Advertisement

Towards a Scalable EA-Based Optimization of Digital Circuits

  • Jitka KocnovaEmail author
  • Zdenek Vasicek
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11451)

Abstract

Scalability of fitness evaluation was the main bottleneck preventing adopting the evolution in the task of logic circuits synthesis since early nineties. Recently, various formal approaches have been introduced to this field to overcome this issue. This made it possible to optimise complex circuits consisting of hundreds of inputs and thousands of gates. Unfortunately, we are facing to the another problem – scalability of representation. The efficiency of the evolutionary optimization applied at the global level deteriorates with the increasing complexity. In this paper, we propose to apply the concept of local resynthesis. Resynthesis is an iterative process based on extraction of smaller sub-circuits from a complex circuit that are optimized locally and implanted back to the original circuit. When applied appropriately, this approach can mitigate the problem of scalability of representation. Our evaluation on a set of nontrivial real-world benchmark problems shows that the proposed method provides better results compared to global evolutionary optimization. In more than 60% cases, substantially higher number of redundant gates was removed while keeping the computational effort at the same level.

Keywords

Cartesian Genetic Programming Resynthesis Logic optimization 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by The Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic – INTER-COST project LTC18053 and by the Brno University of Technology project FIT-S-17-3994.

References

  1. 1.
    Mishchenko, A., Chatterjee, S., Brayton, R.: DAG-aware AIG rewriting: a fresh look at combinational logic synthesis. In: 2006 43rd ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference, pp. 532–535, July 2006Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mishchenko, A., Brayton, R.: Scalable logic synthesis using a simple circuit structure. In: International Workshop on Logic and Synthesis, pp. 15–22 (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sekanina, L., Ptak, O., Vasicek, Z.: Cartesian genetic programming as local optimizer of logic networks. In: 2014 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, pp. 2901–2908. IEEE CIS (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fiser, P., Schmidt, J., Vasicek, Z., Sekanina, L.: On logic synthesis of conventionally hard to synthesize circuits using genetic programming. In: 13th IEEE Symposium on Design and Diagnostics of Electronic Circuits and Systems, pp. 346–351 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fiser, P., Schmidt, J.: Small but nasty logic synthesis examples. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Boolean Problems, pp. 183–190 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vasicek, Z.: Cartesian GP in optimization of combinational circuits with hundreds of inputs and thousands of gates. In: Machado, P., et al. (eds.) EuroGP 2015. LNCS, vol. 9025, pp. 139–150. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16501-1_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Li, N., Dubrova, E.: AIG rewriting using 5-input cuts. In: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computer Design, pp. 429–430. IEEE CS (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lohn, J.D., Hornby, G.S.: Evolvable hardware: using evolutionary computation to design and optimize hardware systems. IEEE Comput. Intell. Mag. 1(1), 19–27 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Miller, J.F., Thomson, P.: Cartesian genetic programming. In: Poli, R., Banzhaf, W., Langdon, W.B., Miller, J., Nordin, P., Fogarty, T.C. (eds.) EuroGP 2000. LNCS, vol. 1802, pp. 121–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-46239-2_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Miller, J.F.: Cartesian Genetic Programming. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17310-3CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vassilev, V., Job, D., Miller, J.F.: Towards the automatic design of more efficient digital circuits. In: Lohn, J., Stoica, A., Keymeulen, D., Colombano, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2nd NASA/DoD Workshop on Evolvable Hardware, pp. 151–160. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tao, Y., Zhang, L., Zhang, Y.: A projection-based decomposition for the scalability of evolvable hardware. Soft Comput. 20(6), 2205–2218 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stomeo, E., Kalganova, T., Lambert, C.: Generalized disjunction decomposition for the evolution of programmable logic array structures. In: First NASA/ESA Conference on Adaptive Hardware and Systems (AHS 2006), pp. 179–185 (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vasicek, Z., Sekanina, L.: Formal verification of candidate solutions for post-synthesis evolutionary optimization in evolvable hardware. Genet. Program. Evolvable Mach. 12(3), 305–327 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fiser, P., Halecek, I., Schmidt, J.: Are XORs in logic synthesis really necessary? In: IEEE 20th International Symposium on Design and Diagnostics of Electronic Circuits and Systems (DDECS), pp. 138–143 (2017)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fiser, P., Schmidt, J.: It is better to run iterative resynthesis on parts of the circuit. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Workshop on Logic and Synthesis, pp. 17–24. University of California Irvine (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wolf, C., Glaser, J., Kepler, J.: Yosys-a free Verilog synthesis suite. In: Proceedings of the 21st Austrian Workshop on Microelectronics (Austrochip) (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brayton, R., Mishchenko, A.: ABC: an academic industrial-strength verification tool. In: Touili, T., Cook, B., Jackson, P. (eds.) CAV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6174, pp. 24–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14295-6_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Information Technology, IT4Innovations Centre of ExcellenceBrno University of TechnologyBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations