Minimal Boolean Formulas
Posted on Wednesday, May 18, 2011.
28. That's the minimum number of AND or OR operators you need in order to write any Boolean function of five variables. Alex Healy and I computed that in April 2010. Until then, I believe no one had ever known that little fact. This post describes how we computed it and how we almost got scooped by Knuth's Volume 4A which considers the problem for AND, OR, and XOR.
A Naive Brute Force Approach
Any Boolean function of two variables can be written with at most 3 AND or OR operators: the parity function on two variables X XOR Y is (X AND Y') OR (X' AND Y), where X' denotes “not X.” We can shorten the notation by writing AND and OR like multiplication and addition: X XOR Y = X*Y' + X'*Y.
For three variables, parity is also a hardest function, requiring 9 operators: X XOR Y XOR Z = (X*Z'+X'*Z+Y')*(X*Z+X'*Z'+Y).
For four variables, parity is still a hardest function, requiring 15 operators: W XOR X XOR Y XOR Z = (X*Z'+X'*Z+W'*Y+W*Y')*(X*Z+X'*Z'+W*Y+W'*Y').
The sequence so far prompts a few questions. Is parity always a hardest function? Does the minimum number of operators alternate between 2n−1 and 2n+1?
I computed these results in January 2001 after hearing the problem from Neil Sloane, who suggested it as a variant of a similar problem first studied by Claude Shannon.
The program I wrote to compute a(4) computes the minimum number of operators for every Boolean function of n variables in order to find the largest minimum over all functions. There are 24 = 16 settings of four variables, and each function can pick its own value for each setting, so there are 216 different functions. To make matters worse, you build new functions by taking pairs of old functions and joining them with AND or OR. 216 different functions means 216·216 = 232 pairs of functions.
The program I wrote was a mangling of the Floyd-Warshall all-pairs shortest paths algorithm. That algorithm is:
// Floyd-Warshall all pairs shortest path func compute(): for each node i for each node j dist[i][j] = direct distance, or ∞ for each node k for each node i for each node j d = dist[i][k] + dist[k][j] if d < dist[i][j] dist[i][j] = d return
The algorithm begins with the distance table dist[i][j] set to an actual distance if i is connected to j and infinity otherwise. Then each round updates the table to account for paths going through the node k: if it's shorter to go from i to k to j, it saves that shorter distance in the table. The nodes are numbered from 0 to n, so the variables i, j, k are simply integers. Because there are only n nodes, we know we'll be done after the outer loop finishes.
The program I wrote to find minimum Boolean formula sizes is an adaptation, substituting formula sizes for distance.
// Algorithm 1 func compute() for each function f size[f] = ∞ for each single variable function f = v size[f] = 0 loop changed = false for each function f for each function g d = size[f] + 1 + size[g] if d < size[f OR g] size[f OR g] = d changed = true if d < size[f AND g] size[f AND g] = d changed = true if not changed return
Algorithm 1 runs the same kind of iterative update loop as the Floyd-Warshall algorithm, but it isn't as obvious when you can stop, because you don't know the maximum formula size beforehand. So it runs until a round doesn't find any new functions to make, iterating until it finds a fixed point.
The pseudocode above glosses over some details, such as the fact that the per-function loops can iterate over a queue of functions known to have finite size, so that each loop omits the functions that aren't yet known. That's only a constant factor improvement, but it's a useful one.
Another important detail missing above is the representation of functions. The most convenient representation is a binary truth table. For example, if we are computing the complexity of two-variable functions, there are four possible inputs, which we can number as follows.
|false||false||002 = 0|
|false||true||012 = 1|
|true||false||102 = 2|
|true||true||112 = 3|
The functions are then the 4-bit numbers giving the value of the function for each input. For example, function 13 = 11012 is true for all inputs except X=false Y=true. Three-variable functions correspond to 3-bit inputs generating 8-bit truth tables, and so on.
This representation has two key advantages. The first is that the numbering is dense, so that you can implement a map keyed by function using a simple array. The second is that the operations “f AND g” and “f OR g” can be implemented using bitwise operators: the truth table for “f AND g” is the bitwise AND of the truth tables for f and g.
That program worked well enough in 2001 to compute the minimum number of operators necessary to write any 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-variable Boolean function. Each round takes asymptotically O(22n·22n) = O(22n+1) time, and the number of rounds needed is O(the final answer). The answer for n=4 is 15, so the computation required on the order of 15·225 = 15·232 iterations of the innermost loop. That was plausible on the computer I was using at the time, but the answer for n=5, likely around 30, would need 30·264 iterations to compute, which seemed well out of reach. At the time, it seemed plausible that parity was always a hardest function and that the minimum size would continue to alternate between 2n−1 and 2n+1. It's a nice pattern.
Five years later, though, Alex Healy and I got to talking about this sequence, and Alex shot down both conjectures using results from the theory of circuit complexity. (Theorists!) Neil Sloane added this note to the entry for the sequence in his Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences:
%E A056287 Russ Cox conjectures that X1 XOR ... XOR Xn is always a worst f and that a(5) = 33 and a(6) = 63. But (Jan 27 2006) Alex Healy points out that this conjecture is definitely false for large n. So what is a(5)?
Indeed. What is a(5)? No one knew, and it wasn't obvious how to find out.
In January 2010, Alex and I started looking into ways to speed up the computation for a(5). 30·264 is too many iterations but maybe we could find ways to cut that number.
In general, if we can identify a class of functions f whose members are guaranteed to have the same complexity, then we can save just one representative of the class as long as we recreate the entire class in the loop body. What used to be:
for each function f for each function g visit f AND g visit f OR g
can be rewritten as
for each canonical function f for each canonical function g for each ff equivalent to f for each gg equivalent to g visit ff AND gg visit ff OR gg
That doesn't look like an improvement: it's doing all the same work. But it can open the door to new optimizations depending on the equivalences chosen. For example, the functions “f” and “¬f” are guaranteed to have the same complexity, by DeMorgan's laws. If we keep just one of those two on the lists that “for each function” iterates over, we can unroll the inner two loops, producing:
for each canonical function f for each canonical function g visit f OR g visit f AND g visit ¬f OR g visit ¬f AND g visit f OR ¬g visit f AND ¬g visit ¬f OR ¬g visit ¬f AND ¬g
That's still not an improvement, but it's no worse. Each of the two loops considers half as many functions but the inner iteration is four times longer. Now we can notice that half of tests aren't worth doing: “f AND g” is the negation of “¬f OR ¬g,” and so on, so only half of them are necessary.
Let's suppose that when choosing between “f” and “¬f”
we keep the one that is false when presented with all true inputs.
(This has the nice property that
f ^ (int32(f) >> 31)
is the truth table for the canonical form of
Then we can tell which combinations above will produce
canonical functions when f and g are already canonical:
for each canonical function f for each canonical function g visit f OR g visit f AND g visit ¬f AND g visit f AND ¬g
That's a factor of two improvement over the original loop.
Another observation is that permuting the inputs to a function doesn't change its complexity: “f(V, W, X, Y, Z)” and “f(Z, Y, X, W, V)” will have the same minimum size. For complex functions, each of the 5! = 120 permutations will produce a different truth table. A factor of 120 reduction in storage is good but again we have the problem of expanding the class in the iteration. This time, there's a different trick for reducing the work in the innermost iteration. Since we only need to produce one member of the equivalence class, it doesn't make sense to permute the inputs to both f and g. Instead, permuting just the inputs to f while fixing g is guaranteed to hit at least one member of each class that permuting both f and g would. So we gain the factor of 120 twice in the loops and lose it once in the iteration, for a net savings of 120. (In some ways, this is the same trick we did with “f” vs “¬f.”)
A final observation is that negating any of the inputs to the function doesn't change its complexity, because X and X' have the same complexity. The same argument we used for permutations applies here, for another constant factor of 25 = 32.
