reversible logic gates | Cmos | Quantum Computing

Chapter 1 Introductory Chapter

 Introduction:
In most computing tasks, the number of output bits is relatively small compared to the number of input bits. For example, in a decision problem, the output is only one bit (yes or no) and the input can be as large as desired. However, computational tasks in digital signal processing, communication, computer graphics, and cryptography require that all of the information encoded in the input be preserved in the output. Some of those tasks are important enough to justify adding new microprocessor instructions to the HP PA-RISC (MAX and MAX-2), Sun SPARC (VIS), PowerPC (AltiVec), IA-32 and IA-64 (MMX) instruction sets In particular, new bit-permutation instructions were shown to vastly improve performance of several standard algorithms, including matrix transposition and DES, as well as two recent cryptographic algorithms Twofish and Serpent. Bit permutations are a special case of reversible functions, that is, functions that permute the set of possible input values. For example, the butterfly operation (x,y) → (x+y,x−y) is reversible but is not a bit permutation. It is a key element of Fast Fourier Transform algorithms and has been used in application-specific Xtensa processors from Tensilica. One might expect to get further speed-ups by adding instructions to allow computation of an arbitrary reversible function. The problem of chaining such instructions together provides one motivation for studying reversible computation and reversible logic circuits, that is, logic circuits composed of gates computing reversible functions. Reversible circuits are also interesting because the loss of information associated with irreversibility implies energy loss. Younis and Knight showed that some reversible circuits can be made asymptotically energy-lossless as their delay is allowed to grow arbitrarily large. [Excerpt from "Asymptoticay Zero Energy SplitLevel Charge Recovery Logic" : Younis & Knight : Power dissipation in conventional CMOS primarily occurs during device switching. One component of this dissipation is due to charging and discharging the gate capacitances through conducting, but slightly resistive, devices. We note here 1

that it is not the charging or the discharging of the gate that is necessarily dissipative, but rather that a small time is allocated to perform these operations. In conventional CMOS, the time constant associated with charging the gate through a similar transistor is RC, where R is the ON resistance of the device and C its capacitance. However, the cycle time can be, and usually is, much longer than RC. An obvious conclusion is that energy consumption can be reduced by spreading the transitions over the whole cycle rather than "squeezing" it all inside one RC. To successfully spread the transition over periods longer than RC, we insist that two conditions apply throughout the operation of our circuit. Firstly, we forbid any device in our circuit from turning ON while a potential difference exists across it. Secondly, once the device is switched ON, the energy transfer through the device occurs in a controlled and gradual manner to prevent a potential from developing across it. These conditions place some interesting restrictions on the way we usually perform computations. To perform a non-dissipative transition of the output, we must know the state of the output prior to and during this output transition. Stated more clearly, to non-dissipatively reset the state of the output we must at all times have a copy of it. The only way out of this circle is to use reversible logic. It is this observation that is the core of our low energy charge recovery logic. Currently, energy losses due to irreversibility are dwarfed by the overall power dissipation, but this may change if power dissipation improves. In particular, reversibility is important for nanotechnologies where switching devices with gain are difficult to build. Finally, reversible circuits can be viewed as a special case of quantum circuits because quantum evolution must be reversible. Classical (non-quantum) reversible gates are subject to the same “circuit rules,” whether they operate on classical bits or quantum states. In fact, popular universal gate libraries for quantum computation often contain as subsets universal gate libraries for classical reversible computation. While the speed-ups which make quantum computing attractive are not available without purely quantum gates, logic synthesis for classical reversible circuits is a first step toward synthesis of quantum circuits. Moreover, algorithms for quantum communications and cryptography often do not have classical counterparts because

2

they act on quantum states, even if their action in a given computational basis corresponds to classical reversible functions on bit-strings. Quantum circuits require complete reversibility. Quantum circuits and algorithms offer additional benefits in terms of asymptotic runtime. While purely quantum gates are necessary to achieve quantum speed-up, variants of conventional reversible gates are also commonly used in quantum algorithms. For example, the textbook implementation of Grover's quantum search algorithm uses many NCT (NOT, CNOT, and TOFFOLI) gates. Hence, efficient synthesis with such gates is an important step toward quantum computation. Toffoli showed that the NCT gate library is universal for the synthesis of reversible boolean circuits. This has been recently extended to show that all even permutations can be synthesized with no temporary storage lines, and that odd permutations require exactly one extra line. Optimal circuits for all three-bit reversible functions can be found in several minutes by dynamic programming. This algorithm also synthesizes optimal fourbit circuits reasonably quickly, but does not scale much further. More scalable constructive synthesis algorithms tend to produce suboptimal circuits even on three bits, which suggests iterative optimization based on local search.  How All It Came? Question :What will be the difficulties when we will try to build Answer : One of the toughest problems to scale down computers is the dissipated heat that is difficult to remove. Physical limitations placed on computation by heat dissipation were studied for many years [3]. The usual digital computer program frequently performs operations that seem to throw away information about the computer's history, leaving the machine in a state whose immediate predecessor is ambiguous. Such operations include erasure or overwriting of data, and entry into a 3

classical computers (Turing machines) on the atomic scale?

portion of the program addressed by several different transfer instructions. In other words, the typical computer is logically irreversible - its transition function (the partial function that maps each whole-machine state onto its successor, if the state has a successor) lacks a single-valued inverse. Landauer [ 3 ] has posed the question of whether logical irreversibility is an unavoidable feature of useful computers, arguing that it is, and has demonstrated the physical and philosophical importance of this question by showing that whenever a physical computer throws away information about its previous state it must generate a corresponding amount of entropy. Therefore, a computer must dissipate at least kTln2 of energy (about 3 X 10-21 joule at room temperature) for each bit of information it erases or otherwise throws away. In his classic 1961 paper [3, Appendix A], Rolf Landauer attempted to apply thermodynamic reasoning to digital computers. Paralleling the fruitful distinction in statistical physics between macroscopic and microscopic degrees of freedom, he noted that some of a computer’s degrees of freedom are used to encode the logical state of the computation, and these ”information bearing” degrees of freedom (IBDF) are by design sufficiently robust that, within limits, the computer’s logical (i.e. digital) state evolves deterministically as a function of its initial value, regardless of small fluctuations or variations in the environment or in the computer’s other non-information-bearing degrees of freedom (NIBDF). While a computer as a whole (including its power supply and other parts of its environment), may be viewed as a closed system obeying reversible laws of motion (Hamiltonian or, more properly for a quantum system, unitary dynamics), Landauer noted that the logical state often evolves irreversibly, with two or more distinct logical states having a single logical successor. Therefore, because Hamiltonian/unitary dynamics conserves (fine-grained) entropy, the entropy decrease of the IBDF during a logically irreversible operation must be compensated by an equal or greater entropy increase in the NIBDF and environment.

4

(The machine must be allowed to save its input-otherwise it could not be reversible and still carry out computations in which the input was not uniquely determined by the output.e. in sufficient detail that the preceding state would be uniquely determined by the present state and the last record on the tape. leaving behind only the desired output and the originally furnished input. since the tape would have to be erased before it could be reused. At this time Tomasso Toffoli (1980) showed that there exists a reversible gate which could play a role of a universal gate for reversible circuits. reversible computing system design is attracting a lot of attention. as Landauer pointed out. and they need not be much more complicated than the irreversible computers on which they are patterned. the input of the system can be retrieved from the output obtained from it. Typically the entropy increase takes the form of energy imported into the computer. Irreversible erasure of a bit in a system leads to generation of energy in the form of heat. this would merely postpone the problem of throwing away unwanted information.. These two simultaneously have lead to the exploration in the field of Reversible Logic Gates and Circuits. Reversible computing is based on two concepts: logic reversibility and physical reversibility. it should have erased all its intermediate results. In recent years. the machine might be given an extra tape (initially blank) on which it could record each operation as it was being performed. Computations on a reversible computer take about twice as many steps as on an ordinary one and may require a large amount of temporary storage. what is the solution? At this juncture Bennett[4] showed : An irreversible computer can always be made reversible by having it save all the information it would otherwise throw away.) General-purpose reversible computers (Turing machines) satisfying these requirements indeed exist. So. A computational operation is said to be logically reversible if the logical state of the computational device before the operation of the device can be determined by its state after the operation i. It is therefore reasonable to demand of a useful reversible computer that. converted to heat. and dissipated into the environment. An operation is said to be physically 5 . if it halts. However.This is Landauer’s principle. For example.

Reversible computation in a system can be performed if the system is composed of reversible gates.. if a computation were carried out in a reversible way.reversible if it converts no energy to heat and produces no entropy. . . . kTlog2 joules of heat energy is generated. The amount of energy dissipation in a system increases in direct proportion to the number of bits that are erased during computation. where k is Boltzmann’s constant and T the absolute temperature at which computation is performed. in another term it can be said that each operation converts no energy to heat and produces no entropy. Two conditions must be satisfied for reversible computation The first Condition : for any deterministic device to be reversible its input and output must be uniquely retrievable from each other. Bennett showed that kTln2 energy dissipation would not occur. i. Landauer has shown that for every bit of information lost in logic computations that are not reversible.Second Law of Thermodynamics guarantees that no heat is dissipated.this is called physical reversibility.this is called logical reversibility.e. The second Condition : the device can actually run backwards. 6 .

The goal is to find a logic circuit that implements the Boolean function and minimizes a given cost metric.. Clearly the k-CNOT gates are all reversible. reversible circuit synthesis is just a special case in which no fanout is allowed and all gates must be reversible.CNOT is just an inverter or NOT gate. We will consider a specific set defined by Toffoli. The 1-CNOT. it is called a k×k gate. e. Definition 2 A k-CNOT is a (k+1)×(k+1) gate.y. or a gate on k wires. or CNOT (C). We will also be using another reversible gate.x).x XOR yz). It performs the operation (x)→(x XOR 1). (x. and inverts the last iff all others are 1. The unchanged lines are referred to as control lines. and swapping two values requires non- 7 .y)→(y.Chapter 2 Reversible Gates and Circuits: Details Analysis  Background : In conventional (irreversible) circuit synthesis.  Definitions: Definition 1: A gate is reversible if the (Boolean) function it computes is bijective. the number of gates or the circuit depth. If it has k input and output wires.x XOR y) is referred to as a Controlled-NOT.x)→(y. where no physical “wires” exist. The 2-CNOT is normally called a TOFFOLI (T) gate. one typically starts with a universal gate library and some specification of a Boolean function. The 0. that is.g. which performs the operation (y. a necessary condition for reversibility is that the gate have the same number of input and output wires. The first three of these have special names.y. We will think of the mth input wire and the mth output wire as really being the same wire. One reason for choosing these particular gates is that they appear often in the quantum computing context. and is denoted by N. It leaves the first k inputs unchanged. It is a 2×2 gate which exchanges the inputs. Many gates satisfying these conditions have been examined in the literature. At a high level. called the SWAP (S) gate. If arbitrary signals are allowed on the inputs.x)→(z. and performs the operation (z.

