# Improving Hardware in LUT-Based Mealy FSMs
## 6 Experimental Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Benchmark** & **Auto** [14] & **One-Hot** [14] & **JEDI** [14] & \(\mathbf{U_{2}}\) & **Our Approach** & **Group** \\ \hline s1488 & 895.31 & 992.88 & 687.11 & 528.75 & 514.54 & 2 \\ \hline s1494 & 843.43 & 905.66 & 669.34 & 522.44 & 467.97 & 2 \\ \hline s1a & 319.49 & 459.18 & 254.18 & 213.23 & 192.91 & 2 \\ \hline s208 & 68.83 & 175.68 & 55.94 & 49.53 & 61.01 & 2 \\ \hline styr & 675.82 & 923.65 & 556.17 & 432.45 & 389.32 & 2 \\ \hline tma & 274.59 & 263.87 & 237.60 & 169.76 & 165.66 & 2 \\ \hline sand & 1138.23 & 1138.23 & 898.91 & 679.57 & 537.74 & 3 \\ \hline s420 & 57.51 & 175.68 & 50.78 & 42.73 & 47.23 & 4 \\ \hline s510 & 270.19 & 270.19 & 176.39 & 117.45 & 105.13 & 4 \\ \hline s820 & 578.95 & 535.39 & 385.09 & 285.78 & 262.12 & 4 \\ \hline s832 & 549.04 & 515.56 & 356.77 & 268.64 & 245.40 & 4 \\ \hline Total & 12,228.61 & 14,168.64 & 8859.93 & 7540.03 & 7035.28 & \\ \hline Percentage,\% & 173.82 & 201.39 & 125.94 & 107.17 & 100.00 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 19: _Cont._However, our approach gives a win starting from group G1. As follows from Tables 10 and 11, using the model \(U_{3}\) gives a win for groups G1-G4. Compared with auto-based FSMs, there is either a 29.3% win rate (G1) or 61.45% of gain in LUT counts (groups G2-G4). Compared with one-hot-based FSMs, there is either a 67.2% win rate (G1) or 79.88% of gain in LUT counts (groups G2-G4). Compared with JEDI-based FSMs, there is either 7.32% of gain (G1) or a 31.45% win rate (G2-G4). Compared with \(U_{2}\)-based FSMs, there is either 2.55% of gain (G1) or a 9.88% win rate (G2-G4). So, the gain from applying the proposed approach increases with the growth of the number of FSM inputs and state variables. Let us explain the nature of this situation. Starting from G1, the condition (4) is violated. This means that the methods of functional decomposition should be applied for FSMs based on auto, one-hot and JEDI. However, both FSMs \(U_{2}\) and \(U_{3}\) are based on the methods of structural decomposition. As follows from [13], using the SD-based methods allows improving LUT counts compared with the FD-based methods. A similar phenomenon \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Benchmark** & **Auto** & **One-Hot** & **JEDI** & \(U_{2}\) & **Our Approach** & **Group** \\ \hline ex7 & 4.96 & 5.88 & 4.96 & 5.04 & 4.45 & 1 \\ \hline keyb & 6.99 & 7.46 & 6.38 & 4.91 & 5.26 & 1 \\ \hline mark1 & 8.90 & 8.90 & 6.96 & 6.39 & 7.21 & 1 \\ \hline opus & 8.09 & 8.09 & 7.19 & 6.40 & 6.56 & 1 \\ \hline s27 & 3.80 & 10.18 & 3.84 & 2.88 & 2.64 & 1 \\ \hline s386 & 7.44 & 8.03 & 6.26 & 5.64 & 6.98 & 1 \\ \hline s8 & 4.09 & 4.50 & 4.04 & 3.83 & 3.42 & 1 \\ \hline sse & 7.77 & 7.66 & 6.24 & 5.33 & 6.14 & 1 \\ \hline ex1 & 27.18 & 21.24 & 13.24 & 9.48 & 10.18 & 2 \\ \hline kirkman & 11.97 & 11.97 & 9.18 & 6.74 & 7.54 & 2 \\ \hline planet & 31.06 & 31.06 & 13.12 & 10.72 & 11.73 & 2 \\ \hline planet1 & 31.06 & 31.06 & 13.12 & 10.72 & 12.27 & 2 \\ \hline pma & 9.37 & 9.37 & 7.38 & 4.51 & 5.04 & 2 \\ \hline s1 & 18.34 & 23.04 & 16.02 & 12.62 & 14.17 & 2 \\ \hline s1488 & 28.75 & 31.04 & 22.57 & 11.19 & 14.66 & 2 \\ \hline s1494 & 20.61 & 21.80 & 18.15 & 13.69 & 16.78 & 2 \\ \hline s1a & 8.62 & 11.39 & 7.14 & 4.97 & 6.42 & 2 \\ \hline s208 & 7.84 & 15.98 & 6.99 & 5.27 & 7.60 & 2 \\ \hline styr & 29.39 & 36.72 & 21.88 & 16.26 & 18.20 & 2 \\ \hline tma & 9.70 & 8.89 & 8.05 & 5.19 & 6.54 & 2 \\ \hline sand & 9.91 & 9.91 & 7.79 & 4.24 & 5.62 & 3 \\ \hline s420 & 7.69 & 15.98 & 7.26 & 4.76 & 5.22 & 4 \\ \hline s510 & 8.69 & 8.69 & 6.01 & 4.55 & 4.72 & 4 \\ \hline s820 & 13.51 & 11.76 & 8.29 & 4.63 & 5.69 & 4 \\ \hline s832 & 14.38 & 13.62 & 10.52 & 5.01 & 7.09 & 4 \\ \hline Total & 484.24 & 528.25 & 365.05 & 301.91 & 337.11 & \\ \hline Percentage,\% & 143.64 & 156.70 & 108.29 & 89.56 & 100 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 20: _Cont._also occurs in our case. There is only one set of additional variables in FSMs \(U_{3}\). However, FSMs \(U_{2}\) have two such sets.