The code stores a single function for each equivalence class and then recomputes the equivalent functions for f, but not g.
for each canonical function f for each function ff equivalent to f for each canonical function g visit ff OR g visit ff AND g visit ¬ff AND g visit ff AND ¬g
In all, we just got a savings of 2·120·32 = 7680, cutting the total number of iterations from 30·264 = 5×1020 to 7×1016. If you figure we can do around 109 iterations per second, that's still 800 days of CPU time.
The full algorithm at this point is:
// Algorithm 2 func compute(): for each function f size[f] = ∞ for each single variable function f = v size[f] = 0 loop changed = false for each canonical function f for each function ff equivalent to f for each canonical function g d = size[ff] + 1 + size[g] changed |= visit(d, ff OR g) changed |= visit(d, ff AND g) changed |= visit(d, ff AND ¬g) changed |= visit(d, ¬ff AND g) if not changed return func visit(d, fg): if size[fg] != ∞ return false record fg as canonical for each function ffgg equivalent to fg size[ffgg] = d return true
The helper function “visit” must set the size not only of its argument fg but also all equivalent functions under permutation or inversion of the inputs, so that future tests will see that they have been computed.
There's one final improvement we can make. The approach of looping until things stop changing considers each function pair multiple times as their sizes go down. Instead, we can consider functions in order of complexity, so that the main loop builds first all the functions of minimum complexity 1, then all the functions of minimum complexity 2, and so on. If we do that, we'll consider each function pair at most once. We can stop when all functions are accounted for.
Applying this idea to Algorithm 1 (before canonicalization) yields:
// Algorithm 3 func compute() for each function f size[f] = ∞ for each single variable function f = v size[f] = 0 for k = 1 to ∞ for each function f for each function g of size k − size(f) − 1 if size[f AND g] == ∞ size[f AND g] = k nsize++ if size[f OR g] == ∞ size[f OR g] = k nsize++ if nsize == 22n return
Applying the idea to Algorithm 2 (after canonicalization) yields:
// Algorithm 4 func compute(): for each function f size[f] = ∞ for each single variable function f = v size[f] = 0 for k = 1 to ∞ for each canonical function f for each function ff equivalent to f for each canonical function g of size k − size(f) − 1 visit(k, ff OR g) visit(k, ff AND g) visit(k, ff AND ¬g) visit(k, ¬ff AND g) if nvisited == 22n return func visit(d, fg): if size[fg] != ∞ return record fg as canonical for each function ffgg equivalent to fg if size[ffgg] != ∞ size[ffgg] = d nvisited += 2 // counts ffgg and ¬ffgg return
The original loop in Algorithms 1 and 2 considered each pair f, g in every iteration of the loop after they were computed. The new loop in Algorithms 3 and 4 considers each pair f, g only once, when k = size(f) + size(g) + 1. This removes the leading factor of 30 (the number of times we expected the first loop to run) from our estimation of the run time. Now the expected number of iterations is around 264/7680 = 2.4×1015. If we can do 109 iterations per second, that's only 28 days of CPU time, which I can deliver if you can wait a month.
Our estimate does not include the fact that not all function pairs need to be considered. For example, if the maximum size is 30, then the functions of size 14 need never be paired against the functions of size 16, because any result would have size 14+1+16 = 31. So even 2.4×1015 is an overestimate, but it's in the right ballpark. (With hindsight I can report that only 1.7×1014 pairs need to be considered but also that our estimate of 109 iterations per second was optimistic. The actual calculation ran for 20 days, an average of about 108 iterations per second.)
Endgame: Directed Search
A month is still a long time to wait, and we can do better. Near the end (after k is bigger than, say, 22), we are exploring the fairly large space of function pairs in hopes of finding a fairly small number of remaining functions. At that point it makes sense to change from the bottom-up “bang things together and see what we make” to the top-down “try to make this one of these specific functions.” That is, the core of the current search is:
for each canonical function f for each function ff equivalent to f for each canonical function g of size k − size(f) − 1 visit(k, ff OR g) visit(k, ff AND g) visit(k, ff AND ¬g) visit(k, ¬ff AND g)
We can change it to:
for each missing function fg for each canonical function g for all possible f such that one of these holds * fg = f OR g * fg = f AND g * fg = ¬f AND g * fg = f AND ¬g if size[f] == k − size(g) − 1 visit(k, fg) next fg
By the time we're at the end, exploring all the possible f to make the missing functions—a directed search—is much less work than the brute force of exploring all combinations.
As an example, suppose we are looking for f such that fg = f OR g. The equation is only possible to satisfy if fg OR g == fg. That is, if g has any extraneous 1 bits, no f will work, so we can move on. Otherwise, the remaining condition is that f AND ¬g == fg AND ¬g. That is, for the bit positions where g is 0, f must match fg. The other bits of f (the bits where g has 1s) can take any value. We can enumerate the possible f values by recursively trying all possible values for the “don't care” bits.
func find(x, any, xsize): if size(x) == xsize return x while any != 0 bit = any AND −any // rightmost 1 bit in any any = any AND ¬bit if f = find(x OR bit, any, xsize) succeeds return f return failure
It doesn't matter which 1 bit we choose for the recursion, but finding the rightmost 1 bit is cheap: it is isolated by the (admittedly surprising) expression “any AND −any.”
find, the loop above can try these four cases:
|Formula||Condition||Base x||“Any” bits|
|fg = f OR g||fg OR g == fg||fg AND ¬g||g|
|fg = f OR ¬g||fg OR ¬g == fg||fg AND g||¬g|
|¬fg = f OR g||¬fg OR g == fg||¬fg AND ¬g||g|
|¬fg = f OR ¬g||¬fg OR ¬g == ¬fg||¬fg AND g||¬g|
Rewriting the Boolean expressions to use only the four OR forms means that we only need to write the “adding bits” version of find.
The final algorithm is:
// Algorithm 5 func compute(): for each function f size[f] = ∞ for each single variable function f = v size[f] = 0 // Generate functions. for k = 1 to max_generate for each canonical function f for each function ff equivalent to f for each canonical function g of size k − size(f) − 1 visit(k, ff OR g) visit(k, ff AND g) visit(k, ff AND ¬g) visit(k, ¬ff AND g) // Search for functions. for k = max_generate+1 to ∞ for each missing function fg for each canonical function g fsize = k − size(g) − 1 if fg OR g == fg if f = find(fg AND ¬g, g, fsize) succeeds visit(k, fg) next fg if fg OR ¬g == fg if f = find(fg AND g, ¬g, fsize) succeeds visit(k, fg) next fg if ¬fg OR g == ¬fg if f = find(¬fg AND ¬g, g, fsize) succeeds visit(k, fg) next fg if ¬fg OR ¬g == ¬fg if f = find(¬fg AND g, ¬g, fsize) succeeds visit(k, fg) next fg if nvisited == 22n return func visit(d, fg): if size[fg] != ∞ return record fg as canonical for each function ffgg equivalent to fg if size[ffgg] != ∞ size[ffgg] = d nvisited += 2 // counts ffgg and ¬ffgg return func find(x, any, xsize): if size(x) == xsize return x while any != 0 bit = any AND −any // rightmost 1 bit in any any = any AND ¬bit if f = find(x OR bit, any, xsize) succeeds return f return failure
To get a sense of the speedup here, and to check my work, I ran the program using both algorithms on a 2.53 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo E7200.
|————— # of Functions —————||———— Time ————|
|1||2||82||92||< 0.1 seconds||3.4 minutes|
|2||2||640||732||< 0.1 seconds||7.2 minutes|
|3||7||4420||5152||< 0.1 seconds||12.3 minutes|
|4||19||25276||29696||< 0.1 seconds||30.1 minutes|
|5||44||117440||147136||< 0.1 seconds||1.3 hours|
|6||142||515040||662176||< 0.1 seconds||3.5 hours|
|7||436||1999608||2661784||0.2 seconds||11.6 hours|
|8||1209||6598400||9260184||0.6 seconds||1.7 days|
|9||3307||19577332||28837516||1.7 seconds||4.9 days|
|10||7741||50822560||79660076||4.6 seconds||[ 10 days ? ]|
|11||17257||114619264||194279340||10.8 seconds||[ 20 days ? ]|
|12||31851||221301008||415580348||21.7 seconds||[ 50 days ? ]|
|13||53901||374704776||790285124||38.5 seconds||[ 80 days ? ]|
|14||75248||533594528||1323879652||58.7 seconds||[ 100 days ? ]|
|15||94572||667653642||1991533294||1.5 minutes||[ 120 days ? ]|
|16||98237||697228760||2688762054||2.1 minutes||[ 120 days ? ]|
|17||89342||628589440||3317351494||4.1 minutes||[ 90 days ? ]|
|18||66951||468552896||3785904390||9.1 minutes||[ 50 days ? ]|
|19||41664||287647616||4073552006||23.4 minutes||[ 30 days ? ]|
|20||21481||144079832||4217631838||57.0 minutes||[ 10 days ? ]|
|21||8680||55538224||4273170062||2.4 hours||2.5 days|
|22||2730||16099568||4289269630||5.2 hours||11.7 hours|
|23||937||4428800||4293698430||11.2 hours||2.2 hours|
|24||228||959328||4294657758||22.0 hours||33.2 minutes|
|25||103||283200||4294940958||1.7 days||4.0 minutes|
|26||21||22224||4294963182||2.9 days||42 seconds|
|27||10||3602||4294966784||4.7 days||2.4 seconds|
|28||3||512||4294967296||[ 7 days ? ]||0.1 seconds|
The bracketed times are estimates based on the work involved: I did not wait that long for the intermediate search steps. The search algorithm is quite a bit worse than generate until there are very few functions left to find. However, it comes in handy just when it is most useful: when the generate algorithm has slowed to a crawl. If we run generate through formulas of size 22 and then switch to search for 23 onward, we can run the whole computation in just over half a day of CPU time.
The computation of a(5) identified the sizes of all 616,126 canonical Boolean functions of 5 inputs. In contrast, there are just over 200 trillion canonical Boolean functions of 6 inputs. Determining a(6) is unlikely to happen by brute force computation, no matter what clever tricks we use.
We've assumed the use of just AND and OR as our basis for the Boolean formulas. If we also allow XOR, functions can be written using many fewer operators. In particular, a hardest function for the 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-input cases—parity—is now trivial. Knuth examines the complexity of 5-input Boolean functions using AND, OR, and XOR in detail in The Art of Computer Programming, Volume 4A. Section 7.1.2's Algorithm L is the same as our Algorithm 3 above, given for computing 4-input functions. Knuth mentions that to adapt it for 5-input functions one must treat only canonical functions and gives results for 5-input functions with XOR allowed. So another way to check our work is to add XOR to our Algorithm 4 and check that our results match Knuth's.
Because the minimum formula sizes are smaller (at most 12), the computation of sizes with XOR is much faster than before:
|————— # of Functions —————|
|1||3||102||112||< 0.1 seconds|
|2||5||1140||1252||< 0.1 seconds|
|3||20||11570||12822||< 0.1 seconds|
|4||93||109826||122648||< 0.1 seconds|
Knuth does not discuss anything like Algorithm 5,
because the search for specific functions does not apply to
the AND, OR, and XOR basis. XOR is a non-monotone
function (it can both turn bits on and turn bits off), so
there is no test like our “
if fg OR g == fg”
and no small set of “don't care” bits to trim the search for f.
The search for an appropriate f in the XOR case would have
to try all f of the right size, which is exactly what Algorithm 4 already does.
Volume 4A also considers the problem of building minimal circuits, which are like formulas but can use common subexpressions additional times for free, and the problem of building the shallowest possible circuits. See Section 7.1.2 for all the details.
Code and Web Site
The web site boolean-oracle.swtch.com lets you type in a Boolean expression and gives back the minimal formula for it. It uses tables generated while running Algorithm 5; those tables and the programs described in this post are also available on the site.
Postscript: Generating All Permutations and Inversions
The algorithms given above depend crucially on the step
for each function ff equivalent to f,”
which generates all the ff obtained by permuting or inverting inputs to f,
but I did not explain how to do that.
We already saw that we can manipulate the binary truth table representation
directly to turn
¬f and to compute
combinations of functions.
We can also manipulate the binary representation directly to
invert a specific input or swap a pair of adjacent inputs.
Using those operations we can cycle through all the equivalent functions.
To invert a specific input, let's consider the structure of the truth table. The index of a bit in the truth table encodes the inputs for that entry. For example, the low bit of the index gives the value of the first input. So the even-numbered bits—at indices 0, 2, 4, 6, ...—correspond to the first input being false, while the odd-numbered bits—at indices 1, 3, 5, 7, ...—correspond to the first input being true. Changing just that bit in the index corresponds to changing the single variable, so indices 0, 1 differ only in the value of the first input, as do 2, 3, and 4, 5, and 6, 7, and so on. Given the truth table for f(V, W, X, Y, Z) we can compute the truth table for f(¬V, W, X, Y, Z) by swapping adjacent bit pairs in the original truth table. Even better, we can do all the swaps in parallel using a bitwise operation. To invert a different input, we swap larger runs of bits.
|Function||Truth Table (|
|f(¬V, W, X, Y, Z)|
|f(V, ¬W, X, Y, Z)|
|f(V, W, ¬X, Y, Z)|
|f(V, W, X, ¬Y, Z)|
|f(V, W, X, Y, ¬Z)|
Being able to invert a specific input lets us consider all possible inversions by building them up one at a time. The Gray code lets us enumerate all possible 5-bit input codes while changing only 1 bit at a time as we move from one input to the next:
12, 13, 15, 14, 10, 11, 9, 8,
24, 25, 27, 26, 30, 31, 29, 28,
20, 21, 23, 22, 18, 19, 17, 16
This minimizes the number of inversions we need: to consider all 32 cases, we only need 31 inversion operations. In contrast, visiting the 5-bit input codes in the usual binary order 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ... would often need to change multiple bits, like when changing from 3 to 4.
To swap a pair of adjacent inputs, we can again take advantage of the truth table. For a pair of inputs, there are four cases: 00, 01, 10, and 11. We can leave the 00 and 11 cases alone, because they are invariant under swapping, and concentrate on swapping the 01 and 10 bits. The first two inputs change most often in the truth table: each run of 4 bits corresponds to those four cases. In each run, we want to leave the first and fourth alone and swap the second and third. For later inputs, the four cases consist of sections of bits instead of single bits.
|Function||Truth Table (|
|f(W, V, X, Y, Z)|
|f(V, X, W, Y, Z)|
|f(V, W, Y, X, Z)|
|f(V, W, X, Z, Y)|
Being able to swap a pair of adjacent inputs lets us consider all possible permutations by building them up one at a time. Again it is convenient to have a way to visit all permutations by applying only one swap at a time. Here Volume 4A comes to the rescue. Section 18.104.22.168 is titled “Generating All Permutations,” and Knuth delivers many algorithms to do just that. The most convenient for our purposes is Algorithm P, which generates a sequence that considers all permutations exactly once with only a single swap of adjacent inputs between steps. Knuth calls it Algorithm P because it corresponds to the “Plain changes” algorithm used by bell ringers in 17th century England to ring a set of bells in all possible permutations. The algorithm is described in a manuscript written around 1653!
We can examine all possible permutations and inversions by nesting a loop over all permutations inside a loop over all inversions, and in fact that's what my program does. Knuth does one better, though: his Exercise 22.214.171.124-20 suggests that it is possible to build up all the possibilities using only adjacent swaps and inversion of the first input. Negating arbitrary inputs is not hard, though, and still does minimal work, so the code sticks with Gray codes and Plain changes.