d i ∈ {S , pD, nD} 1 ≤ i ≤ n and this list ( d i ) is
associated with variable list ( xi ).
f i1 f = x1.x3 + x2 with different DTLs.
The second factor influencing the size of
OKFDD circuits is variable ordering. The OBDDs
of a function f = x1 x 2 + x3 x 4 + x5 x 6 with
variable orderings of x1 x 2 x3 x 4 x5 x 6 and
x1 x3 x5 x 2 x 4 x 6 are shown in Figure 3 which had
been used to examined this situation in a previous
study [6]. The both graphs represent the same

170
function but the number of the nodes on the right- • The probability of maturate (generally it
hand side is greater then on the left due to is chosen smaller then the value used in
choosing unsuitable variable ordering list. genetic algorithm)
• The probability of re-production
x1
• The terminated conditions (max. iteration
x3 x3
or desired straightness)
x1
x5 x5 x5 x5

x2

x3 x2 x2 x2
x2

x4

x5 x4 x4

x6 x6

1 0 1 0

Figure 3: OBDDs of a function

f = x1 x 2 + x3 x 4 + x5 x 6 with different variable
orderings.

We tested to adapt an optimization technique

based on AIS called CSA so as to find the optimal
variable ordering list and DTL automatically for
an OKFDD representing an arbitrary given
Boolean function f with the minimum number of
the nodes as far as possible.

3. The Optimization Algorithm

The steps of a CSA had been defined and Figure 4: Block diagram of CSA.
examined by Castro as shown in Figure 4 and each
step of this diagram could be explained in detail in 4. The Proposed Method
the following[2,3]:
In the following, we describe the proposed
(1) Generate a set (P) of candidate solutions, optimization method that is applied to the problem
composed of the subset of memory cells (M) added to the
remaining (Pr) population (P = Pr + M); of OKFDDs minimization mentioned above. The
(2) Determine (Select) the n best individuals of the details of our method can be explained easily by
population (Pn), based on an affinity measure; using a simple example function f = x1 x 2 + x3 x 4
(3) Reproduce (Clone) these n best individuals of
the population, giving rise to a temporary population of clones with four variables.
(C). The clone size is an increasing function of the affinity with The first step in a CSA algorithm is to define
the antigen; how to encode a whole candidate solution into one
(4) Submit the population of clones to a
hypermutation scheme, where the hypermutation is
clone then to construct a random population
proportional to the affinity of the antibody with the antigen. A containing a set of such clones. As seen in Figure
maturated antibody population is generated (C*); 5 (c) that one clone is composed of three blocks:
(5) Re-select the improved individuals from C* to variable ordering, decomposition-type and
compose the memory set M. Some members of P can be
replaced by other improved members of C*;
neighbor lists. This example clone represents an
(6) Replace d antibodies by novel ones (diversity example OKFDD graph showed in Figure 5 (a)
introduction). The lower affinity cells have higher probabilities and also the way how to derive this structure as
of being replaced. seen in Figure 5 (b). This graph could be
The designer has to define the values of some considered basically as a binary three in order to
parameters listed below in this algorithm in order understand the means of the assigned number of
to get effective results. It is a general each node.
disappointment subject for many heuristic The mains of variable ordering and d-types list
approaches like genetic algorithms, fuzzy systems, are explained with their effects in the previous
neural networks and so forth. sections. Now, we have to make a statement about
• The size of the population what neighbor list indicates. The size of this list is
• The definition of affinity measuring
function
( )
computed by 2 * 2 n − 1 where n is the number
of variables so in this example clone it is equal to
• The value of n

171
 1 x1 pD 1
x1-pD
3 x2 pD
2 3
x2-pD

0 1 4 5 6 7
x3-S
5 x3 S
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
x4-S
0 11 x4 S

0 1
0 1

(a) (b)

Variable Ordering Dec.-type List Neighbor List

1 2 3 4 pD pD S S 5 3 - - 0* 1* - - 0* 11 - - - - - -

- - - - 0* 1* - - - - - - - - - -

(c)
Figure 5: An example clone and its encoding.

