Manipulation algorithms for K*BMDs

  • Rolf Drechsler
  • Bernd Becker
  • Stefan Ruppertz
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1217)


Bit-level and word-level based Decision Diagrams (DDs) have led to significant advances in the area of Computer Aided Design (CAD). Recently, a new data structure for the word-level, called Kronecker Multiplicative BMDs (K*BMDs), has been presented.

We study manipulation algorithms for K*BMDs: Using K*BMDs it is possible to represent functions efficiently, that have a good word-level description (like multipliers). On the the other hand K*BMDs are also applicable to verification problems at the bit-level. We clarify the relation between bit- and word-level representation which is of importance in particular in the context of verification. Experiments show that *BMDs are not wellsuited for the bit-level. On the other hand OBDDs are not applicable on the word-level. We present algorithms that allow to dynamically switch between bit-level and word-level. We discuss a method for changing the decomposition type and variable order. First experiments demonstrate the efficiency of K*BMDs as a data structure that is suitable for bit-level and word-level functions as well, e.g. K*BMDs can efficiently represent all of the LGSynth91, ISCAS85, and ISCAS89 benchmarks.


  1. 1.
    D.P. Appenzeller and A. Kuehlmann. Formal verification of a PowerPC microprocessor. In Int'l Conf. on Comp. Design, pages 79–84, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    L. Arditi. *bmds can delay the use of theorem proving for verifying arithmetic assembly instructions. In FMCAD, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. Becker, R. Drechsler, and R. Enders. On the computational power of bit-level and word-level decision diagrams. In ASP Design Automation Conf., 1997.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. Becker, R. Drechsler, and M. Theobald. OKFDDs versus OBDDs and OFDDs. In ICALP, LNCS 944, pages 475–486, 1995.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    K.S. Brace, R.L. Rudell, and R.E. Bryant. Efficient implementation of a BDD package. In Design Automation Conf., pages 40–45, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    F. Brglez and H. Fujiwara. A neutral netlist of 10 combinational circuits and a target translator in fortran. In Int'l Symp. Circ. and Systems, Special Sess. on ATPG and Fault Simulation, pages 663–698, 1985.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R.E. Bryant. Graph — based algorithms for Boolean function manipulation. IEEE Trans. on Comp., 35(8):677–691, 1986.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R.E. Bryant. On the complexity of VLSI implementations and graph representations of Boolean functions with application to integer multiplication. IEEE Trans. on Comp., 40:205–213, 1991.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R.E. Bryant. Symbolic boolean manipulation with ordered binary decision diagrams. ACM, Comp. Surveys, 24:293–318, 1992.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R.E. Bryant and Y.-A. Chen. Verification of arithmetic functions with binary moment diagrams. Technical report, CMU-CS-94-160, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R.E. Bryant and Y.-A. Chen. Verification of arithmetic functions with binary moment diagrams. In Design Automation Conf., pages 535–541, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    E. Clarke, M. Fujita, P. McGeer, K. McMillan, J. Yang, and X. Zhao. Multi terminal binary decision diagrams: An efficient data structure for matrix representation. In Int'l Workshop on Logic Synth., pages P6a:1–15, 1993.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    E.M. Clarke, M. Fujita, and X. Zhao. Application of multi-terminal binary decision diagrams. IFIP WG 10.5 Workshop on Applications of the Reed-Muller Expansion in Circuit Design, pages 21–27, 1995.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    E.M. Clarke, M. Fujita, and X. Zhao. Hybrid decision diagrams — overcoming the limitations of MTBDDs and BMDs. In Int'l Conf. on CAD, pages 159–163, 1995.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    E.M. Clarke and X. Zhao. Word level symbolic model checking — a new approach for verifying arithmetic circuits. Technical Report CMU-CS-95-161, 1995.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. Drechsler and B. Becker. Dynamic minimization of OKFDDs. In Int'l Conf. on Comp. Design, pages 602–607, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. Drechsler, B. Becker, and S. Ruppertz. K*BMDs: A new data structure for verification. In European Design & Test Conf., pages 2–8, 1996.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. Drechsler, A. Sarabi, M. Theobald, B. Becker, and M.A. Perkowski. Efficient representation and manipulation of switching functions based on Ordered Kronecker Functional Decision Diagrams. In Design Automation Conf., pages 415–419, 1994.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. Drechsler, M. Theobald, and B. Becker. Fast OFDD based minimization of Fixed Polarity Reed-Muller expressions. In European Design Automation Conf., pages 2–7, 1994.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R. Enders. Note on the complexity of binary moment diagram representations. IFIP WG 10.5 Workshop on Applications of the Reed-Muller Expansion in Circuit Design, pages 191–197, 1995.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. Fujita, H. Fujisawa, and N. Kawato. Evaluation and improvements of boolean comparison method based on binary decision diagrams. In Int'l Conf. on CAD, pages 2–5, 1988.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. Fujita, Y. Matsunaga, and T. Kakuda. On variable ordering of binary decision diagrams for the application of multi-level synthesis. In European Conf. on Design Automation, pages 50–54, 1991.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    U. Kebschull, E. Schubert, and W. Rosenstiel. Multilevel logic synthesis based on functional decision diagrams. In European Conf. on Design Automation, pages 43–47, 1992.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    R. Krieger, B. Becker, and R. Sinković. A BDD-based algorithm for computation of exact fault detection probabilities. In Int'l Symp. on Fault-Tolerant Comp., pages 186–195, 1993.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Y.-T. Lai and S. Sastry. Edge-valued binary decision diagrams for multi-level hierarchical verification. In Design Automation Conf., pages 608–613, 1992.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    S. Malik, A.R. Wang, R.K. Brayton, and A.L. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli. Logic verification using binary decision diagrams in a logic synthesis environment. In Int'l Conf. on CAD, pages 6–9, 1988.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    S. Minato, N. Ishiura, and S. Yajima. Shared binary decision diagrams with attributed edges for efficient boolean function manipulation. In Design Automation Conf., pages 52–57, 1990.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    S. Panda and F. Somenzi. Who are the variables in your neighborhood. In Int'l Conf. on CAD, pages 74–77, 1995.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    R. Rudell. Dynamic variable ordering for ordered binary decision diagrams. In Int'l Conf. on CAD, pages 42–47, 1993.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    P. Tafertshofer and M. Pedram. Factored edge-valued binary decision diagrams. to appear in Formal Methods in System Design, 1996.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    S. Yang. Logic synthesis and optimization benchmarks user guide. Technical Report 1/95, Microelectronic Center of North Carolina, Jan. 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rolf Drechsler
    • 1
  • Bernd Becker
    • 1
  • Stefan Ruppertz
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Computer ScienceAlbert-Ludwigs-UniversityFreiburg im BreisgauGermany
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceJohann Wolfgang Goethe-UniversityFrankfurt am MainGermany

Personalised recommendations