CFLOBDD 针对 BDD 的多项式边界

Xusheng ZhiUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison and Peking University, Thomas RepsUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison
{"title":"CFLOBDD 针对 BDD 的多项式边界","authors":"Xusheng ZhiUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison and Peking University, Thomas RepsUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison","doi":"arxiv-2406.01525","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Binary Decision Diagrams (BDDs) are widely used for the representation of\nBoolean functions. Context-Free-Language Ordered Decision Diagrams (CFLOBDDs)\nare a plug-compatible replacement for BDDs -- roughly, they are BDDs augmented\nwith a certain form of procedure call. A natural question to ask is, ``For a\ngiven Boolean function $f$, what is the relationship between the size of a BDD\nfor $f$ and the size of a CFLOBDD for $f$?'' Sistla et al. established that, in\nthe best case, the CFLOBDD for a function $f$ can be exponentially smaller than\nany BDD for $f$ (regardless of what variable ordering is used in the BDD);\nhowever, they did not give a worst-case bound -- i.e., they left open the\nquestion, ``Is there a family of functions $\\{ f_i \\}$ for which the size of a\nCFLOBDD for $f_i$ must be substantially larger than a BDD for $f_i$?'' For\ninstance, it could be that there is a family of functions for which the BDDs\nare exponentially more succinct than any corresponding CFLOBDDs. This paper studies such questions, and answers the second question posed\nabove in the negative. In particular, we show that by using the same variable\nordering in the CFLOBDD that is used in the BDD, the size of a CFLOBDD for any\nfunction $f$ cannot be far worse than the size of the BDD for $f$. The bound\nthat relates their sizes is polynomial: If BDD $B$ for function $f$ is of size\n$|B|$ and uses variable ordering $\\textit{Ord}$, then the size of the CFLOBDD\n$C$ for $f$ that also uses $\\textit{Ord}$ is bounded by $O(|B|^3)$. The paper also shows that the bound is tight: there is a family of functions\nfor which $|C|$ grows as $\\Omega(|B|^3)$.","PeriodicalId":501033,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - CS - Symbolic Computation","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Polynomial Bounds of CFLOBDDs against BDDs\",\"authors\":\"Xusheng ZhiUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison and Peking University, Thomas RepsUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison\",\"doi\":\"arxiv-2406.01525\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Binary Decision Diagrams (BDDs) are widely used for the representation of\\nBoolean functions. Context-Free-Language Ordered Decision Diagrams (CFLOBDDs)\\nare a plug-compatible replacement for BDDs -- roughly, they are BDDs augmented\\nwith a certain form of procedure call. A natural question to ask is, ``For a\\ngiven Boolean function $f$, what is the relationship between the size of a BDD\\nfor $f$ and the size of a CFLOBDD for $f$?'' Sistla et al. established that, in\\nthe best case, the CFLOBDD for a function $f$ can be exponentially smaller than\\nany BDD for $f$ (regardless of what variable ordering is used in the BDD);\\nhowever, they did not give a worst-case bound -- i.e., they left open the\\nquestion, ``Is there a family of functions $\\\\{ f_i \\\\}$ for which the size of a\\nCFLOBDD for $f_i$ must be substantially larger than a BDD for $f_i$?'' For\\ninstance, it could be that there is a family of functions for which the BDDs\\nare exponentially more succinct than any corresponding CFLOBDDs. This paper studies such questions, and answers the second question posed\\nabove in the negative. In particular, we show that by using the same variable\\nordering in the CFLOBDD that is used in the BDD, the size of a CFLOBDD for any\\nfunction $f$ cannot be far worse than the size of the BDD for $f$. The bound\\nthat relates their sizes is polynomial: If BDD $B$ for function $f$ is of size\\n$|B|$ and uses variable ordering $\\\\textit{Ord}$, then the size of the CFLOBDD\\n$C$ for $f$ that also uses $\\\\textit{Ord}$ is bounded by $O(|B|^3)$. The paper also shows that the bound is tight: there is a family of functions\\nfor which $|C|$ grows as $\\\\Omega(|B|^3)$.