and NOT. this will be the CNTS gate library. TOFFOLI.. and SWAP gates. from left to right. We will be working with circuits from a given. A vertical line connecting a control to an inverter means that the inverter is only applied if the wire on which the control is set carries a 1 signal. Usually. Definition 3 A well-formed reversible logic circuit is an acyclic combinational logic circuit in which all gates are reversible. Thus. and are interconnected without fanout. NOT. TOFFOLI. again we will call a reversible circuit with n inputs an n × n circuit or a circuit on n wires. i. The symbols inverters and the • symbols represent controls. For example. we see a reversible circuit drawn in the notation introduced by Feynman. NOT. a reversible circuit has the same number of input and output wires. permutations. in the following Figure.e. the truth table in Figure 2 is represented by (2.3) 8 . the gates used are. Figure 1 How to represent a reversible circuit truth table? Since we will be dealing only with bijective functions. Gates are represented by vertically-oriented symbols. we represent them using the cycle notation where a permutation is represented by disjoint cycles of variables. For example.trivial effort. consisting of the CNOT. and TOFFOLI. limited-gate library. As with reversible gates. We draw reversible circuits as arrays of horizontal lines representing wires.

We will call (2. Y and Z respectively.3)(6. The corresponding functions computed are as following : X=a Y=b Z = c XOR ab Truth Table for Toffoli's Gate a 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 b 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 c 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 x 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 y 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 z 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 9 . b and c are the three inputs to the gate and the corresponding output lines are X. Let us take another example. The set of all permutations of n indices is denoted Sn. so the set of bijective functions with n binary inputs is S2n . Figure 2: Toffoli's Gate a.7) CNT-constructible since it can be computed by a circuit with gates from the CNT gate library. Here is the figure of a Toffoli's Gate and its corresponding truth table. and 110 (6) and 111 (7).7) because the corresponding function swaps 010 (2) and 011 (3).(6.

it is common to represent logic circuits as graphs or hypergraphs.(3. In conventional circuit representations. all connections between individual gates are enumerated.6.1 1 1 1 1 0 From the truth table of Toffoli’s gate it is clear that it is a reversible gate. Truth Table of an arbitrary Reversible Circuit From the previous discussion.4). the output is balanced. and each gate stores indices of its 10 . However. There exists a one-to-one mapping from the input vectors to the output vectors. the regularity and ordering intrinsic to reversible circuits facilitate a more compact array-based representation (encoding) that is also more convenient. More over.7) only. How to encode a reversible circuit? In electronic design automation. Here the truth table can be represented by (6. Another example as follows: Consider the following truth table of any reversible circuit.5). we can represent the truth table as the following disjoint cycle of variables : (2.

An L-circuit is a circuit composed only of gates from L.3.3)C(3. This representation is faithful.2)C(1. any set of gates in a circuit that form an anti-chain (with respect to the partial ordering) will be ordered. Overlaid on this array is a redundant adjacency data structure (a graph) that allows one to look up the neighbors of a given gate. we number wires top-down from 0 to 3.incident connections.2)C(3. it is also convenient because each range in the array represents a valid sub-circuit. Let us encode the following reversible circuit as follows : Figure 3 To encode the circuit in the above figure.1)T(0. not every valid sub-circuit is represented by a range. In particular. obscuring the fact that any subset is a valid subcircuit.1. in a reversible circuit.0)T(0. and the gates are stored in an array in an arbitrarily chosen topological order. Then the gates can be written as following : T(2. However.1)N(2) Definition 4. 11 . A permutation π 2 S2n is L-constructible if it can be computed by an n×n L-circuit.2. However. Let L be a (reversible) gate library. those indices are maintained at individual gates. In our encoding of a reversible circuit. one can distinguish a small number of wires going all the way through the circuit.

we see similarly that three C gates can be used to replace the S gate appearing in the middle circuit of Figure 4b. however. since we can substitute one for the other. Pairs of circuits computing the same function are very useful. This. Temporary Storage: 12 . Figure 4 therefore shows us that the C and S gates in the CNTS gate library can be removed without losing computational power. the S gate may itself be replaced with a wire swap.Following figure 4a indicates that the circuit in Figure 1 is equivalent to one consisting of a single C gate. which shows how to replace four gates with one C gate. If allowed by the physical implementation. and thus up to 12 gates with one S gate. Figure 4 On the right. We will still use the CNTS gate library in synthesis to reduce gate counts and potentially speed up synthesis. is not possible in some forms of quantum computation. This is motivated by Figure 4.

in the sense that the circuit K must assume nothing about them to make its computation. to the corresponding wires on the other side of the circuit. the output on the bottom k wires must be only a function of their input values X and not of the “ancilla” bits Y. we say G >C H (or equivalently H <C G) if there exists a non-trivial path from H to G in the graph representing C. we write G > H. each vertex must have as many edges entering as leaving. we do not allow ourselves access to constant signals during the computation. The signals Y are arbitrary.Figure 5 Figure 5 illustrates the meaning of “temporary storage”. such graphs must be acyclic. we synthesize whole permutations rather than just functions with one output bit. Since no feedback is allowed. Let L be a reversible gate library. their values may be changed during the computation as long as they are restored by the end. Therefore. The concept of universality differs in the reversible and irreversible cases in two important ways. and wires by directed edges (more than one edge may connect two vertices). The signal applied to the top wire emerges unaltered. The graph of a reversible circuit can be viewed as a partial ordering of gates: for gates G. hence the bottom output is denoted f (X). Then L is universal if for all k and all permutations π circuit computes π Є S2K . there exists some l such that some L-constructible using l wires of temporary storage. If the gates are reversible. we need a third wire. The top n−k lines transfer n−k signals. H in C. Definition 5. These wires usually serve as an essential workspace for computing f (X). First. collectively designated Y.  Discussion: 13 . Representing Circuits by Graphs: One can model gates in a reversible circuit by vertices. An example of this can be found in Figure 4a: the C gate on the right needs two wires. but if we simulate it with two N gates and two T gates. and second. While the signals Y must leave the circuit holding the same values they entered it with. When C is clear from the context.

Some of the major problems with reversible logic synthesis are : i) Fan-outs are not allowed ii) Feedback from gate outputs to inputs are not permitted A logic synthesis technique using reversible gate should have the following features: i) Use minimum number of garbage outputs ii) Use minimum input constants iii) Keep the length of cascading gates minimum iv) Use minimum number of gates 14 .

3-output Toffoli gate is shown in Fig 6. 15 .x XOR yz). K=1: The 1-CNOT. It is a 2×2 gate which exchanges the inputs.Some special types of Reversible Gates: K-CNOT Gate: K=0: The 0-CNOT is just an inverter or NOT gate.y. Figure 6: 3x3 Toffoli's Gate The inputs ‘a’ and ‘b’ are passed as first and second output respectively. the nth input is inverted and passed as output else original signal is passed. K=2: The 2-CNOT is normally called a TOFFOLI (T) gate. It is referred as a controlled-NOT or CNOT or C.y) → (y. called the SWAP (S) gate. that is. (x. When all the inputs from 1 to (n-1) are 1s. It performs the operation (z. all the inputs from 1 to (n-1) are passed as outputs. The nth output is controlled by 1 to (n-1) inputs. It performs the operation (x) → (x XOR 1). and is denoted by N. Toffoli's Gate: In Toffoli Gate.x XOR y).y.x) →(y.x). A 3-input. performs the operation (y. SWAP Gate : We will also be using another reversible gate. The truth table has been shown before.x) → (z. The third output is controlled by ‘a’ and ‘b’ to invert ‘c’.

16 .Fredkin's Gate: The Fredkin gate is shown in the Fig 7. Thus two inputs can be swapped by controlling the swap using another input in Fredkin Gate. Figure 7: 3x3 Fredkin's Gate The truth table is as follows : a 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 b 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 c 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 y 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 z 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 Truth Table for a 3x3 Fredkin's Gate The functions computed by the outputs of Fredkin’s Gate can be interpreted as follows : X=a Y = if a then c else b Z = if a then b else c Every boolean function can be interpreted by 3x3 Fredkin’s gate (shown in Figure 8). Here the input ‘a’ is passed as first output. Inputs b and c are swapped to get the second and third output which is controlled by ‘a’.

Figure 8 17 .

Such states are fragile and error-prone due to their nanoscale dimensions. Furthermore. it is expected that efficient testing and fault-tolerant design methods will be essential for the successful implementation of quantum circuits. Quantum state representations include photon polarization and electron spin. any arbitrary state can be justified on each gate. and tendency to interact with the environment (decoherence). if the values (1111) must be applied to the rightmost 3-CNOT gate of Figure 9 for test purposes. Hence. the testing problems posed by general quantum circuits are very challenging. although a practical quantum computer has yet to be built. each group of gates in a reversible circuit is also reversible. there is a unique input vector that is easily obtained by backward simulation (1101 in this case). Many physical implementations of quantum circuits have been suggested. Since all its gates are reversible. Hence. 18 . extremely low energy levels. this will result in a different value at the output of the circuit.Chapter 3 A Family of Logical Fault Models for Reversible Circuits  Introduction: The reversibility of computation has long been studied as a means to reduce or even eliminate the power consumed by computation. which fundamentally changes the nature of computation by basing it on quantum mechanics rather than classical physics. propagation of a fault effect is trivial: if a logic 1 value is replaced by a logic 0 (or vice versa) due to a fault. Of particular interest is a type of reversible computing known as quantum computing. For example. Because of the complexity of their normal and faulty behavior modes.

the ground state (|g>) represents |0>. while the excited state (|e0>) represents |1>. some of which are grounded (have a static potential) while others are driven by a fast 19 . ions are confined in an ion trap.e. The technology must: (1) robustly represent quantum information.Figure 9  Trapped-Ion Technology: Nielsen and Chuang cite four abilities of a technology as necessary for quantum computation. (2) perform a universal set of unitary transformations. In the following. Qubit representation: The internal state of an ion serves as the qubit representation. between electrodes. i. we will briefly review how these four issues are addressed in the trapped-ion technology. (3) prepare accurate initial states. In trapped-ion technology. and (4) measure the output results.

Qubits interact via a shared phonon (quantum of vibrational energy) state. c and d. . The circuit has four wires a. 20 . In the trapped-ion technology. . Since the input vector is (1010). Initialization: Trapped ions are brought into their motional ground state |00 . Unitary transformations: These operations rotate state vectors without changing their length. consequently. The third gate does not result in a state change on the target qubit d due to a logic-0 value at one of its control inputs (c). This is shown in the upper right of Figure 10. ions interact with laser pulses of certain duration and frequency. Similarly. the second (1-CNOT) gate corresponds to a pulse that changes the state of qubit c from |1> to |0>. The Los Alamos group used the Ca+ ions with 42S1/2 as the ground state and 32D5/2 as the excited state. Figure 10 illustrates the gate implementation in trapped-ion technology required for the circuit in Figure 9.oscillating voltage. . CNOT functionality has been experimentally demonstrated for the trapped-ion technology (as well as for NMR technology). Their interaction results in the state of qubit b being changed from |0> to |1>. b and c. the third pulse does not change the state of qubit d. The leftmost (2-CNOT) gate is implemented by a laser pulse (or a sequence thereof) applied to qubits a. 0> using Doppler and sideband cooling. which implies reversibility. Measurement: The state of a single ion is determined by exciting an ion via a laser pulse and measuring the resulting fluorescence. so four ions (qubits) are used. the qubits a and c are set to the state |1_ and the qubits b and d are set to |0> in the beginning. b.

The resulting changes in logical 21 . the repeated-gate fault (RGF). Figure 11 shows the circuit from Figure 9 with an SMGF: the first (2-CNOT) gate is missing. The fault models proposed are the single missing gate fault (SMGF). Single Missing-Gate Fault Model A single missing-gate fault (SMGF) corresponds to the missing-gate fault.Figure 10  Fault Models Next we introduce several fault models that are mainly motivated by the iontrap quantum computing technologies discussed in the preceding section. and the gate operations are error prone. gates correspond to external pulses which control the interactions of the qubits. It is defined as a complete disappearance of one CNOT gate from the circuit. misaligned or mistuned. The physical justification for a SMGF is that the pulse(s) implementing the gate operation is (are) short. the multiple missing gate fault (MMGF) and the partial missing-gate fault (PMGF) models. missing. The basic assumptions are that qubits are represented by the ion state.

The number of possible SMGFs is equal to the number of gates in the circuit. 3. SMGFs corresponding to the added gates are also covered by that test vector 22 . The detection condition for an MGF is that a logic 1 value be applied to all the control inputs of the gate in question. Figure 11 Theorem 1 (Properties of SMGFs) Consider a reversible circuit consisting of N CNOT gates. the values on the target input as well as the values on the wires not connected to the gate are arbitrary. The followings are the characterization of SMGFs:. There are circuits for which the minimal complete SMGF test set has exactly _N/2_ vectors. The right part of Figure 11 suggests how the pulse corresponding to the first gate is too weak to change the value on qubit b from |0_ to |1_. By adding one extra wire and several 1-CNOT gates. but there is a unique test vector leading to minimal overhead (number of required extra 1-CNOT gates).values are shown in the format “faultfree value/faulty value”. 1. every circuit can be transformed such that the resulting circuit retains its original functionality but has a complete SMGF test set consisting of one test vector. 2. It can be seen that the fault effect is observable on wires b and c. There is always a complete SMGF test set of _N/2_ or fewer vectors. The transformation can be done for any test vector.

Figure 12 (right) illustrates the double transition on qubit b first from |0> to 1|>. the effect of the RGF is identical to the effect of the SMGF with respect to the same gate. it does not change the function of the circuit. This fault model is justified 23 . which implies that several distinct single faults are present in the same time. We also restrict multiple faults to one or more consecutive gates. The physical justification for an RGF is the occurrence of long or duplicated pulses. the following theorem holds: Figure 12 Theorem 2 (Properties of RGFs) Consider an RGF that replaces a gate by k instances of the same gate.e. Multiple Missing-Gate Fault Model This model assumes that gate operations are disturbed for several consecutive cycles. It can be seen that the fault effect is identical to that of the SMGF (Figure 11). removing the middle and the rightmost gate yields a valid MMGF. As a generalization. An example involving two missing gates is shown in Figure 13 (left). Note that the MMGF definition does not match our usual understanding of a multiple fault.. 2. i. and then back to |0> due to a long or duplicated pulse. If k is even. but removing the leftmost and the rightmost gates does not. If k is odd.Repeated-Gate Fault Model A repeated-gate fault (RGF) is an unwanted replacement of a CNOT gate by several instances of the same gate. Figure 12 (left) shows the circuit from Figure 9 with a duplicated first gate. the fault is redundant. so that several consecutive gates are missing from a circuit. Hence for the circuit from Figure 13 (left). 1.

so the optimal SMGF test set consists of one test vector. Hence. We have seen above that the size of the optimal test set for SMGFs is one. where X stands for “don’t care”. the number of possible MMGFs is N(N + 1)/2. Furthermore. with k' < k. This is not true for SMGFs and MMGFs. e. (1110). a quadratic function of N. as vector (011X) detects it. the vector (111X) also must be included in any complete MMGF test set.g. whereas the corresponding number of multiple SMGFs is exponential in N. This is demonstrated by the two-gate circuit fragment shown in Figure 13 (right). SMGFs are a subset of the MMGFs. as every SMGF is also an MMGF. In an N-gate circuit. Clearly. and then be disturbed again. Partial Missing-Gate Fault Model A partial missing-gate fault is a result of partially misaligned or mistuned gate pulses. The SMGF for the second (2-CNOT) gate requires (X11X). We call k − k' the order of a PMGF. However. The MMGF is not redundant. this vector does not detect the MMGF defined by removal of both gates. then perform error-free. Figure 14 shows a first-order PMGF affecting the third control 24 . Figure 13 It has been proven for stuck-at faults in reversible circuits that a complete single fault test set covers all multiple faults. The SMGF corresponding to the left (3-CNOT) gate requires the test vector (111X) for detection. a complete SMGF test set does not cover all MMGFs.by the assumption that the laser implementing gate operations is more likely to be disturbed for a period of time exceeding one gate operations than to be disturbed for a short time. Hence. however. despite the restriction that the missing gates must be consecutive. It turns a k-CNOT gate into a k'-CNOT gate. although it is a complete SMGF test set.. the optimal size of a complete MMGF test set is two.