30 with n = 4. The inside of the root node is stored in
the first element of the variable ordering list. The left
and right outgoing edges of ith node are linked to the
elements of 2 * i − 1 and 2 * i respectively
where 1 ≤ i ≤ (2 n − 1) . For example the left (right)
neighbor of the root node (i = 1) is storing in the
2*1-1 (2*1) element of the neighbor list. The
notations of 0* and 1* in the neighbor list indicate a
terminal node with values of 0 and 1 respectively.
In our method, the all values in a clone are also
encoded as a bit-string array similar to the previous
studies. In the above example, the size of the exam
clone is computed by the equation 1 with variable
number n = 4. The first term denotes the size of
variable ordering list and it is considered that if there
are n variables and each one is encoded by log 2 (n )
bits then the sum of them is equal to n * log 2 (n ) . It is
described in the second term that the each variable
requires only 2-bits to represent own decomposition
type so the dec-type list spends only n * 2 bits
totally. The last multiplication means a statement
that one node in the above graph is encoded using
( )
log 2 2 n − 1 bits and also each node has two child
links so the each of the (2
( n
)
2 * log 2 2 − 1 bits to show its relations with others.
(1)
(
size = n * log 2 (n ) + n * 2 + 2 * 2 n − 1 * log 2 2 n − 1
[ ( n
n = 4 → 4 * log 2 4 + 4 * 2 + 2 * 2 − 1 * log 2 2 − 1 = 136
In the each iteration of CSA, the decision about
whether one clone will survive in the next iteration
or not is made with respect to its affinity measure. To
measure the affinity of a clone, we considered two
aspects of the problem: correctness and size. Firstly,
a clone is used to construct a graph automatically
then we test this graph should provide the achieving
of the desired function otherwise it will get a very
small affinity value. In all of the experiments we
used a truth table of related function in which each
row represents a relation case between inputs and
outputs like the logic synthesis and optimization
benchmarks distributed by Microelectronics Center
of North Carolina (MCNC). If the graph guarantees
the desired correctness, its affinity value that
depends on its number of nodes will be defined as
shown on equation 2 where C is a constant
indicating the maximum number of nodes so our
problem will be transformed to a maximization
problem by this objective function. The best solution
having the minimum number of the nodes in a
population gets the maximum affinity value.
(2)
the affinity of a graph = C − (number of nodes)
The selection step of our algorithm was done by
roulette wheel technique known from GA that each
individual in a population can be able to choose with
a probability proportional to its affinity value. The
n
−1 ) nodes needs parameter of n that mentioned in the previous
section is very critical in order to convergence
quickly. The genetic operators in CSA are
reproduction (clone) and maturate. The first is
) ( ) performed by copying the n individuals in current
) ( n
)] population into the next generation and the maturate
step proceeds by randomly changing a few bits in
random positions in a clone with given mutation
probability.

172
 5. Experimental Results
In order to compare the performance of our
proposed optimization method with previous
heuristic studies, we obtained the source code
distributions of PUMA [12], and TUDD [11].
Unfortunately, both of those packages weren’t
compiled due to numerous Linux kernel errors. Since
these packages were developed under very old
LINUX distributions, neither these packages nor the
kernel of their development environment are
compatible with accepted ANSI/ISO standards of
C++ programming language.
Furthermore, we also obtained source code and
made experiments with the wld package [13]. This
package is designed as word level so that it is not
suitable for OKFDDs implementation, which is
designed as bit level. Instead, results of the
benchmarks are given to provide information about
the proposed method’s performance. A test
environment was developed by using MATLAB, and
then benchmark results were obtained from
LGSynth91 [10], which is distributed by MCNC.
Obtained results are summarized in Table 1. All of
the benchmarks test the number of gates in the
circuits (number of nodes in the OKFDDs). As it can
be seen from the column of approximate gates, the
number of gates was significantly reduced by the
CSA.
Table 1: Results for some circuits
benchmark
Function
Approx.
Output
Circuit
Gates
name
Input
or
9symm1 Count Ones 9 1 43
alu2 ALU 10 6 335
f51m1 Arithmetic 8 8 43
frg1 Logic 28 3 105
6. Conclusions
In this paper, we proposed an alternative heuristic
method, which is different from the previous studies
by its approach. This method could be applicable to
our optimization problem. The results obtained from
our experiments which were implemented in only
small size benchmarks proof that this method will be
able to use in evaluating of great digital circuit
designs in future. Addition, we realized that an
object-oriented test environment like C# or Delphi
will be more effective, usable and easily windows-
based development environment in order to
implement OKFDDs according to MATLAB. We are
planning to adopt and to test our optimization
method based AIS for word-based kronecker
functional decision diagrams. This future study
would be developed not only bit based but also it
View publication stats
would be developed under an object oriented
development environment.
7. References
[1] L. D. Castro, J. Timmis, “Artificial Immune Systems:
A Novel Paradigm to Pattern Recognition”, In Artificial
Neural Networks in Pattern Recognition, J.M. Corchado,
L. Alonso and C. Fyfe (eds), SOCO-2002, University of
Paisley, UK, pp. 67-84, 2002.
[2] L. D. Castro, Fernando J. Von Zuben, “Learning and
Optimization Using the Clonal Selection Principle”, IEEE
Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, Special Issue
on Artificial Immune Systems, vol. 6, n. 3, pp. 239-251,
2002
[3] L. D. Castro, F. J. Von Zuben, “The Clonal Selection
Algorithm with Engineering Applications”, In Workshop
Preceedings of GECCO’00, Workshop on Artificial
Immune Systems and Their Applications, pp. 36-37, USA,
2000.
[4] L. D. Castro, F. J. Von Zuben, “Artificial Immune
Systems: Part I-Basic Theory and Applications”, Technical
Report, TR-DCA 01/99, 1999.
[5] L. D. Castro, F. J. Von Zuben, “Artificial Immune
Systems: Part II-A Survey of Applications”, Technical
Report, TR-DCA 02/00, 2000.
[6] R. Drechsler, B. Becker, N. Drechsler, “OKFDD
minimization by genetic algorithms with applicaiton to
circuit design”, INTEGRATION, the VLSI journal 28, pp.
121-139, ELSEVIER, 1999.
[7] R. Drechsler, B. Becker, “Ordered Kronecker
Functional Decision-A Data Structure for Representation
and Manipulation of Boolean Functions”, IEEE
Transactions on Computer Aided Design of Integrated
CSA
Circuits and Systems, Vol. 17, No.10, 1998.
[8] R. Drechsler, A. Sarabi, M. Theobald, B. Becker, M.A.
Perkowski, “Efficient Representation and Manipulation of
19 Switching Functions Based on Ordered Kronecker
119 Functional Decision Diagrams”, 31st ACM/IEEE Design
28 Automation Conference, 1994.
76 [9] Bernd Becker, “Testing with decision diagrams”,
INTEGRATION, the VLSI journal 26, pp. 5-20,
ELSEVIER, 1998.
[10] S. Yang, “Logic Synthesis and Optimization
Benchmarks User Guide”, Technical report at
Microelectronics Center of North Carolina, 1991.
[11] S. Höreth, “Implementation of a Multiple-Domain
Decision Diagram Package”, in Advenced Research
Working Conference on Correct Hardware Design and
Verification Methods (CHARME’97), pp. 185-202,
Canada, 1997.
[12] R. Drechsler, B. Becker, “PUMA: An OKFDD
package and its implementation”,in European
Design&Test Conf., University Booth, 1995.
[13] Marc Herbstritt, “wld: A (C++) world-level decision
diagrams package”,User’s and Developer’s Manual in
Institute of computer science, Albert-Ludwigs-University,
Freiburg, 2000.
[14] R. Drechsler, B. Becker, “Dynamic Minimization of
OKFDDs”, VLSI in computers&processors (ICDD’95), pp.
602-607, IEEE, 1995.
173