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501033,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"arXiv - CS - Symbolic Computation\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"arXiv - CS - Symbolic Computation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/arxiv-2406.01525\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - CS - Symbolic Computation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2406.01525","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

二进制判定图(BDD)被广泛用于布尔函数的表示。上下文自由语言有序判定图(Context-Free-Language Ordered Decision Diagrams,CFLOBDDs)是二元判定图的插件兼容替代品--粗略地说,它们是带有某种过程调用形式的二元判定图。一个自然的问题是:"对于给定的布尔函数 $f$,$f$ 的 BDD 大小与 $f$ 的 CFLOBDD 大小之间的关系是什么?Sistla 等人确定,在最好的情况下,函数 $f$ 的 CFLOBDD 可以比任何 $f$ 的 BDD 小指数级(无论 BDD 中使用了什么变量排序);但是,他们没有给出最坏情况下的约束,也就是说,他们留下了这样一个问题:"是否存在函数 $\{ f_i \}$族,对于这个函数族,$f_i$ 的 CFLOBDD 的大小必须远远大于 $f_i$ 的 BDD 的大小?举例来说,可能有一类函数的BDD比任何相应的CFLOBDD都要简洁得多。本文对此类问题进行了研究,并对上述第二个问题做出了否定的回答。我们特别指出,通过在 CFLOBDD 中使用与 BDD 相同的变量排序,对于任何函数 $f$ 的 CFLOBDD 的大小不会比对于 $f$ 的 BDD 的大小差很多。它们的大小之间的关系是多项式:如果函数 $f$ 的 BDD $B$ 大小为 $|B|$,并使用变量排序 $\textit{Ord}$,那么同样使用 $\textit{Ord}$的 $f$ 的 CFLOBDD$C$ 大小的边界为 $O(|B|^3)$。本文还证明了这一约束的严密性:存在一个函数族,其 $|C|$ 的增长为 $\Omega(|B|^3)$。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Polynomial Bounds of CFLOBDDs against BDDs
Binary Decision Diagrams (BDDs) are widely used for the representation of Boolean functions. Context-Free-Language Ordered Decision Diagrams (CFLOBDDs) are a plug-compatible replacement for BDDs -- roughly, they are BDDs augmented with a certain form of procedure call. A natural question to ask is, ``For a given Boolean function $f$, what is the relationship between the size of a BDD for $f$ and the size of a CFLOBDD for $f$?'' Sistla et al. established that, in the best case, the CFLOBDD for a function $f$ can be exponentially smaller than any BDD for $f$ (regardless of what variable ordering is used in the BDD); however, they did not give a worst-case bound -- i.e., they left open the question, ``Is there a family of functions $\{ f_i \}$ for which the size of a CFLOBDD for $f_i$ must be substantially larger than a BDD for $f_i$?'' For instance, it could be that there is a family of functions for which the BDDs are exponentially more succinct than any corresponding CFLOBDDs. This paper studies such questions, and answers the second question posed above in the negative. In particular, we show that by using the same variable ordering in the CFLOBDD that is used in the BDD, the size of a CFLOBDD for any function $f$ cannot be far worse than the size of the BDD for $f$. The bound that relates their sizes is polynomial: If BDD $B$ for function $f$ is of size $|B|$ and uses variable ordering $\textit{Ord}$, then the size of the CFLOBDD $C$ for $f$ that also uses $\textit{Ord}$ is bounded by $O(|B|^3)$. The paper also shows that the bound is tight: there is a family of functions for which $|C|$ grows as $\Omega(|B|^3)$.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Synthesizing Evolving Symbolic Representations for Autonomous Systems Introducing Quantification into a Hierarchical Graph Rewriting Language Towards Verified Polynomial Factorisation Symbolic Regression with a Learned Concept Library Active Symbolic Discovery of Ordinary Differential Equations via Phase Portrait Sketching
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1