i. and the weak pulse that fails to make c interact with a. 2. A k-CNOT requires k test vectors to detect all firstorder PMGFs and k + 1 vectors if the SMGFs must also be detected. An SMGF can be seen as a 0-order PMGF.e. Figure 14 Theorem 3 (Properties of PMGFs) 1. Anm-order PMGF dominatesmfirst-order PMGFs.input of the rightmost gate. it is detected by any test vector that detects one of the first-order PMGFs. 25 . b and d.

In other words.Chapter 4 Testable Reversible Gates. The first gate R1 is used for implementing arbitrary functions while the second gate R2 is employed to incorporate online testability features into the circuit. while R1 and R2 are 4 input-4 output reversible gates. the testing of such circuits has not been addressed in literature. as it will be used as the basic block for implementing the two pair two-rail checker. Fig. however. R1 and R2 that can be used in pairs to design testable reversible logic circuits. In the next two sections we will discuss these three gates.15 Gate R 26 . A third gate R is also introduced R3 that is used to construct two pair two rail checker. . R is 3 input-3output reversible gate. while that of R is 3. Here two reversible logic gates. Gate R: The reversible gate R is shown in Fig 15 and its truth table is shown. Gate width of R1 and R2 is 4. The testing of reversible logic gates can be a problem because the levels of logic can be significantly higher than in standard logic circuits. The testability feature is not incorporated in gate R. are introduced.  Introduction: The currently available reversible gates can be used to implement arbitrary logic functions. Gate R differs from gates R1 and R2 in gate width. Gates R1 and R2 are shown in Figures and the corresponding truth tables of the gates are shown.

The EXOR function is available at the output “l” of the new gate. (b) Signal duplication. The signal duplication function can be obtained by setting the input b to 0. (a) New reversible-logic gate R. the output is obtained at the terminal n. 16(e). as shown in Fig. 16(d). 16(b). Gate R is a universal gate and its universality is shown in Fig. it can be verified that the input pattern corresponding to a particular output pattern can be uniquely determined. Gates R1 and R2 (reversible gates with built-in testability): 27 . 16. The new gate can be used both to invert and duplicate a signal. (d) NAND gate.From the truth table. An OR gate is realized by connecting two new reversible gates. The implementation of a NAND gate is shown in Fig. as shown in Fig. (c) AND gate. Figure 16. (e) OR gate. as shown in the Fig. The AND function is obtained by connecting the input c to 0. 16(c).

17(a). Gates R1 and R2 are shown in Fig. The first gate R1 is used for implementing arbitrary functions while the second gate R2 is employed to incorporate online testability features into the circuit. and the corresponding truth tables of the gates are shown in the preceeding tables.Here. we are introducing R1 and R2 that can be used in pairs to design testable reversible logic circuits. it can be verified that the input pattern corresponding to a particular output pattern can be uniquely determined. From the truth tables. Truth Tables for Gates R1 and R2 28 .

Figure 17 29 .

For example. The EXNOR function and the NAND function are obtained by setting input c to 1 [Fig. during a normal operation. e. 18. An AND gate also requires the cascading of two gates [Fig. The output s of the gate is the complement of the input r if all other inputs of the gate remain unchanged. its parity output q and the parity output s of R2 should be complementary. If R1 is fault free. The NOR function can be obtained by cascading two R1 gates [Fig. the presence of a fault is assumed.Gate R1 can implement all Boolean functions and during a normal operation. In this configuration. Figure 18: Testable Block  Two-pair two-rail checker: A two-pair two-rail checker is constructed using gate R. 17(b)]. the input p is set to 0. it also generates the parity of the input pattern at output s. The two-pair rail checker is composed of eight R gates. as shown in Fig. 19. Thus. During a normal operation. Gate R2 is used to transfer the input values at d. y. 17(c)]. 17(e)]. the output of the gate will change from 1000 to 1001. R1 can transfer a signal at input a to output u by setting the input c to 0. the presence of a fault in the logic block can be detected. gate R2 is used to check online whether there is a fault in R1 or in itself. The error checking functions of the two pair rail checker are as follows: 30 . and f to outputs x. The OR and the EXOR functions can be simultaneously implemented on R1 [Fig.  Reversible Gates With a Built-in Testability: A testable logic block can be formed by cascading R1 and R2. otherwise. if input defr = 1000 is changed to 1001. the input r is set to 1. as shown in Fig. and z. 17(d)].

The outputs q and s of one testable block forms the input x0 and y0 for the two-pair rail checker. Thus. they will be identical. the testable blocks constructed using gates R1 and R2 are tested using the two-pair rail checker.e1 =x0y1 + y0x1 e2 =x0x1 + y0y1 The fault-free checker will produce the complementary output at e1 and e2 if the inputs are complementary. 20. and the outputs of another testable block forms the input x1 and y1. . otherwise. The block diagram of the testable block along with the two-pair rail checker is shown in Fig. 31 .

