skip to main content
10.1145/1837274.1837398acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdacConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

BooM: a decision procedure for boolean matching with abstraction and dynamic learning

Published:13 June 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

Boolean matching determines whether two given (in)completely-specified Boolean functions can be identical or complementary to each other under permutation and/or negation of their input variables. Due to its broad applications in logic synthesis and verification, it attracted much attention. Most prior efforts however were incomplete and/or restricted to certain special matching conditions. In contrast, this paper focuses on the computation kernel of Boolean matching and proposes a complete generic framework. Through conflict-driven learning and abstraction, the capacity of Boolean matching scales up due to the effective pruning of infeasible matching solutions. Experiments show encouraging results in resolving hard instances that are otherwise unsolvable.

References

  1. A. Abdollahi. Signature based Boolean matching in the presence of don't cares. In Proc. DAC, pp. 642--647, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. G. Agosta, F. Bruschi, G. Pelosi, and D. Sciuto. A trasnform-parametric approch to Boolean matching. IEEE Trans. Comput.-Aided Design Integr. Circuits Syst., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 805--817, Jun. 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. A. Abdollahi and M. Pedram. Symmetry detection and Boolean matching utilizing a signature-based canonical form of Boolean functions. IEEE Trans. Comput.-Aided Design Integr. Circuits Syst., vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 1128--1137, Jun. 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. M. Agrawal and T. Thierauf. The Boolean isomorphism problem. In Proc. IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 422--430, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. L. Benini and G. De Micheli. A survey of Boolean matching techniques for library binding. ACM Trans. on Design Automation of Electronic Systems, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 193--226, Jul. 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Berkeley Logic Synthesis and Verification Group. ABC: A system for sequential synthesis and verification. http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~alanmi/abc/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. B. Borchert, D. Ranjan, and F. Stephan. On the computational complexity of some classical equivalence relations on Boolean functions. Forschungsberichte Mathematische Logik, Universität Heidelberg, Bericht Nr. 18, Dec. 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. J. Cong and Y.-Y. Hwang. Boolean matching for LUT-based logic blocks with applications to architecture evaluation and technology mapping. IEEE Trans. Comput.-Aided Design Integr. Circuits Syst., vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 1077--1090, Sep. 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. DepQBF: http://fmv.jku.at/depqbf/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. N. Eén and N. Sörensson. An extensible SAT-solver. In Proc. SAT, pp. 502--518, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. S. Krishnaswamy, H. Ren, N. Modi, and R. Puri. DeltaSyn: An efficient logic-difference optimizer for ECO synthesis. In Proc. ICCAD, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. J. Mohnke, P. Molitor, and S. Malik. Limits of using signatures for permutation independent Boolean comparison. In Proc. ASP-DAC, pp. 459--464, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. J. Mohnke, P. Molitor, and S. Malik. Application of BDDs in Boolean matching techniques for formal logic combinational verification. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 1--10, Springer, May 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. M. Moskewicz, C. Madigan, L. Zhang, and S. Malik. Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT solver. In Proc. DAC, pp. 530--535, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. J. Marques-Silva and K. Sakallah. GRASP: A search algorithm for propositional satisfiability. IEEE Trans. on Computers, vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 506--521, May 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. G. Tseitin. On the complexity of derivation in propositional calculus. Studies in Constructive Mathematics and Mathematical Logic, pp. 466--483, 1970.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. K.-H. Wang and C.-M. Chan. Incremental learning approach and SAT model for Boolean matching with don't cares. In Proc. ICCAD, pp. 234--239, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Z. Wei, D. Chai, A. Kuehlmann, and A. R. Newton. Fast Boolean matching with don't cares. In Proc. Int. Symp. on Quality Electronic Design, pp. 346--351, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. K.-H. Wang, C.-M. Chan, and J.-C. Liu. Simulation and SAT-based Boolean matching for large Boolean networks. In Proc. DAC, pp. 396--401, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. BooM: a decision procedure for boolean matching with abstraction and dynamic learning

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        DAC '10: Proceedings of the 47th Design Automation Conference
        June 2010
        1036 pages
        ISBN:9781450300025
        DOI:10.1145/1837274

        Copyright © 2010 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 13 June 2010

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate1,770of5,499submissions,32%

        Upcoming Conference

        DAC '24
        61st ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference
        June 23 - 27, 2024
        San Francisco , CA , USA

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader