Role of circuit representation in evolutionary design of energy-efficient approximate circuits

Role of circuit representation in evolutionary design of energy-efficient approximate circuits

For access to this article, please select a purchase option:

Buy article PDF
(plus tax if applicable)
Buy Knowledge Pack
10 articles for £75.00
(plus taxes if applicable)

IET members benefit from discounts to all IET publications and free access to E&T Magazine. If you are an IET member, log in to your account and the discounts will automatically be applied.

Learn more about IET membership 

Recommend Title Publication to library

You must fill out fields marked with: *

Librarian details
Your details
Why are you recommending this title?
Select reason:
IET Computers & Digital Techniques — Recommend this title to your library

Thank you

Your recommendation has been sent to your librarian.

Circuit approximation has been introduced in recent years as a viable method for constructing energy-efficient electronic systems. An open problem is how to effectively obtain approximate circuits showing good compromises between key circuit parameters – the error, power consumption, area and delay. The use of evolutionary algorithms in the task of circuit approximation has led to promising results. Unfortunately, only relatively small circuit instances have been tackled because of the scalability problems of the evolutionary design method. This study demonstrates how to push the limits of the evolutionary design by choosing a more suitable representation on the one hand and a more efficient fitness function on the other hand. In particular, the authors show that employing full adders as building blocks leads to more efficient approximate circuits. The authors focused on the approximation of key arithmetic circuits such as adders and multipliers. While the evolutionary design of adders represents a rather easy benchmark problem, the design of multipliers is known to be one of the hardest problems. The authors evolved a comprehensive library of energy-efficient 12-bit multipliers with a guaranteed worst-case error. The library consists of 65 Pareto dominant solutions considering power, delay, area and error as design objectives.


    1. 1)
      • 1. Mittal, S.: ‘A survey of techniques for approximate computing’, ACM Comput. Surv., 2016, 48, (4), pp. 62:162:33.
    2. 2)
      • 2. Chippa, V.K., Chakradhar, S.T., Roy, K., et al: ‘Analysis and characterization of inherent application resilience for approximate computing’. The 50th Annual Design Automation Conf., (DAC'13, 2013), Austin, TX, USA, 2013, pp. 19.
    3. 3)
      • 3. Xu, Q., Mytkowicz, T., Kim, N.S.: ‘Approximate computing: a survey’, IEEE Des. Test, 2016, 33, (1), pp. 822.
    4. 4)
      • 4. Venkataramani, S., Sabne, A., Kozhikkottu, K., et al: ‘SALSA: systematic logic synthesis of approximate circuits’. Proc. of DAC'12, 2012, pp. 796801.
    5. 5)
      • 5. Venkataramani, S., Roy, K., Raghunathan, A.: ‘Substitute-and-simplify: a unified design paradigm for approximate and quality configurable circuits’. Proc. of DATE'13 (European Design Automation Association), Grenoble, France, 2013, pp. 13671372.
    6. 6)
      • 6. Nepal, K., Li, Y., Bahar, R.I., et al: ‘Abacus: a technique for automated behavioral synthesis of approximate computing circuits’. Proc. of the Conf. on Design, Automation and Test in Europe (DATE ’14), Dresden, Germany, 2014, pp. 16.
    7. 7)
      • 7. Sekanina, L., Vasicek, Z.: ‘Approximate circuit design by means of evolvable hardware’. IEEE Int. Conf. on Evolvable Systems (ICES), Singapore, 2013, pp. 2128.
    8. 8)
      • 8. Vasicek, Z., Sekanina, L.: ‘Evolutionary approach to approximate digital circuits design’, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 2015, 19, (3), pp. 432444.
    9. 9)
      • 9. Mrazek, V., Sarwar, S.S., Sekanina, L., et al: ‘Design of power-efficient approximate multipliers for approximate artificial neural networks’. Proc. of ICCAD'16, Austin, TX, USA, 2016, pp. 81:181:7.
    10. 10)
      • 10. Hrbacek, R., Mrazek, V., Vasicek, Z.: ‘Automatic design of approximate circuits by means of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms’. Proc. of DTIS'16, Istanbul, Turkey, 2016, pp. 239244.
    11. 11)
      • 11. Miller, J.F.: ‘Cartesian genetic programming’ (Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, USA, 2011).
    12. 12)
      • 12. Weste, N.H., Harris, D.: ‘CMOS VLSI design: a circuits and systems perspective’ (Addison-Wesley, Boston, USA, 2005, 3rd edn.).
    13. 13)
      • 13. Miller, J.F., Thomson, P., Fogarty, T.: ‘Designing electronic circuits using evolutionary algorithms. Arithmetic circuits: a case study’ (Wiley, 1998), pp. 105131.
    14. 14)
      • 14. Clegg, J., Walker, J.A., Miller, J.F.: ‘A new crossover technique for Cartesian genetic programming’. Proc. of The Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conf. (GECCO), London, 2007.
    15. 15)
      • 15. Slany, K., Sekanina, L.: ‘Fitness landscape analysis and image filter evolution using functional-level CGP’. Proc. of European Conf. on Genetic Programming, Valencia, Spain, 2007 (LNCS, 4445), pp. 311320.
    16. 16)
      • 16. Wiltgen, A., Escobar, K., Reis, A., et al: ‘Power consumption analysis in static CMOS gates’. 2013 26th Symp. on Integrated Circuits and Systems Design (SBCCI), Curitiba, Brazil, 2013, pp. 16.
    17. 17)
      • 17. Monteiro, J., Devadas, S., Ghosh, A., et al: ‘Estimation of average switching activity in combinational logic circuits using symbolic simulation’, IEEE Trans. Computer-Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst., 1997, 16, (1), pp. 121127.
    18. 18)
      • 18. Jiang, H., Han, J., Lombardi, F.: ‘A comparative review and evaluation of approximate adders’. Proc. of GLVLSI'15, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2015, pp. 343348.
    19. 19)
      • 19. Jiang, H., Liu, C., Maheshwari, N., et al: ‘A comparative evaluation of approximate multipliers’. Int. Symp. Nanoscale Architectures, Beijing, China, 2016, pp. 191196.
    20. 20)
      • 20. Vasicek, Z., Slany, K.: ‘Efficient phenotype evaluation in cartesian genetic programming’. Proc. of the 15th European Conf. on Genetic Programming, Malaga, Spain, 2012 (LNCS, 7244), pp. 266278.
    21. 21)
      • 21. Hrbacek, R.: ‘Parallel multi-objective evolutionary design of approximate circuits’. GECCO ‘15 Proc. of the 2015 Conf. on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, Madrid, Spain, 2015, pp. 687694.
    22. 22)
      • 22. Deb, K.: ‘Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms’ (Wiley, New York, NY, USA, 2001).
    23. 23)
      • 23. Kulkarni, P., Gupta, P., Ercegovac, M.: ‘Trading accuracy for power with an underdesigned multiplier architecture’. 2011 24th Int. Conf. on Very-Large-Scale Integration (VLSI) Design, Chennai, India, 2011, pp. 346351.

Related content

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address