Figure 20: Testable block embedded with the two-pair two-rail checker  Synthesis of the reversible logic circuits: A sum of products (SOP) expression can be synthesized using reversible logic by converting the SOP expression into a NAND–NAND form. Note that fanouts are not allowed in the reversible-logic design. 32 . 19.Figure 19: Two-pair two rail checker The next figure [Fig. then a signal duplication gate will be required. 21 shows the implementation of (ab)'. Fig. If a variable appears more than once in an expression. 20] shows the block diagram of the testable block along with the two-pair rail checker shown in Fig. Each testable NAND block is implemented by cascading gates R1 and R2.

(1 XOR cd))’ The implementation of the function is shown in Fig 22. depends on the number of times the variable appears in the function. the number of blocks required to implement fan out of variable that appears 6 times as “a”. The number of signal duplication blocks used instead of fan-outs. cd = ( (cd)’)’= (1 XOR ab)’ 2) ab + cd = ((ab).Figure 21 : NAND Gate using R1 and R2 The NAND block based implementation of function F = ab+cd is given below: 1) ab = ( (ab)’)’= (1 XOR ab)’. For example. Several MCNC Benchmark functions were implemented using the above approach. Figure 22: Reversible NAND block implementation for the function ab+cd 33 .(cd))’= ((1 XOR ab). and 3 times as its complement “ a’ ” is shown in Fig 23. The testable gate count. garbage outputs and number of checkers are shown in the following Table.

34 . Since an EXOR functionality is needed for implementing the output functions of the reversible gates. an efficient four-transistor EXOR function design has been chosen to implement the transistor level design. 24 shows the transistor level design of the gate R. Fig.Figure 23: Signal Duplication  CMOS realization of the proposed reversible logic gates: The transistor level design of the three reversible logic gates are realized in CMOS.

26 shows the four inputs and one output of the reversible gate R2.Figure 24: CMOS implementation of gate R Gate R was implemented using 12 transistors. 25. The implementation of gate R1 is shown in Fig. the input d. 35 . It took 26 transistors to implement the design. Fig. As the first three output of the gate are just the direct wire connection from input. and f of the gate can be used as the output. e.

and R2) can be combined to form a reversible cell.R1. 27). the cell can be implemented with a total of 46 transistors (Fig.Figure 25: CMOS implementation of gate R1 Figure 26: CMOS implementation of gate R2 All the gates (R. . Thus. 36 . which minimizes the number transistors by a count of four as a function a XOR c needed by gate R and gate R1 are shared.

Figure 27: Reversible Cell 37 .

38 . it requires fewer gates. and consumes less power. . The design implemented using the proposed gate is found to be more efficient. fewer garbage outputs. Estimation of Power: The implementation of the full adder using the reversible gate R has been compared with that implemented using the Fredkin Gate.1. the proposed gates. The power analysis has been made using Xilinx ISE version 6. and the Toffoli gate. The following Table shows the comparison of the designs using these gates. The full adder with propagate was implemented at the behavioral level [VHSIC (very high speed integrated circuit) hardware description language (VHDL)] using the Fredkin gate.

and the Fredkin and Toffoli gates.The following Table (in the next page) shows the number of gates. 39 . garbage outputs. testable gate R1/R2. and the power estimation of several benchmark circuits implemented in VHDL using reversible gate R.

the sum is added by 6. over 9 detection unit and correction unit. . The first part is a binary adder which performs addition on two four-bit BCD digits and a one-bit carry input. Finally.28 Block Diagram of BCD Adder Figure illustrates three parts of a BCD adder: 4-bit binary adder. in the third part. 40 . else do nothing. the over-9-detector recognizes if the result of the first part is more than 9 or not. A conventional BCD adder is shown in Fig.Chapter 5 BCD ADDER A one digit BCD adder adds two BCD numbers and produces the BCD sum after the required correction which is according to the rules for BCD addition. In the second part. . Fig. if the output of detector (P flag) is '1'.

The detection part in Fig. an n digit BCD adder and subtractor can be assembled. by cascading n blocks of this circuit. The total number of garbage outputs generated from the reversible parallel adder is equal to eight. The correction unit adds ‘0’ to the binary number if the binary result is less than 10 and adds 6 to the binary result if it is more than 9. Some works are also done on BCD multiplication which can be extended to reversible form by using the proposed BCD adder. The overflow detection uses one SCL gate. A binary full adder is a basic circuit for designing binary arithmetic units such as n-bit binary adder. 41 . In the same sense a BCD adder/subtractor is a basic circuit for designing BCD arithmetic units such as BCD n-digit adder/ subtractor BCD multiplier and so on. Fig shows the 4 bit parallel adder constructed using HNG gates which can also be constructed using TSG or MKG gates Fig. 2 is constructed by using two AND gates (A1.29 Irreversible BCD Adder The 4-bit binary adder is cascade of 4 FAs (4-bit carry-propagate adder). subtractor and multiplier.30 Reversible 4bit parallel adder REVERSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION OF ONE DIGIT BCD ADDER The reversible BCD adder/subtractor can be used as a basic circuit for constructing the other reversible BCD arithmetic circuits.Fig. For example. A2) and one OR gate. The proposed BCD adder circuit uses one such 4 bit parallel adder and is called as adder-1 in this proposal.

The proposed circuit uses a total number of 8 reversible gates consisting of five HNG gates. one Peres gate.31 Reversible BCD Adder The New gate is used to add S1 with Cout to produce final ∑1 and a carry which is given to one HNG gate used as a full adder to produce final ∑2. one Feynman gate and one SCL gate. The number of garbage outputs in the proposed design is 10. ηadder2 = delay in generating the final BCD sum.This does not produce any garbage outputs. Then the final sum bit ∑3 is obtained by using one Feynman gate. The total delay of the BCD adder is calculated in terms of the gate delays. ηcorrection = 1 SCLG ηadder2 = 1PG + 1 HNG + 1 FG. one HNG gate and one Feynman gate. Also the second adder which should add six in order to correct and convert the sum to BCD sum need not be a 4bit parallel adder but instead it can be constructed using one Peres gate. ηsum= ηadder1 + ηcorrection+ ηadder2 Where ηadder1 = total delay in the 4bit reversible parallel adder. If the delay taken to produce the final BCD sum is ηsum then for a single BCD adder block the total delay is given by. So the BCD sum is ∑3∑2∑1∑0. Therefore ηsum= 8 gate delays. 42 .The complete BCD adder is as shown in the above fig. Fig. ηcorrection = delay in generating the Cout. From the implementation it can be seen that ηadder1 = 4 HNGs.

It is shown that the proposal is highly optimized in terms of number of reversible logic gates. number of garbage outputs and the delay involved. Because of these optimization parameters the overall cost of the circuit will be reduced. The design method definitely useful for the construction of future computer and other computational structures. 43 .Chapter 6 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK The design is very useful for the future computing techniques like ultra low power digital circuits and quantum computers. Alternate optimization methods are under investigation as a future work.

however. are more basic than this. Computing. however. The conclusion about dissipation can be anticipated in several ways.(Appendix A) Irreversibility and Heat Generation The search for faster and more compact computing circuits leads directly to the question: What are the ultimate physical limitations on the progress in this direction? In practice the limitations are likely to be set by the need for access to each logical element. or at least very strongly suggest. Without considering the question of access. An alternative way of anticipating the conclusions is to refer to the arguments by Brillouin and earlier authors. we can show. Naturally the amount of heat generation involved is many orders of magnitude smaller than the heat dissipation in any practically conceivable device. like all processes proceeding at a finite rate. In a general way this is not surprising. at least if we are prepared to make sacrifices in the way of speed and random access. in a fashion which will give some insight into the physical requirements for logical devices. is that the dissipation has a real function and is not just an unnecessary nuisance. however. Classically a degree of freedom is associated with kT of thermal energy. and our major contribution will be a tightening of the concepts involved. it is still hard to understand what physical requirements this puts on the degrees of freedom which bear information. This argument does not make it clear that the signal energy must actually be dissipated. that information processing is inevitably accompanied by a certain minimum amount of heat generation. however. as summarized by Brillouin in his book. At this time. The simplest way of anticipating our conclusion is to note that a binary device must have at least one degree of freedom associated with the information. The relevant point. The existence of a storage medium as compact as the genetic one indicates that one can go very far in the direction of compactness. and show that there is a minimum heat generation. Science and 44 . Any switching signals passing between devices must therefore have this much energy to override the noise. The much larger amounts of dissipation in practical devices may be serving the same function. Our arguments. independent of the rate of the process. must involve some dissipation.

it can be said : The information-bearing degrees of freedom of a computer interact with the thermal reservoir represented by the remaining degrees of freedom. It is shown. of course. however. is closely akin to a measurement.Information Theory. the interaction acts as a source of noise causing errors. 45 . In particular thermal fluctuations give a supposedly switched element a small probability of remaining in its initial state. It is. Actual devices which are far from minimal in size and operate at high speeds will be likely to require a much larger energy dissipation to serve the purpose of erasing the unnecessary details of the computer's past history. The computing process. in terms of two simple models. where the setting of various elements depends upon the setting of other elements at previous times. This interaction plays two roles. This energy dissipation has an unavoidable minimum arising from the fact that the computer performs irreversible operations. It is difficult. to the effect that the measurement process requires a dissipation of the order of kT. 2 ) Decay of stored information due to thermal fluctuations. it acts as a sink for the energy dissipation involved in the computation. to argue out this connection in a more exact fashion. that this source of error is dominated by one of two other error sources: 1) Incomplete switching due to inadequate time allowed for switching. even after the switching force has been applied for a long time. the arguments concerning the measurement process are based on the analysis of specific and the specific models involved in the measurement analysis are rather far from the kind of mechanisms involved in data processing. First of all. Furthermore. apparent that both the thermal noise and the requirements for energy dissipation are on a scale which is entirely negligible in present-day computer components. In short. Secondly.

The Physical Implementation of Quantum Computation : David P. Bennett (1973) 5. Reversible & Endoreversible computing : Alexis De Vos (1995) 9. "Asymptoticay Zero Energy Split-Level Charge Recovery Logic" : Younis & Knight. Toffoli (1981) 10. Phys. Analyzing Fault Models for Reversible Logic Circuits : J. Conservative Logic : E. : L.H. Notes on the history of reversible computation : C.REFERENCES 1. 2. Marcov & Hayes 7. Reversible Computing : Alexis De Vos (1999) 8. Muzio 12. DiVincenzo 46 . Fault Testing of Reversible Circuits :Patel. Szilard (1929) 3. Fredkin & T. Landauer (1961) 4. Zhong & J. Irreversibility and the Heat Generation in the Computing Process : R. Hayes & Marcov 11. H. Prasad. Logical Reversibility of Computation : C. Bennett 6. Synthesis of Reversible Logic Circuits : Shende.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful