Breaking the memory wall: next-generation artificial intelligence hardware

Abstract

The relentless advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) across sectors such as healthcare, the automotive industry, and social media necessitates the development of more efficient hardware solutions that can implement diverse learning algorithms. This lead article explores the evolution of AI learning algorithms and their computational demands, using autonomous drone navigation as a case study to highlight the limitations of traditional hardware. Traditional hardware, based on the von Neumann architecture, suffers from limited computational efficiency due to the separation of compute units and memory, also known as the “memory wall” problem. To overcome this barrier, this article discusses novel approaches to AI hardware design, focusing on compute-in-memory (CIM) techniques and stochastic hardware. CIM offers a promising solution to the memory wall problem by integrating computing capabilities directly into the memory system. This article details state-of-the-art developments in CIM for different memory types and at various levels of the memory hierarchy to support essential AI compute functions. We also discuss the use of CIM in developing neuromorphic hardware capable of accelerating biologically inspired algorithms, such as spiking neural networks. Furthermore, we highlight how stochastic hardware can exploit the error resilience of AI algorithms to enhance energy efficiency. Encompassing the full stack of AI systems, from learning algorithms to circuit and device-level techniques and architectures, this article provides a comprehensive roadmap for future research and development in AI hardware.

Key points

Introduction

Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as one of the most transformative technologies of the 21st century, reshaping numerous aspects of everyday life. Driven by the overarching goal of replicating human intelligence, developers have created multiple generations of AI algorithms. Machine learning (ML) algorithms are particularly notable, as they draw inspiration from human brain functions, enabling computers to learn and generalize from input data. Recent advances in ML aspire to equip computers with cognition, perception, and reasoning abilities that potentially match or exceed those of humans (1–9).

In 1989, LeCun and colleagues at Bell Labs made a significant breakthrough by training a neural network to classify handwritten digits (10). Since then, the development of neural network training algorithms has continued to evolve, resulting in architectures such as multi-layer perceptrons (MLPs), convolutional neural networks (CNNs) (1), long short-term memory models (LSTMs) (2), and transformers (3). This evolution has led to an explosion in both the parameters and computational demands of these models, culminating in bottlenecks during training on traditional central processing units (CPUs). In a pivotal move, in 2012, graphics processing units (GPUs) began to be utilized for their superior parallelism capabilities, specifically for efficient matrix-vector multiplication (MVM), the primary computation in neural networks (1). This, along with advances in transistor technology, has facilitated the training of multi-billion parameter networks using extensive server farms within data centers.

With the development of large language and vision models (LLMs and LVMs) based on the transformer architecture (3), AI has excelled in applications such as language translation (4), text prediction/generation (5), text-to-image synthesis (6), and image generation (7). However, these multi-billion parameter models require significant computational and energy resources, raising concerns about their sustainability in real-world scenarios. Moreover, they are less efficient than the human brain owing to their dense, synchronous, and high-precision computations and the need for extensive data movement between compute and memory units. To address these challenges, efforts have been made to achieve brain-like computation, such as spiking neural networks (SNNs), which can perform sparse and event-driven computations similar to the brain (11). Nevertheless, efficient implementation of fundamental operations required by ML workloads cannot be realized without considering optimization at the underlying hardware level.

Today’s AI hardware solutions are rooted in the von Neumann architecture, which distinctly separates computational and memory units. It has become evident that shuttling data between memory and compute units, known as the “memory wall” problem, is responsible for the majority of the energy consumption and latency in computing systems. Rethinking devices, circuits, and computing architectures to incorporate a “compute-in-memory” (CIM) paradigm, by performing compute operations within the memory array itself, holds significant promise for alleviating this issue (12). Concurrently, the error-resiliency of AI algorithms can be utilized to develop hardware that is approximate but enables faster operations with reduced energy consumption while maintaining system-level accuracy (13). As AI applications become more integrated into our daily lives, designing brain-inspired AI algorithms and hardware necessitates a mutual consideration of constraints and requirements, promoting an algorithm-hardware co-design approach. Figure 1 illustrates the evolution of AI models and hardware over time, highlighting the functional gap relative to the brain.

Figure 1

Existing surveys on autonomous navigation have provided comprehensive overviews of AI methods in the field. A notable survey by Nahavandi et al. (14) offers an in-depth examination of autonomous navigation for mobile robots, covering standard sensing technologies, a variety of robotic platforms, simulation environments, and navigation fundamentals and presenting a thorough treatment of Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) algorithms. Separately, another work by Rezwan et al. (15) focuses specifically on unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) autonomous navigation, comparing traditional mathematical optimization approaches with recent learning-based methods, and delves into UAV-specific considerations such as navigation models and input modalities. In contrast, this article emphasizes the evolution of AI applications and advances in AI algorithms to emphasize the requirements for specialized AI hardware. Using autonomous drone navigation as an illustrative application, it contextualizes the discussion on efficient AI hardware design, directly linking algorithmic demands to hardware innovation.

On the hardware side, previous reviews (16) have primarily explored the material properties of devices employed in CIM crossbars without addressing the broader accelerator architecture or issues of application-level integration. Furthermore, in contrast to other works (17, 18), this lead article additionally surveys emerging low-power neural network architectures, such as spiking neural networks (SNNs), which are highly relevant for energy-constrained edge platforms like drones. Ultimately, this article explores new computing paradigms—namely, in-memory and approximate computing—that offer the potential for substantial performance enhancements over existing AI hardware. It also explores neuromorphic hardware for SNNs, highlighting the advancements necessary in hardware technologies such as CIM and stochastic devices. The discussion concludes with an examination of brain-inspired solutions as promising avenues for achieving efficient AI implementations.

Evolution of AI applications and algorithms

AI systems of today are incredibly versatile, capable of both simple tasks, such as voice-activated lighting, and complex ones, such as generating realistic videos of imagined scenes. This section explores the historical as well as ongoing development of AI applications and the algorithms that power them. We focus on autonomous drone navigation as an exemplary application to demonstrate AI’s potential and examine the learning algorithms best suited for fast and efficient deployment on edge devices.

AI applications

The cognitive capabilities of AI have recently experienced a significant leap, leading to unprecedented performance across various domains. Notably, these include computer vision (encompassing image and video analysis, captioning, denoising, and inpainting) and natural language processing (including language translation, text summarization, and chatbots). As a result, AI has been applied in a variety of industries, such as healthcare, finance, transportation, retail, and manufacturing. The dynamic landscape of AI applications is continually evolving as more tasks valuable to human society are consistently enhanced by AI.

In the current era, dominated by data, acquiring relevant information is essential for the effective operation of AI systems. This information usually comes from a vast corpus of language, image, and speech data on the Internet. However, it can also be derived in real-time, for example, from the activity history of end-users on various ML-backed social media platforms or directly from the physical world through an array of sensors, including cameras, global positioning system (GPS), radar, lidar, sonar, and inertial measurement units (IMUs). Among these, vision sensors are the most prominent across various real-world applications. In recent years, a new category of vision sensors known as event-based cameras has gained significant attention (19, 20). Unlike traditional frame-based cameras that synchronously sample dense frames, event-based cameras provide an asynchronous and sparse stream of binary events based on the pixel-wise change in log-scale intensity. This leads to better temporal resolution, dynamic range, and power consumption (21). These characteristics position event cameras as promising candidates for low-power and low-latency sensing elements in resource-constrained systems.

Consider an exemplary application of a UAV deployed in a hazardous environment for autonomous search and rescue (Figure 2) (22). The UAV is required to navigate seamlessly at high speed, plan, reason, and make decisions without any human supervision. To accomplish this, it needs to have a detailed understanding of its environment by carrying out several underlying perception tasks—such as optical flow, depth estimation, semantic segmentation, and object detection—to construct a perception base. This perception base is further used by high-level perception modules, planning subsystems, and neurosymbolic models to appropriately control the behavior of the drone (23, 24). This entire pipeline needs to be executed in real-time to enable high-speed navigation under all environmental conditions, which is quite challenging. From the algorithm standpoint, first, the architectures must be small enough to satisfy the resource constraints at the edge yet powerful enough to achieve satisfactory performance (25). Second, when considering real-world deployment for tasks such as optical flow and object tracking, it is crucial that the underlying algorithms and architectures are capable of effectively capturing the temporal dependencies in inputs over time. Third, since many of the subtasks are interdependent, where the output of one task serves as the input for another, it is important to carefully consider the design of the overall architecture and optimize it for efficient implementation. On the hardware front, optimized implementations capable of accelerating algorithms with these characteristics are vital, necessitating a shift from traditional CPU/GPU-based approaches to application-specific hardware.

Figure 2

AI deployment

AI models are trained using extensive real-world data in centralized data centers, often employing clusters of GPUs before they are deployed for repeated inference in the real world. AI models can be deployed either at the edge or in the cloud. Deploying AI models in the cloud has become a common strategy, primarily due to the unparalleled application accuracy achievable with the use of large, complex models. While practical for creating AI applications, this approach faces several challenges, such as the requirement for an active Internet connection, privacy concerns when transmitting sensitive data, and high energy and latency costs for extensive back-and-forth communications. Conversely, edge AI involves deploying AI algorithms entirely on edge systems, eliminating the need for communication with the cloud. However, due to their physical constraints, limited power budget, and computing capabilities, edge AI models must be scaled down, inevitably resulting in performance loss (26). As edge computing becomes more widespread, it is crucial to develop both algorithms and hardware together, with the goal of creating AI platforms that are both fast and efficient.

To facilitate the efficient deployment of AI models, quantization and sparsity have emerged as highly effective techniques, leading to models with substantially reduced size and computational demands. Quantization reduces the numerical precision of model parameters and activations from high-precision floating-point formats (e.g., FP32) to compact representations such as 8-bit integer (INT8), 4-bit integer, or even binary. Historically, early neural networks relied on handcrafted fixed-point arithmetic for embedded inference; however, modern quantization extends this principle with sophisticated calibration, error correction, and mixed-precision strategies (27, 28) that preserve accuracy at extreme compression ratios. Techniques like dynamic per-channel scaling, learned quantization parameters, and low-rank residual correction (29) demonstrate that quantization is no longer a heuristic post-processing step but an integral part of model design and training. By aligning model precision with hardware arithmetic capabilities, quantization enables dense compute units, such as tensor cores and systolic arrays, to operate near their theoretical throughput limits while dramatically lowering memory bandwidth and energy costs. Sparsity, on the other hand, exploits the empirical observation that many weights and activations in neural networks are redundant or contribute minimally to output quality (30). Structured sparsity (e.g., block or channel pruning) allows direct hardware acceleration, while unstructured sparsity achieves finer-grained compression through pruning and re-parameterization (31). Lately, hardware systems have added support for fine-grained unstructured sparsity (32). The introduction of sparse attention mechanisms and mixture-of-experts models reflects a paradigm shift and computation is no longer uniformly distributed but dynamically allocated to the most informative aspects of inputs. Sparsity thus transforms inference from a static to an adaptive process, allowing AI systems to scale capacity without linearly scaling cost.

When viewed through the lens of AI evolution, quantization and sparsity represent complementary pathways toward efficiency, minimizing both the representation and computation costs. As AI progresses toward neuromorphic and analog paradigms, these principles extend beyond digital optimization to form the foundation of energy-aware intelligence, where precision, density, and selectivity co-evolve as intrinsic properties of learning systems.

Learning algorithms: UAV navigation

Given the challenges in autonomous UAV navigation (Figure 2), and drawing parallels with efficient biological systems, such as the fruit fly (33), it is logical to seek inspiration from the brain. Tasks such as optical flow estimation require that we determine the movement of pixel intensities over time, whole motion segmentation necessitates classifying pixels into object categories in an image sequence, and object tracking involves identifying and tracking a moving object. These tasks are inherently sequential. Thus, the underlying AI algorithm must possess the ability to learn temporal dependencies between successive inputs.

Taking optical flow as an example, traditional AI models such as CNNs (1, 34) prove inherently unsuitable owing to their inability to capture temporal dependencies. Architectures integrating memory, such as recurrent neural networks (RNNs) (35) and LSTM networks (2), are more fitting but suffer from heightened network complexity and an intricate training process. These shortcomings arise because these systems do not encompass the fundamental working principles of the brain, which operates in a sparse and event-driven manner, seamlessly integrating compute and memory within the same physical substrate.

In contrast, advancements in neuroscience have led to the development of bio-plausible algorithms such as SNNs, which can efficiently process sequential data through sparse and event-driven computations, similar to the brain. SNNs represent a computationally simpler alternative to RNNs or LSTMs, utilizing a unique mechanism—membrane potential—which serves as a lightweight form of internal memory (11). In SNNs, inputs to each neural network layer are spikes (0 or 1) over time, necessitating only an accumulation operation, unlike the multiply-and-accumulate operation in artificial neural networks (ANNs) (36). However, deep SNNs also face challenges such as vanishing spikes and non-differentiable activations (37, 38), making training difficult. Fortunately, there have been several successful efforts toward developing techniques such as ANN-to-SNN conversion (37, 39), learnable neuronal dynamics (36, 40), and surrogate gradient learning (38, 41), which have simplified SNN training and improved their application performance. Furthermore, SNNs excel at processing data from previously discussed asynchronous sensors (event-based cameras).

Event-based optical flow estimation is typically carried out using an encoder-decoder multi-scale architecture based on U-Net, as introduced by Ronneberger et al. (42). Fully ANN models, inspired by Zhu et al. (43, 44), serve as the baselines and require representation of the event bins in the channel dimension (Figure 3A). This approach discards any temporal dependence between input events, resulting in suboptimal performance. In comparison, fully SNN models, such as Adaptive-SpikeNet (40) (Figure 3B), can capture temporal information effectively while utilizing layer-wise learnable neuronal dynamics to mitigate the challenges associated with SNN training. This results in improved application performance (~20% lower error) with the same model size or extremely lightweight (0.27-M parameter compared with 13 M) and efficient (~10× lower energy) models with similar performance, underscoring the efficacy of SNNs over ANNs in capturing temporal dynamics.

Figure 3

In parallel, there have been efforts to explore hybrid SNN–ANN models to simplify training. Works such as Spike-FlowNet (45) and SSLN (47) fall into this category. Spike-FlowNet (Figure 3C) consists of just an SNN-encoder and outperforms the fully ANN approach (43), offering 1.21× lower energy consumption. There have also been efforts to combine information from frame- and event-based cameras into a sensor-fusion model. Works such as Fusion-FlowNet (46) (Figure 3D) use events over time as inputs to an SNN encoder and grayscale frames over channels as inputs to an ANN-encoder. This enables superior feature extraction, leading to significantly improved performance and smaller model sizes. In fact, Fusion-FlowNet, with 7.55 million parameters, attains 40% lower error with a 1.87× energy reduction compared to fully ANN methods (43). Along similar lines, DOTIE (48) offers a lightweight object detection pipeline, and HALSIE (49) uses sensor fusion for semantic segmentation. Although explained for specific tasks, the discussed principles can be applied to a broad spectrum of perception tasks. In the context of UAV navigation applications, all these approaches constitute notable advancements toward achieving brain-like edge intelligence.

While the above works demonstrate the unique potential of SNNs and hybrid architectures, it is important to note that these advantages are domain specific and should not be generalized. SNNs work well with tasks involving temporal information, and event-based sensors work well when sparse binary information is sufficient for carrying out the task at hand. In contrast, applications such as face recognition, image classification, image analysis, and 3D reconstruction, which are data intensive, are still dominated by ANNs.

In line with recent advancements in AI, including LLMs/LVMs (3), diffusion models (7), and neural architecture search (NAS) (50), which are much more powerful and power hungry than previously discussed traditional approaches, there have been few initiatives toward low-cost implementations such as SNN transformers (51, 52). However, the energy efficiency of these initiatives remains suboptimal. This underscores the need for innovative approaches in developing brain-inspired architectures from the ground up, effectively utilizing the unique temporal dimension of SNNs rather than simply replicating ANN-based models.

Even with meticulously designed and highly optimized algorithms, achieving efficiency at the hardware level remains challenging. Although traditional hardware is advancing, a significant gap persists between AI hardware capabilities and the rigorous demands of AI applications across various domains. Beyond standard operations such as matrix-vector multiplications (MVMs) and transcendental functions, brain-inspired workloads require operations like frequent fetching and updating of membrane potential and modeling neuronal dynamics. These demands present significant challenges for von Neumann architectures and underscore the need to explore CIM approaches to provide an energy-efficient, converged platform for both SNN and ANN-based AI algorithms. The remainder of this article explores potential hardware solutions at various levels, from specialized CIM architectures and digital/analog memory technologies to stochastic hardware and emerging devices.

Compute in/near memory for efficient AI hardware design

The concept of CIM dates back to the 1990s (53, 54). However, with the advancements in AI applications, the limitations of traditional computing architectures have become increasingly apparent. Traditional systems, based on the von Neumann architecture, face the memory wall challenge (55), where the separation between processing and memory units leads to significant data movement overheads. As an alternative, CIM paradigms have been proposed to reduce the higher cost of memory accesses (56–58).

CIM, also known as processing-in-memory (PIM), fundamentally alters the computing paradigm by bringing computations closer to, or inside, synaptic memory where data reside, effectively addressing the memory wall challenge. CIM architectures can perform massively parallel multiply-and-accumulate (MAC) operations on inputs and synaptic weights, the predominant operation in AI models. Additionally, CIM technology shows promise for efficiently executing transcendental functions such as exponential, logarithmic, or trigonometric calculations. It is also particularly advantageous for SNN algorithms by significantly reducing the costs associated with storing and fetching neuronal membrane potentials.

Figure 4A illustrates an example of a CIM accelerator with its spatial architecture (59). This architecture consists of multiple tiles connected via a network on chip (NoC), each containing N CIM cores. A CIM core (Figure 4B) comprises CIM arrays, referred to as matrix-vector multiplication units (MVMUs), along with other functional units and an instruction execution pipeline (Fetch, Decode, Execute, and Memory). Following the fetching of an instruction from the instruction memory, it is decoded and executed in the appropriate functional unit, which could be the scalar functional unit (SFU), vector functional unit (VFU), or the pipelined MVMU. The output is stored in the memory unit (MU), which facilitates communication with other cores. Hence, CIM arrays provide a framework for designing energy-efficient hardware tailored for AI applications.

Figure 4

CIM can be integrated into memory through different methods, also known as computing schemes. These schemes are broadly categorized into analog and digital, depending on whether the values computed in the memory array are continuous or discrete, respectively. Additionally, the benefits of CIM vary with the memory technology based on their read–write energy, area, latency, and other specifications. The following subsection describes various types of CIM, particularly focusing on analog and digital CIM computing schemes, and reviews the differences in various memory types. The subsequent subsection details the advancements in CIM designs for different memory technologies across a memory hierarchy.

Types of CIM

Computing schemes

CIM can be broadly categorized into analog (or mixed-signal) and digital (binary) types. Figure 4D depicts an example of analog CIM (60), for performing the matrix-vector multiplication (MVM) operation.

Several methods are employed to perform such in situ MAC operations in an analog manner. The technique shown in Figure 4D involves current-mode computing, which takes advantage of the property of linear addition of currents in circuits, namely, Kirchhoff’s current law. Mathematically, this can be represented as Equation 1 follows:

The encoded inputs are supplied to each memory row through the source of the access device, contributing to . The resistance of each cell (or its inverse, the conductance ) corresponds to the weights of the neural network and can be single or multi-bit, depending on the bit capacity of the memory cell. The choice of the memory cell in a CIM array could be embedded non-volatile memory (eNVM) devices or any type of static random-access memory (SRAM) cell (Figure 4D). By activating multiple wordlines (WLs) simultaneously in an array, the current from each row accumulates at the bitline (BL) () to produce the MAC output between inputs and weights. The analog current is then converted to the voltage domain via a transimpedance amplifier (TIA) and finally to the digital domain. Another method is charge-based computing (61), which exploits the capacitive properties of memory cells to accumulate charges, thereby obtaining the MAC output.

The analog nature of communication is prone to errors; therefore, the MAC output is converted to the digital domain via an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) to facilitate noise-resilient and robust communication between different CIM cores. Similarly, inputs arrive in digital form and are encoded using a digital-to-analog converter (DAC) to convert the bit-streamed inputs into the voltage domain. However, ADCs often introduce significant area, power, and performance overheads in mixed-signal CIM systems, as their operation requires high precision and fast conversion rates to maintain overall system efficiency. The distribution of energy and area for a typical spatial architecture (Figure 4E), such as PUMA (59), reveals that the full precision ADC occupies more than 80% of the area and consumes more than 50% of the energy in the CIM accelerator. While digital components rank second highest in terms of area and energy, the contribution from the crossbar is minimal. Here, the crossbar refers to the memory array modified for analog CIM.

In contrast, digital CIM (Figure 4C) provides a fully digital alternative to analog and mixed-signal methods. In this architecture, digital CIM macros perform MAC operations using digital arithmetic and logic operations either within or in close proximity to the memory array. In one variant of digital CIM, two wordlines (WLs) are activated, and their corresponding bitwise operations, such as NAND, XOR, and NOR, can be accessed at the periphery of the memory array through modified sense amplifier circuits. Such multiple bitwise operations can be combined to execute arithmetic operations such as multiply and accumulate. This approach, as noted by Wang et al. (62), necessitates storing inputs and weights in a bit-aligned manner within the memory array and incurs a small area overhead due to minor changes in the peripheral circuitry. Figure 4C illustrates another method for a digital CIM core, which involves extensively modifying the memory array to incorporate multipliers and adders adjacent to each memory cell (18). The partial sum outputs are subsequently combined using adder trees and accumulators. The details of this digital CIM macro are further elucidated in the SRAM-based CIM subsection.

When comparing digital and analog CIM approaches, numerous trade-offs become apparent. Beyond the high area, energy, and latency overheads introduced by ADCs, analog CIM is susceptible to functional errors due to various non-idealities, including IR drop within the memory array, device non-ideal characteristics, leakage currents, and others (57, 58, 63, 64). Conversely, a digital computation environment is more predictable and easier to control, leading to more accurate and reliable system behavior. However, digital CIM may not achieve the high energy efficiency of analog CIM. Moreover, the repetitive bitwise additions required to generate the final MAC output in digital CIM can increase the overall compute latency.

Memory technologies

CIM technology can be applied in various ways depending on the type of memory, each offering unique advantages and specific implementations. The different types of memories include SRAM, dynamic random-access memory (DRAM), eNVMs, and flash memory. SRAM is commonly used as cache memory in processors due to its high speed and stability. An SRAM cell typically consists of 6 to 10 transistors and stores data in a binary format. In contrast, a DRAM cell comprises a single transistor and a capacitor to store data, making it cost-effective for high-density and large-capacity main memory in systems. However, it requires periodic refreshes to store data correctly, reducing its speed.

While both SRAM and DRAM are volatile memories, non-volatile memories such as hard disk drives (HDDs) or flash memory, found in solid-state drives (SSDs), can retain data when power is lost. Flash memory, devoid of moving parts, is faster and more durable compared to mechanical hard disks. Other alternatives, such as eNVMs—including resistive random-access memory (RRAM), phase-change memories (PCMs), spin–transfer torque magnetic RAM (STT-MRAM), and ferroelectric field-effect transistors (FeFETs)—are often noted for their low power consumption and high-density storage. These eNVMs, such as RRAM and PCM, can store more than 1 bit of data per cell and differentiate the state stored in the cell by switching between a high-resistance state (HRS) and a low-resistance state (LRS), triggered by an electrical stimulus such as a current or voltage pulse. The underlying physics of each technology is unique: STT-MRAM depends on the parallel and anti-parallel alignment of two magnetic layers separated by a thin tunneling insulator layer, PCM utilizes chalcogenide materials to switch between crystalline and amorphous phases, and RRAM relies on the formation and rupture of conductive filaments in the insulator between two electrodes. FeFET (65) relies on the polarization of the ferroelectric layer (e.g., Hafnium materials), thus storing different threshold voltages ().

Each of these memory technologies presents a unique set of trade-offs with respect to power efficiency, performance, cost, and ease of integration, which should be considered when integrating computing into memory for specific AI applications (Supplementary Table 1).

CIM across memory hierarchy: opportunities and challenges

Every computing system includes a memory subsystem with different memory levels to hide the memory latency during compute. For instance, the memory closest to compute is small and fast (e.g., SRAM) while the farthest memory is large and slow (e.g., DRAM). The last memory level is generally non-volatile, such as flash or using emerging devices. The aforementioned differences in memory characteristics necessitate examination of the CIM technologies for each memory technology separately. This subsection details the developments in CIM implementations with different memory technologies for performing matrix-vector multiplications.

eNVM-based CIM

Recent advancements in eNVM technologies (66–70) have garnered considerable interest for their application in power-sensitive and data-heavy environments (71). These technologies are characterized by low energy consumption, high storage density, non-volatility, and the capacity for in-situ parallel operations. eNVMs are employed in hardware specialized for various AI applications, including convolutional neural networks (59), graph neural networks (GNN) (72), SNNs (8, 73), and transformers (74, 75). These studies reveal key insights regarding CIM-based application-specific fabrics: (a) in some cases, the intrinsic stochasticity of eNVM can be advantageous, as demonstrated in specific applications (76, 77); (b) although the analog crossbar architecture offers attractive benefits, notably its fast MVM capability, the associated challenges with full precision analog CIM might impede its suitability for supporting large-scale applications in the future; and (c) carefully deciding the circuit and device parameters for the CIM array may help in alleviating some of these obstacles while designing energy-efficient edge computing hardware. The details of stochastic hardware are discussed in a later section, whereas the implications of (b) and (c) are discussed further here.

The strongest form of CIM with eNVM is the full-precision analog variant that performs an N-wide vector–vector dot product in each of the M active columns of cells during each read cycle. It offers the greatest potential advantages for compute efficiency and bandwidth but suffers from practical constraints on density and accuracy, as shown in the column view in Figure 5A. Practical considerations limit the feasibility of this full-precision analog approach in nano-scale nonvolatile array macros. For example, implementing precise analog inputs requires the cells and array metallization to support voltage biasing of individual storage elements. Typical 1T1R arrays natively support binary inputs to individual cells, using the WLs to toggle high-gain selector devices (78). In addition, the full-precision variant demands precise peripheral circuits, including TIA, ADC, and DAC, to maintain the accuracy of data bits.

Figure 5

To overcome the challenges of implementing full-precision analog CIM, three knobs can be tuned: reduce the input precision of bits, reduce the weight precision of bits, and reduce kernel width . This “quantized” variant is illustrated in Figure 5B. Note that completing a full vector–vector dot product with arbitrary input and weight precisions and and width N thus requires external shift-adding circuitry (Figures 4D, C) read operations Equation 2:

In the most aggressively quantized mode, WLs and cell values are binary and . The read-out bitline current thus becomes the following Equation 3:

Several CIM macros using this family of partially “quantized” approaches with RRAM have been demonstrated in scaled nodes (79–89). Designers typically implement current-based readout schemes, as in traditional NVM designs, which operate by clamping the cell bias voltage, typically just the BL voltage, to an approximate target value and measuring the resulting current. Some outlier works avoid current-sensing and measure the BL voltage itself. Yoon et al. (83) used a voltage-based scheme with feedback, while Hung et al. (87) allowed the BL to slew downward due to selected memory cells without a pull-up transistor to reduce power while necessitating a carefully designed readout system.

Another approach to tackle the associated challenges with analog CIM includes co-designing crossbars to achieve the highest energy efficiency with minimal loss in accuracy. Chakraborty et al. (57, 58) and Kim et al. (90) showed how the analog nature of computing results in several non-idealities, such as non-linearity from access transistors, eNVM device non-linear characteristics, and parasitic resistance. They proposed a data-dependent approach and an analytical modeling approach, respectively, to capture such non-idealities, which lead to functional errors in the MVM computation output.

Sharma et al. (91) highlighted the impact of co-designing device-circuit parameters for reducing functional and quantization errors for crossbar arrays consisting of spin–orbit transfer magnetic tunnel junctions (SOT-MTJs). SOT-MTJs have high endurance, similar to their variant STT-MRAM, but offer a higher ratio of by due to their decoupled read and write paths. Their quantitative analysis shows that smaller crossbar sizes and the optimum size of could lead to the least accuracy degradation in crossbars, depending on the input activation sparsity. In addition, higher sparsity can reduce energy consumption by leveraging a lower precision ADC without affecting accuracy. More approaches to reducing the ADC bottleneck are discussed in the next section.

Beyond macro-level works, several system-level CIM with RRAM designs have been demonstrated. Chang et al. (92) combined 288-unit CIM macros, each with eight channels and activating up to nine binary WLs in parallel, for a total of 2.25 MB of NVM storage on-die along with 768 KB of traditional SRAM. Power switching at each macro allows power to scale an order of magnitude as macros are enabled and disabled during intermittent computing. The power gating idea is extended by Chang et al. (93) and Lele et al. (94), who described two-tier power gating using 32 clusters of five macros each for a total of 1.25 MB of RRAM along with 1.25 MB of traditional SRAM. This second work also includes a lighter-weight SNN-based component utilized to trigger gated RRAM macros to wake up for heavier-weight CNN computing. Huang et al. (89) reported a relatively large die area (30.6 mm²) and a large 4 MB of on-die nonvolatile memory to support slightly larger networks. They focused on a configurable macro with the ability to implement both in-memory and near-memory computing and achieved a very high 76.5 throughput per watt (TOPS/W) efficiency at INT8 precision at the macro level.

However, much of the above efforts have focused on specialized CIM designs tailored to specific workloads, which may diverge from the broader trajectory of hybrid SNN and ANN hardware development. To address the variety of operations used in such workloads, (i) Singh et al. (95) demonstrated architecture support for hybrid ANN and SNN workloads, (ii) Chen et al. (96) proposed a multifunctional CIM macro that uses the same memory array with combined peripherals to support logic-in-memory, content addressable memory (97), and dot-product computations, (iii) Wan et al. (98) presented a taped-out RRAM chip for multiple neural network architectures, and (iv) Shin et al. (99) demonstrated a taped-out RRAM chip for reconfigurable RNN-CNN workloads.

However, CIM with NVM is not a fully mature design concept, and the possibility of MAC-level accuracy degradation poses a significant risk to the future of the paradigm. Beyond accuracy issues, a major risk of CIM with NVM is a reduction in data density. Compared with traditional memory macros with binary read-out channels, CIM designs require more complex peripheral designs, such as medium-precision ADCs (100), complex sensing circuits (101), and isolation circuitry for high-voltage domains (88), which diminish array area efficiency. Furthermore, the top-level NVM data densities of these CIM systems, ranging from 0.49 to 1.31 Mbit/mm², compare poorly with those of digital systems using NVM, reported at 1.92 and 2.80 Mbit/mm² (102, 103). Figure 5C depicts an efficiency versus data density frontier observed empirically in published works, mostly macros.

SRAM-based CIM

Initial CIM efforts focused on modifying SRAM 6-transistor (6T) arrays, a primary type of memory storage, to act as classifiers or MLPs for tasks such as digit recognition (104, 105). While such efforts focused on approximate analog CIM inference accelerator designs, ADCs were incorporated later to maintain result accuracy, leading to more complex designs with higher data precision (106). Notably, SRAM 6T cells have coupled read–write paths, which can cause bit flips through a short circuit when all WLs are enabled in an array. To address these read-disturb issues, Kang et al. (104) employed staggered activation and asymmetric sense amplifiers to avoid short circuits and detect bitwise NAND, NOR, and so on, respectively. Recently, Chih et al. (18) proposed a full-precision digital CIM macro using SRAM 6T, where the multipliers are connected directly to the BLs of each cell (Figure 6A). This approach overcomes the analog CIM overheads without any loss in computation accuracy. The entire array is divided into multiple sub-CIM units via the adder tree (Figure 6B). Each sub-CIM unit activates all input activations simultaneously (represented by a blue line), and the partial sum of 4-bit MAC from each row is sent to the adder tree. For the subsequent stream of inputs, the partial sums are combined using an accumulator (Figure 6C), which bit-shifts the last computed output and adds the current partial sum from the adder tree. Follow-up work (107) further increased the TOPS/W by including pipelining, bit-width flexibility, and simultaneous weight updating in the digital CIM macro.

Figure 6

18) with permission from IEEE.

As SRAM 6 T-based CIM designs have evolved, the SRAM-based CIM classifiers have expanded to include other types of SRAM cells, thereby eliminating the read-disturb issues associated with SRAM 6T. This expansion is evident in numerous simulation works and silicon prototypes consisting of 8T (60, 62, 108), 10T (109), and 12T (110) cells. Although larger SRAM cells compromise on storage density, they provide greater read-disturb stability. For instance, SRAM 8T has decoupled paths for reading and writing to the cell. In another effort, a charge-domain computing approach was shown to be more efficient for such analog CIM macro designs compared to the earlier used current-based computing, which necessitates bulky transimpedance amplifiers (TIAs) for current-to-voltage domain conversion (61, 111). Additionally, Wang et al. (62) employed a digital CIM approach by activating two rows at a time in an SRAM-8 T-based memory array to calculate logic operations such as NOR and AND at the end of the BL.

Subsequently, SRAM CIM inference accelerators or macros have expanded to processor-level design (18), programmable chip designs (112), and floating-point accelerators (113). To balance the accuracy of fully digital CIM and the energy efficiency of analog designs, researchers have proposed analog prototypes with reconfigurable ADC precision (114). These reconfigurable ADC designs employ high ADC precision for scenarios with lower data sparsity and lower ADC precision for high data sparsity. Thus, the reconfigurable ADC design can achieve optimal accuracy and energy efficiency, varying according to the signal-to-noise ratio and data sparsity.

Nevertheless, ADCs alone consume as much as 60% of the energy and occupy nearly 80% of the area in analog CIM accelerators (115). Due to the significant area requirements of ADCs, they are shared across multiple columns in the crossbar, which limits the throughput of the crossbar arrays. Researchers have explored various strategies to mitigate the limitations imposed by ADCs in CIM accelerators (28, 116–119). These studies have primarily focused on reducing the precision of ADCs through partial sum quantization (PSQ) to lower bit levels, thereby saving power and area. Despite these adjustments to lower-precision ADCs, the challenge of inefficiency persists. Building on the PSQ technique, recent research has demonstrated that partial sums can be quantized to just 1 (binary) or 1.5 bits (ternary) (28, 120). This method eliminates the need for ADCs by adopting learned-step quantization (121), utilizing trainable floating-point scale factors. The binary or ternary value (p) at the columns of crossbars is multiplied by a scale factor (s) to bring the quantized values to a similar range as the actual floating-point data. The binary and ternary quantization values for p are delineated in Equation 4, where α represents a trainable threshold.

The partial sum is shifted and accumulated across all the input bit streams to obtain the final partial sum value (PS) at a crossbar column. Experiments underline the importance of using scaling factors in PSQ and reveal that binary and ternary PSQ with scaling factors achieve higher accuracy than 2-bit quantized partial sums. This partial sum quantization approach has also been applied to SNNs when deployed on analog CIM accelerators (122). In this context, it has demonstrated up to 72× lower inference energy and 10× lower latency compared to deployments on the NVIDIA Jetson TX2 board.

DRAM-based CIM

In most ML applications, the DNN models and data processed are too large to fit on-chip, which implies that the majority of the model and data reside in DRAM. The movement of data to and from DRAM consumes significant time and energy in current AI hardware, including GPUs and specialized ML accelerators such as tensor processing units (TPUs) or neural processing units (NPUs). This makes processing inside or near the DRAM a promising approach to improving the efficiency of future AI hardware. There are different flavors of DRAM-based CIM; they differ based on where and how processing logic is integrated into the DRAM subsystem (Figure 7A).

Figure 7

• Computation is performed near DRAM subarrays [Figure 7A(i)]. Data are read from the subarrays and fed to logic (computation units) near the subarrays for processing. Despite the logic being slower, as it is being realized in a DRAM process, overall processing efficiency is improved by reducing the distances data travel and by utilizing the higher internal bandwidth available within the DRAM.

• Computation is performed in DRAM subarrays by activating two or more wordlines, as shown in Figure 7A(ii). The results are obtained at the columns of the subarray with the help of the local sense amplifiers. Not all functions may be suitable for realization within subarrays, in which case a combination of in-subarray and near-subarray computing may be used.

• Compute units are placed on logic dies that are integrated with 3D-stacked DRAM dies as shown in the high bandwidth memory architecture of Figure 7A(iii). The through-silicon via (TSV) connections provide high-bandwidth data transfer between the compute units and DRAM.

Each approach has its benefits, and recent efforts have explored all three approaches for accelerating AI workloads.

In-subarray computing utilizes the maximum internal DRAM bandwidth, as computation occurs at local sense amplifiers; ideally, this should lead to a more enhanced performance compared with near-subarray and 3D DRAM variants. Initial efforts (123–127) focused on evaluating Boolean computations at local sense amplifiers by activating multiple rows of the DRAM subarray. Ambit (123) specifically accelerates workloads through bulk bitwise Boolean operations (AND, OR, and NOT). The DRAM-based Reconfigurable In-Situ Accelerator (DRISA) (124) features a reconfigurable in-situ accelerator designed for performing Boolean operations. Conversely, DRAM based Accelerator for Accurate CNN Inference (DrAcc) (125) implements ternary neural networks through in-DRAM bit operations. Efficient and Low Power Processing-in-Memory (ELP2IM) (126) presents techniques for the low-power realization of bitwise operations in DRAM. Single Instruction Multiple Data DRAM (SIMDRAM) (127) introduces an end-to-end, flexible, general-purpose framework for bit-serial (Single Instruction Multiple Data) (SIMD) computing in DRAM.

The novel approach to bit-serial addition operations within DRAM subarrays introduced by Ali et al. (128) serves as an illustrative example of in-subarray computing. This approach requires data within DRAM to be organized in a transposed format, aligning all bits of the two multi-bit operands in the same column. This arrangement facilitates parallel n-bit addition operations across all columns within the subarray, as well as across subarrays. In each column, an addition operation is realized bit-serially, with a full adder function decomposed into majority operations, realized by activating multiple wordlines (Figure 7B). Five DRAM cells store data (A, B, C, D, and E) in their initial state, and the corresponding five wordlines are simultaneously activated to allow charge sharing. Following this, sense amplifiers activate to evaluate the majority. Both sum and carry outputs for bit-serial addition are evaluated through a majority operation. Due to the destructive nature of these operations, data are first copied into dedicated compute rows for processing (Figure 7C). An arbitrary bit-width addition requires nine additional compute rows alongside the data rows, incurring less than 1% area overhead. Figure 7C outlines all steps involved in single-bit addition, starting with copying operand bits to compute rows A and B to preserve the original data. The carry-out bit (Cout) is evaluated through a triple-row activation of A, B, and the carry-in bit (Cin). The sum bit results from a quintuple-row activation involving A, B, Cin, Cout, and Cout complement. Each of the four steps in a single-bit addition operation requires one AAP (activate-activate-precharge) operation. For an n-bit bit-serial addition operation, 4n+1 AAP operations are necessary. A system-level evaluation of this approach demonstrated up to an 11.5-fold performance improvement compared with conventional von Neumann machines when running the k-Nearest Neighbor (kNN) algorithm on the MNIST handwritten digit classification dataset.

Building upon this approach, Roy et al. (129) proposed an accelerator for ML inference workloads that combines in-subarray computing with near-subarray computing. A novel multiplication primitive was introduced without significant changes to the DRAM subarray. Additionally, an architecture comprising reconfigurable adder trees and special function units was proposed to fully realize DNNs within DRAM itself. A mapping scheme was also introduced alongside the architecture to maximize utilization and, consequently, performance.

Near-subarray computing has been explored in several efforts (127, 130, 131). Newton’s proposal by He et al. (130) involves an in-DRAM accelerator architecture incorporating multiply and accumulate units along with buffers within the DRAM. RecNMP, by Ke et al. (131), accelerates personalized recommendation systems through near-memory processing.

3D DRAM computing was explored in various efforts (132–134). Notably, Neurocube, by Kim et al. (133), introduced a programmable and digitally scalable accelerator built upon 3D high-density memory for efficient neural network acceleration. Gao et al. (134) proposed a scalable NN accelerator using 3D memory.

It is expected that some of the above computing in memory techniques will make their way into commercial DRAM products. For example, Samsung has recently incorporated computing in memory into their high-bandwidth memory (HBM) products (135), enabling parts of AI workloads to be accelerated in DRAM.

Flash-based CIM

Similar to other memory technologies, flash memory, a type of non-volatile storage, can be utilized to perform various computational operations, such as bitwise operations (AND, OR, and XOR), basic arithmetic operations, and more complex tasks, including searching and pattern matching. These operations are typically executed using the charge storage properties of flash cells. Predominantly available in two types, NAND and NOR, flash memory is structured around floating-gate transistors. NAND flash, characterized by its high density, is commonly used for data storage, while NOR flash, known for its faster read capabilities, is often employed in code storage and execution.

Xiang et al. (136) proposed an efficient, mixed-signal, NOR flash memory-based CIM design for SNNs. Since SNNs compute only spikes, which can be represented in binary format, such a design can eliminate the use of ADC/DAC, thus conserving energy and area. Similarly, Choi et al. (137) utilized two single-level NAND floating gate cells to store complementary data for a binary neural network algorithm. In S-FLASH, Kang et al. (138) employed a full mixed-signal CIM design and optimized energy by modifying the bit width of partial multiplication and exploiting many zero partial multiplication results. Additionally, works such as ParaBit by Gao et al. (139) and 3D-FPIM by Lee et al. (140) have performed end-to-end evaluations of NAND flash-based CIM architecture, demonstrating their potential to achieve higher performance and energy efficiency compared to RRAM-based accelerators.

Accelerating functions beyond matrix multiplication

In addition to matrix multiplication operations, memory can be repurposed to accelerate other AI application operations. The various neural network models discussed above (e.g., RNNs, SNNs, and transformers) often require repetitive evaluation of transcendental functions, such as tanh, exponential, and softmax. Evaluating these functions through the Maclaurin series expansion is deemed impractical. Consequently, previous studies have employed range reduction techniques and mathematical tables (141). For enhanced energy efficiency, it is preferable to store these tables on-chip rather than in off-chip DRAMs. However, the integration of these tables as on-chip read-only memory (ROM) necessitates additional silicon area, thus increasing costs. Lee et al. (142) proposed a ROM-embedded STT-MRAM bit-cell that includes an additional bitline for ROM operation: R-MRAM. This design effectively combines ROM and RAM functionalities within the same layout, allowing both types of memory to be utilized simultaneously without increasing the array size. The memory configuration might contain, for example, X MB of RAM and an equal amount of ROM. The circuit features an extra bitline compared to standard STT-MRAM, as shown in Figure 8. ROM data are stored by selectively connecting the magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) to one of the two Vread bitlines. Note that a typical layout of STT-MRAM bit-cell has enough routing space for this extra bitline since it requires a large access transistor to satisfy the bidirectional switching current requirements of the MTJ. This additional bitline enables standard RAM read/write operations as well as ROM read operations in R-MRAM. In the RAM mode, both bitlines are activated simultaneously with the proper wordline, while for ROM retrieval, only one of the bitlines is activated. Hence, during ROM retrieval, the data read from a particular cell is either the resistance of the MTJ (either in the on or off state) or infinite if the cell is disconnected from the bitline. The requirements for peripheral sensing circuitry differ slightly from those in standard RAM. Notably, such a ROM configuration could be applied to other non-volatile memory technologies, such as PCM and RRAM, and volatile memories, such as complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS)-based SRAM.

Figure 8

For implementing ROM in SRAM technology, Lee and Roy (143) proposed using two wordlines per 6-T cell, where the ROM data are stored based on whether the left access or the right access transistor is connected to wordline1 or wordline2. Note, during RAM mode, both wordlines are activated for read operations; however, for writing, only one of the wordlines is activated, effectively making the cell a 5-T cell during writing. Since the cells are volatile, during ROM data retrieval, the RAM data are first stored in a buffer and written back to the cell after the ROM read.

Dutta suggested a novel modification to the standard 8T SRAM cell that enables it to store ROM data without affecting its normal functionality or requiring extra silicon area (144). Building upon this, they demonstrate the use of this modification in an 8T-SRAM-based MVM unit. Storing “1” and “0” in the MVM unit requires an additional terminal, RCON. For cells storing a value of “1”, the source line (SL) is connected to RCON, and for cells storing “0”, SL is connected to the ground (GND). When RCON is connected to GND, the SL of all cells connects to GND, making the array function like a conventional SRAM array. However, if RCON is connected to the power supply/drain voltage (VDD) and all cells in that row store ‘“1”, specific read bitlines (RBLs) are prevented from discharging and activating the ROM mode. For ROM operation, the rows of the 8T SRAM array must store “1” as their value, which erases any pre-existing data. Thus, the data from the SRAM array should first be transferred to a temporary buffer and then restored post-ROM data read. Therefore, using an 8T-SRAM for dual functionality (normal SRAM and ROM-embedded RAM) necessitates four cycles for a ROM data read: (i) copying SRAM row data to a buffer, (ii) writing “1” to all cells in the row, (iii) reading ROM data, and (iv) writing the data back from the buffer to the SRAM. This novel 8T SRAM-based design has also been evaluated at the system level to accelerate Transformer models by Kim et al. (145), demonstrating up to a 10× improvement in throughput compared to the NVIDIA A40 GPU (145).

Neuromorphic computing: designing brain-inspired AI hardware

As observed in the exemplary application of autonomous drone navigation, the network architecture plays a critical role in determining the parameters, accuracy, energy consumption, and latency of the system. In fact, the optimal architecture may be a hybrid of SNNs, ANNs, and LSTMs. Although some of the previously discussed ANN hardware can support SNNs, achieving optimal performance requires the development of specialized hardware for neuromorphic computing (or SNNs).

Neuromorphic computing, which draws inspiration from the brain’s ability to unify computation and memory storage within the same physical substrate, its highly dense and recurrent connections, and its sparse, spike-based computation and communication, results in a remarkably efficient system. In recent years, SNNs, inspired by biological neurons, have emerged as promising candidates for processing sequential tasks with an asynchronous and sparse event stream (36). Central to SNNs is a neuron model characterized by an internal state known as membrane potential (8). Leaky integrate-and-fire (LIF) is the most commonly used neuron model. In a LIF neuron, the membrane potential accumulates input and decays at a certain rate governed by the leak at each timestep, emitting a spike when it exceeds a threshold. This process enables SNNs to learn the input timing information without any explicit temporal encoding, making them a special, less complex case of RNNs.

Earlier, SNNs were used for static tasks, such as image classification, where they lagged behind ANNs in accuracy. However, recent research has shown that SNNs excel in dynamic tasks, such as gesture recognition and optical flow estimation, surpassing ANNs and RNNs in accuracy (47). Their spike-based computation, focusing on accumulation operations, consumes less energy than the multiplications required by ANNs. However, the additional membrane potential parameter and temporal dimension introduce unique requirements and challenges that differentiate SNNs from standard ANNs, as summarized below:

• Temporal processing requirements: SNNs operate in discrete timesteps, encoding information in the timing of spikes and processing weights and membrane potential data structures across several timesteps. Consequently, they require precise hardware to manage complex temporal processes, such as accurate spike timing and event-driven communication, while minimizing memory access.

• Neuron activation functions: Unlike ANNs, which employ continuous activation functions, such as sigmoid or rectified linear unit (ReLU), SNNs utilize complex activation functions that account for the temporal dynamics of spikes. This demands specialized hardware tailored to their unique time and frequency dependencies.

• High temporal and spatial sparsity: SNNs demonstrate inherent sparsity in time, with spikes occurring intermittently, and in space, with only a few neurons active at any given time. Accelerating SNNs necessitates optimizing computations for this dual sparsity, which can pose challenges for traditional hardware platforms.

Efficient SNN acceleration requires a comprehensive understanding of these challenges and characteristics. To that end, several hardware solutions have been proposed, tailored to the distinct requirements of these biologically plausible neural networks. Asynchronous event-driven architectures have emerged as a transformative approach in this domain. IBM’s TrueNorth (146), with a million neurons and 256 million synapses, exemplifies low-power, real-time processing. Its asynchronous communication with synchronous neurosynaptic cores, connected through a distributed 2D mesh architecture, emphasizes parallelism and efficiency in handling spiking events. Similarly, Intel’s Loihi (147) features a network of asynchronous neuromorphic cores interconnected through an asynchronous mesh network. Its second iteration enhances scalability and energy efficiency, further supporting advanced SNN research and applications (148). Several other designs have also explored asynchronous event-driven approaches for large-scale brain simulations (149–151), and ultra low-power, resource-constrained edge applications (152–155).

As previously discussed in the CIM section, in-memory computing reduces weight and activation data movement in ANNs. In the SNNs case, there is additional data movement resulting from the temporal dimension and the membrane potential data structure. In light of this, Agrawal et al. (156) proposed an SRAM-based digital in-memory computing macro designed specifically for SNNs. This macro integrates essential SNN inference operations, such as accumulation, thresholding, spike-check, and reset, within a fused weight and membrane potential memory. The proposed macro employs a staggered layout to support 6-bit weight to 11-bit Vmem additions using reconfigurable column peripherals. It also supports multiple neuron models, including IF, LIF, and residual membrane potential (RMP) neurons, using in-memory operations. Such a macro can serve as a computational unit for a large-scale hierarchical mesh architecture (59). While early SNN research primarily emphasized biologically inspired neuron models and circuit primitives, recent advances underscore the importance of a system-level design to fully realize the benefits of temporal sparsity and event-driven computing. This includes dataflow-aware accelerators that align compute scheduling with sparse, asynchronous spike events (157, 158), algorithm-hardware co-design strategies that leverage CIM for efficient spike-based inference (90, 155), and hybrid architectures that integrate near- and in-memory computing with support for both frame- and event-based modalities (93). Recent efforts such as NeuroBench (159) aim to standardize evaluation and benchmarking of neuromorphic systems across datasets, tasks, and hardware backends, further enabling fair comparison. These holistic approaches enable scalable and energy-efficient deployment of SNNs beyond small-scale benchmarks and represent a critical bridge between neuroscience-inspired models and practical machine intelligence.

Stochastic hardware

While traditional neuromorphic computing models have predominantly relied on deterministic neural and synaptic primitives, recent efforts have adapted these models to incorporate stochastic elements, leading to models that are compact while maintaining accuracy for a class of applications (160–163). The integration of stochasticity into algorithms has been shown to improve the energy efficiency of diverse AI workloads. One notable advancement involves leveraging stochasticity for information encoding over time, achieved through probabilistic synaptic or neural updates. This facilitates the state compression of neural and synaptic units, enabling their implementation through single-bit technologies. For example, Roy et al. (163) developed fully binary neural networks using stochastic activation functions. Srinivasan et al. focused on training SNNs using a local learning rule (spike timing-dependent plasticity or STDP) (164) based on stochasticity (160). STDP updates synapses proportionately based on the timing difference between their input and the output spiking of the neuron. If the time difference is positive, the synapses are proportionately potentiated, while if it is negative, the synapses are proportionately depressed. Stochastic STDP has been used for synaptic updates where the time difference between input switching and output switching time is used as a measure of the probability of switching. Stochastic binary multi-layer networks exhibit heightened representation capacity and excel in classification tasks compared with their deterministic counterparts (165). The regularization effect induced by stochasticity plays a pivotal role in achieving such results. As researchers delve deeper into the interplay between stochasticity and algorithmic design, the prospect of unlocking novel capabilities in AI systems becomes increasingly promising.

At the hardware level, the core of stochastic computing circuits comprises controllable true random number generators (TRNGs), known as stochastic bits. The physics of various non-volatile memories demonstrates inherent stochasticity, which can be leveraged to implement stochastic algorithms with high efficiency. This stochasticity is intimately tied to the unique switching mechanisms of these devices. For instance, spintronic devices utilize thermal noise for magnetic orientation switching (166). Similarly, ReRAM devices depend on conductive filament formation or the movement of oxygen ions/vacancies (167), and PCM devices switch through a process that involves heating and abrupt quenching (168). All these mechanisms inherently exhibit stochastic characteristics. Furthermore, the non-volatility of such devices eliminates the need for separate storage of stochastic bits and enables their use in training neural networks. One particularly promising approach is the utilization of SOT-MTJs, which are three-terminal, read–write separable devices distinguished by their stochastic sigmoid-like switching characteristics (162). Figure 9A illustrates an SOT-MTJ device, where a magnetic tunnel junction comprising two nano-magnets (the bottom being the free layer and the top being the fixed layer, separated by a very thin oxide layer) is situated atop a heavy metal, depicted in gray. The current flowing through the heavy metal potentially switches the bottom nano-magnet. Depending on the magnitude and width of the current pulse, there is a probability that the SOT-device (the free layer magnet) switches, as shown in Figure 9B. Such a device can serve as a neuronal activation function, as previously mentioned. Figure 9C presents a circuit designed by Srinivasan et al. that implements stochastic STDP updates for synapses in a crossbar array (Srinivasan et al., 2020). The gate of the transistor receives a voltage ramp input with an input spike. The two bottom pass transistors activate only when the POST signal turns high with an output spike. Consequently, the current flowing through the heavy metal (through transistors and the two pass transistors) is proportional to the time difference between the input and output spike times, leading to the required stochastic switching of the device and, hence, stochastic STDP. Figure 9D displays a crossbar-type circuit array incorporating the stochastic learning circuit (Figure 9C). MTJs with high barrier magnets—a barrier height greater than 40 (where is the Boltzmann constant and T is the operating temperature)—have a high retention time of approximately 7 years. However, they require an external input (current) to assist in switching. Conversely, low barrier magnets—a barrier height less than 15 —demonstrate random switching solely due to thermal noise. Such low barrier MTJs, used for random number generation (169, 170), exhibit high switching times on the order of milliseconds, leading to very slow operations and susceptibility to process variations (170). Additionally, owing to the low retention time of low barrier magnets, they are unsuitable as synapses but can be used as neurons (170).

Figure 9

Conclusion

The availability of large volumes of data from sensors all around us, coupled with an insatiable demand for handling new workloads for emerging applications, has transformed the landscape of AI. To meet this demand, AI models are growing at an alarming rate—as illustrated by the 5,000-fold increase in the size of natural language processing models over the last 4 years (Figure 10) (171).

Figure 10

The energy consumption of such implementations in today’s hardware far exceeds the limits that edge devices, constrained by computing and energy, can handle. Hence, there is an urgent need to rethink the hardware, which can lead to quantum improvements in energy and latency while still maintaining accuracy. While today’s CPUs, GPUs, TPUs, and field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) have undergone updates to better handle matrix–matrix multiplication, sparsity in activation, pruning, and quantization of weights, they are still bottlenecked by the memory wall problem. Moreover, models such as transformers also require better and more effective handling of the attention mechanism in hardware, necessitating extensive calculations for softmax operations. Such operations require several trips to the main memory to fetch weights (parameters) and mathematical tables. These trips for fetching data are costly in terms of both energy and latency. To this end, it is believed that in-memory computing at various hierarchies of memory needs to be explored to determine where, how, and when such technology can be utilized to alleviate the memory wall and achieve quantum improvements in energy and latency (172).

On the other hand, for the exemplary application of autonomous drone navigation, an integrated approach to sensing and computation is necessary to perform all computations onboard rather than in the cloud, as cloud computing incurs expensive communication costs and leads to increased latency. To achieve the required SWAP (size, weight, and power) and accuracy, there is a need for “tiny” networks. To handle different types of inputs from various sensors and to efficiently compute both sequential and static tasks required for drone navigation, tiny hybrid networks utilizing both standard ANNs and more biologically plausible SNNs can be crucial. As discussed, SNNs, with their asynchronous event-driven computing, show great potential for extracting spatiotemporal features from event streams, especially for sequential applications, while ANNs are very effective for static tasks. Hence, from a hardware perspective, there is a need for a “converged platform” that can efficiently implement both ANNs and SNNs. While SNNs can use the in-memory computing primitives described earlier, there is an additional data structure—“membrane potential,” responsible for keeping track of temporal information that must be fetched and updated at every time-step in SNNs. Computing in SNNs is asynchronous in nature, and, hence, hardware suitable for asynchronous or event-driven computation can reap the benefits of the sparse nature of spikes to achieve energy efficiency. While experimental hardware solutions such as Spinnaker, TrueNorth, and Loihi have been developed, there is still a path ahead to incorporate the need for both ANNs and SNNs in a converged hardware platform. We believe that significant improvements in SWAP are only possible by co-designing the algorithms and hardware.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsci.2025.1611658/full#supplementary-material

References

• 1

  KrizhevskyASutskeverIHintonGE. ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In: PereiraFBurgesCJCBottouLWeinbergerKQ, editors. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 25 (NIPS 2012). New York, NY: Curran Associates, Inc. (2012). 1097–105. Available at: https://papers.nips.cc/paper_files/paper/2012/hash/c399862d3b9d6b76c8436e924a68c45b-Abstract.html

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 2

  HochreiterSSchmidhuberJ. Long short-term memory. Neural Comput (1997) 9(8):1735–80. doi: 10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 3

  VaswaniAShazeerNParmarNUszkoreitJJonesLGomezANet al. Attention is all you need. In: GuyonIVon LuxburgUBengioSWallachHFergusRVishwanathanSGarnettR, editors. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. New York, NY: Curran Associates, Inc. (2007). 6000–10. Available at: https://papers.nips.cc/paper_files/paper/2017/hash/3f5ee243547dee91fbd053c1c4a845aa-Abstract.html

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 4

  DevlinJChangMWLeeKToutanovaK. BERT. Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In: BursteinJDoranCSolorioT, editors. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: human language technologies, volume 1 (long and short papers). Minneapolis, MN: Association for Computational Linguistics (2019). 4171–86. doi: 10.18653/v1/N19-1423

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 5

  BrownTMannBRyderNSubbiahMKaplanJDDhariwalPet al. Language models are few-shot learners [article 159]. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (NeurIPS 2020). New York, NY: Curran Associates, Inc. (2020). 1877–901. Available at: https://papers.nips.cc/paper_files/paper/2020/hash/1457c0d6bfcb4967418bfb8ac142f64a-Abstract.html

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 6

  BetkerJGohGJingLBrooksTWangJLiLet al. Improving image generation with better captions. Comput Sci (2023) 2(3):8. Available at: https://cdn.openai.com/papers/dall-e-3.pdf

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 7

  HoJJainAAbbeelP. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models [article 574]. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (NeurIPS 2020). New York, NY: Curran Associates, Inc. (2020) 33:6840–51. Available at: https://papers.nips.cc/paper_files/paper/2020/hash/4c5bcfec8584af0d967f1ab10179ca4b-Abstract.html

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 8

  RoyKJaiswalAPandaP. Towards spike-based machine intelligence with neuromorphic computing. Nature (2019) 575(7784):607–17. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1677-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 9

  RathiNChakrabortyIKostaASenguptaAAnkitAPandaPet al. Exploring neuromorphic computing based on spiking neural networks: algorithms to hardware. ACM Comput Surv (2023) 55(12):1–49. doi: 10.1145/3571155

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 10

  LeCunY. Generalization and network design strategies. In: PfeiferRSchreterZFogelman-SoulieFSteelsL, editors. Connectionism in perspective. New York, NY: Elsevier (1989). 143–55.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 11

  MaassW. Networks of spiking neurons: the third generation of neural network models. Neural Netw (1997) 10(9):1659–71. doi: 10.1016/S0893-6080(97)00011-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 12

  YuSJiangHHuangSPengXLuA. Compute-in-memory chips for deep learning: recent trends and prospects. IEEE Circuits Syst Mag (2021) 21(3):31–56. doi: 10.1109/MCAS.2021.3092533

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 13

  MrazekVSarwarSSSekaninaLVasicekZRoyK. Design of power-efficient approximate multipliers for approximate artificial neural networks [article 81]. In: Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD); 2016 Nov 7–10; Austin, TX, USA. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery (2016). 1–7. doi: 10.1145/2966986.2967021

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 14

  NahavandiSAlizadehsaniRNahavandiDMohamedSMohajerNRokonuzzamanMet al. A comprehensive review on autonomous navigation. ACM Comput Surv (2025) 57(9):1–67. doi: 10.1145/3727642

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 15

  RezwanSChoiW. Artificial intelligence approaches for UAV navigation: recent advances and future challenges. IEEE Access (2022) 10:26320–39. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3157626

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 16

  HaenschWRaghunathanARoyKChakrabartiBPhatakCMWangCet al. Compute in-memory with non-volatile elements for neural networks: a review from a co-design perspective. Adv Mater (2023) 35(37):e2204944. doi: 10.1002/adma.202204944

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 17

  MannocciPFarronatoMLepriNCattaneoLGlukhovASunZet al. In-memory computing with emerging memory devices: status and outlook. APL Mach Learn (2023) 1(1):010902. doi: 10.1063/5.0136403

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 18

  ChihY-DLeeP-HFujiwaraHShihY-CLeeC-FNaousRet al. 16.4 an 89TOPS/W and 16.3TOPS/mm2 all-digital SRAM-based full-precision compute-in memory macro in 22nm for machine-learning edge applications. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC); 2021 Feb 13–22; San Francisco, CA, USA. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery (2021). 252–4. doi: 10.1109/ISSCC42613.2021.9365766

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 19

  LichtsteinerPPoschCDelbruckT. A 128×128–120 dB 15 µs latency asynchronous temporal contrast vision sensor. IEEE J Solid-State Circuits (2008) 43(2):566–76. doi: 10.1109/JSSC.2007.914337

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 20

  SonBSuhYKimSJungHKimJ-SShinCet al. 4.1 A 640×480 dynamic vision sensor with a 9µm pixel and 300Meps address-event representation. In: 2017 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC); 2017 Feb 5–9; San Francisco, CA, USA. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery (2017). 66–7. doi: 10.1109/ISSCC.2017.7870263

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 21

  GallegoGDelbrückTOrchardGBartolozziCTabaBCensiAet al. Event-based vision: a survey. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell (2020) 44(1):154–80.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 22

  BoroujerdianBGencHKrishnanSCuiWFaustAReddiV. Mavbench: micro aerial vehicle benchmarking. In: Proceedings of the 2018 51st Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO 2018). Fukuoka, Japan. 20-24 Ocotber 2018. New York, NY: IEEE (2018) 894–907. doi: 10.1109/MICRO.2018.00077

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 23

  GibautWPereiraLGrassiottoFOsorioAGadioliEMunozAet al. Neurosymbolic AI and its taxonomy: a survey. arXiv [preprint] (2023). doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.08876

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 24

  WanZLiuCKYangHLiCYouHFuYet al. Towards cognitive AI systems: a survey and prospective on neuro-symbolic AI. arXiv [preprint]. (2024). doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.01040

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 25

  WanZChandramoorthyNSwaminathanKChenPYReddiVJRaychowdhuryA. BERRY: bit error robustness for energy-efficient reinforcement learning-based autonomous systems. In: 2023 60th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC); 2023 July 9–13; San Francisco, CA, USA. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery (2023). 1–6. doi: 10.1109/DAC56929.2023.10247999

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 26

  WanZSwaminathanKChenPYChandramoorthyNRaychowdhuryA. Analyzing and improving resilience and robustness of autonomous systems. In: Proceedings of the 41st IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-aided Design; 2022 Dec 22; San Diego, CA, USA. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery (2022). 1–9. doi: 10.1145/3508352.3561111

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 27

  SaxenaURoyK. McQueen: mixed precision quantization of early exit networks [abstract 511]. In: The 34th British Machine Vision Conference Proceedings. (BMVC) (2023). Available at: https://proceedings.bmvc2023.org/511/

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 28

  SaxenaURoyK. Partial-sum quantization for near ADC-less compute-in-memory accelerators. In: 2023 IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Low Power Electronics and Design (ISLPED).; 2023 Aug 07–08; Vienna, Austria. New York, NY: IEEE (2023). 1–6. doi: 10.1109/ISLPED58423.2023.10244291

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 29

  SaxenaUSharifySRoyKWangX. ResQ: mixed-precision quantization of large language models with low-rank residuals. In: Proceedings of the ICLR 2025 Workshop on Scalable Optimization for Efficient and Adaptive Foundation Models (SCOPE). Open Review (2025). Available at: https://openreview.net/forum?id=sROOmwTHyW

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 30

  FrantarEAlistarhD. Optimal brain compression: a framework for accurate post-training quantization and pruning [article 323]. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (NeurIPS 2022). New York, NY: Curran Associates, Inc. (2022). 4475–88. Available at: https://papers.nips.cc/paper_files/paper/2022/hash/1caf09c9f4e6b0150b06a07e77f2710c-Abstract-Conference.html

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 31

  ChengHZhangMShiJQ. A survey on deep neural network pruning: taxonomy, comparison, analysis, and recommendations. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell (2024) 46(12):10558–78. doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.2024.3447085

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  BaiHLiY. Structured sparsity in the NVIDIA ampere architecture and applications in search engines [online]. NVIDIA Developer (2023). Available at: https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/structured-sparsity-in-the-nvidia-ampere-architecture-and-applications-in-search-engines/

  • Google Scholar

• 33

  ZbikowskiR. Fly like a fly [micro-air vehicle]. IEEE Spectr (2005) 42(11):46–51. doi: 10.1109/MSPEC.2005.1526905

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  HeKZhangXRenSSunJ. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In: Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. New York, NY: IEEE (2016). 770–8. doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2016.90

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  MedskerLRJainLC. Recurrent neural networks. Des Appl (2001) 5(64–67):2.

  • Google Scholar

• 36

  RathiNRoyK. DIET-SNN: a low-latency spiking neural network with direct input encoding and leakage and threshold optimization. Proceedings of the IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst (2023) 34(6):3174–82. doi: 10.1109/TNNLS.2021.3111897

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  RathiNSrinivasanGPandaPRoyK. Enabling deep spiking neural networks with hybrid conversion and spike timing dependent backpropagation. In: Proceedings of the ICLR 2020. The Eighth International Conference on Learning Representations. Open Review (2020). Available at: https://openreview.net/forum?id=B1xSperKvH&noteId=B1xSperKvH

  • Google Scholar

• 38

  NeftciEOMostafaHZenkeF. Surrogate gradient learning in spiking neural networks. IEEE Signal Process Mag (2019) 36(6):51–3. doi: 10.1109/MSP.2019.2931595

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  SenguptaAYeYWangRLiuCRoyK. Going deeper in spiking neural networks: VGG and residual architectures. Front Neurosci (2019) 13:95. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2019.00095

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  KostaAKRoyK. Adaptive-SpikeNet: event-based optical flow estimation using spiking neural networks with learnable neuronal dynamics. In: Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). London, United Kingdom. 29 May - 2 June 2023. New York, NY: IEEE (2023). 6021–7. doi: 10.1109/ICRA48891.2023.10160551

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  LeeCSarwarSSPandaPSrinivasanGRoyK. Enabling spike-based backpropagation for training deep neural network architectures. Front Neurosci (2020) 14:119. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00119

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  RonnebergerOFischerPBroxT. U-net: convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In: NavabNHorneggerJWellsWFrangiA, editors. Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2015. 18th International Conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, Proceedings, Part III. Berlin: Springer (2015). 234–41. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-24574-4_28

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  ZhuAZYuanLChaneyKDaniilidisK. EV-FlowNet: self-supervised optical flow estimation for event-based cameras. In: Kress-GazitHSrinivasaSHowardSAtanasovN, editors. Proceedings of the Robotics: Science and Systems XIV.; 2018 Jun. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Robotics: Science and Systems online proceedings (2018). doi: 10.15607/RSS.2018.XIV.062

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  ZhuAZYuanLChaneyKDaniilidisK. Unsupervised event-based learning of optical flow, depth, and egomotion. In: Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. New York, NY: IEEE (2019). 989–97. doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2019.00108

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  LeeCKostaAKZhuAZChaneyKDaniilidisKRoyK. Spike-flownet: event-based optical flow estimation with energy-efficient hybrid neural networks. In: VedaldiABischofHBroxTFrahmJM, editors. Computer Vision – ECCV 2020 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXIX. Berlin: Springer (2020). 366–82. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-58526-6_22

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  LeeCKostaAKRoyK. Fusion-FlowNet: energy-efficient optical flow estimation using sensor fusion and deep fused spiking-analog network architectures. In: Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA 2022) (ICRA); 2022 May 23–27; Philadelphia, PA, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2022). 6504–10. doi: 10.1109/ICRA46639.2022.9811821

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  NegiSSharmaDKostaAKRoyK. Best of both worlds: hybrid SNN-ANN architecture for event-based optical flow estimation. In: Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS); 2024 Oct 14–18; Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. New York, NY: IEEE (2023). 2696–703. doi: 10.1109/IROS58592.2024.10802844

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  NagarajMLiyanagederaCMRoyK. Dotie-detecting objects through temporal isolation of events using a spiking architecture. In: Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA 2023) (ICRA); 2023 May 29–2023 Jun 02; London, United Kingdom. New York, NY: IEEE (2023). 4858–64. doi: 10.1109/ICRA48891.2023.10161164

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  Das BiswasSKostaALiyanagederaCApolinarioMRoyK. HALSIE: hybrid approach to learning segmentation by simultaneously exploiting image and event modalities. In: Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV); 2024 Jan 03–08; Waikoloa, HI, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2024). 5952–62. doi: 10.1109/WACV57701.2024.00586

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  ZophBVasudevanVShlensJLeQV. Learning transferable architectures for scalable image recognition. In: Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition; 2018 Jun 18–23; Salt Lake City, UT, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2018). 8697–710. doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2018.00907

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  SabaterAMontesanoLMurilloAC. Event transformer. A sparse-aware solution for efficient event data processing. In: Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition; 2022 Jun 19–20; New Orleans, LA, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2022). 2677–86. doi: 10.1109/CVPRW56347.2022.00301

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  GehrigMScaramuzzaD. Recurrent vision transformers for object detection with event cameras. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition; 2023 Jun 17–24; Vancouver, BC, Canada. New York, NY: IEEE (2023). 13884–93. doi: 10.1109/CVPR52729.2023.01334

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  ElliottDGSnelgroveWMStummM. Computational RAM: a memory-SIMD hybrid and its application to DSP. In: Proceedings of the 1992 IEEE Custom Integrated Circuits Conference; 1992 May 03–06; Boston, MA, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (1992). 30.6.1–4. doi: 10.1109/CICC.1992.591879

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  GokhaleMHolmesBIobstK. Processing in memory: the Terasys massively parallel PIM array. Computer (1995) 28(4):23–31. doi: 10.1109/2.375174

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  WulfWAMcKeeSA. Hitting the memory wall: implications of the obvious. ACM SIGARCH Comput Archit News (1995) 23(1):20–4. doi: 10.1145/216585.216588

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  HorowitzM. 1.1 computing’s energy problem (and what we can do about it). In: Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Solid-state Circuits Conference Digest of Technical Papers (ISSCC); 2014 Feb 09–13; San Francisco, CA, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2014). doi: 10.1109/ISSCC.2014.6757323

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  ChakrabortyIMustafaFAKimDEAnkitARoyK. Geniex: a generalized approach to emulating non-ideality in memristive Xbars using neural networks. In: Proceedings of the 57th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC); 2020 Jul 20–24; San Francisco, CA, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2020). 1–6. doi: 10.1109/DAC18072.2020.9218688

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  ChakrabortyIAliMAnkitAJainSRoySSridharanSet al. Resistive crossbars as approximate hardware building blocks for machine learning: opportunities and challenges. Proc IEEE (2020) 108(12):2276–310. doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2020.3003007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  AnkitAEl HajjIEChalamalasettiSRNduGFoltinMWilliamsRSet al. PUMA: a programmable ultra-efficient memristor-based accelerator for machine learning inference. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems; 2019 Apr 04; Providence, RI, USA. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery (2019). 715–31. doi: 10.1145/3297858.3304049

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  JaiswalAChakrabortyIAgrawalARoyK. 8T SRAM cell as a multibit dot-product engine for beyond von Neumann computing. IEEE Trans Very Large Scale Integr Syst (2019) 27(11):2556–67. doi: 10.1109/TVLSI.2019.2929245

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  ValaviHRamadgePJNestlerEVermaN. A 64-tile 2.4-MB in-memory-computing CNN accelerator employing charge-domain compute. IEEE J Solid-State Circuits (2019) 54(6):1789–99. doi: 10.1109/JSSC.2019.2899730

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  WangJWangXEckertCSubramaniyanADasRBlaauwDet al. A 28-nm compute sram with bit-serial logic/arithmetic operations for programmable in-memory vector computing. IEEE J Solid-State Circuits (2020) 55(1):76–86. doi: 10.1109/JSSC.2019.2939682

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  CraftonBSpetalnickSYoonJHRaychowdhuryA. Statistical optimization of compute in-memory performance under device variation. In: Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Low Power Electronics and Design (ISLPED); 2021 Jul 26–28; Boston, MA, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2021). 1–6. doi: 10.1109/ISLPED52811.2021.9502484

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  CraftonBWanZSpetalnickSYoonJHWuWTokunagaCet al. Improving compute in-memory ECC reliability with successive correction. In: Proceedings of the 59th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference; 2022 Aug 23; San Francisco, California. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery (2022). 745–50. doi: 10.1145/3489517.3530526

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  KhanAIKeshavarziADattaS. The future of ferroelectric field-effect transistor technology. Nat Electron (2020) 3(10):588–97. doi: 10.1038/s41928-020-00492-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  BaeGBaeD-IKangMHwangSMKimSSSeoBet al. 3nm GAA technology featuring multi-bridge-channel FET for low power and high performance applications. In: Proceedings of the 2018 International Electron Devices Meeting (IEDM 2018). San Francisco, CA, USA. 1-5 December 2018. New York, NY: IEEE (2018). 28.7.1–28.7.4. doi: 10.1109/IEDM.2018.8614629

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  JainPArslanUSekharMLinBCWeiLSahuTet al. 13.2 A 3.6 Mb 10.1 Mb/mm 2 embedded non-volatile ReRAM macro in 22nm FinFET technology with adaptive forming/set/reset schemes yielding down to 0.5 V with sensing time of 5ns at 0.7 V. In: Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC); 2019 Feb 17–21; San Francisco, CA, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2019). 212–4. doi: 10.1109/ISSCC.2019.8662393

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  ShihYCLeeCFChangYALeePHLinHJChenYLet al. A reflow-capable, embedded 8Mb STT-MRAM macro with 9ns read access time in 16nm FinFET logic CMOS process. In: Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Electron Devices Meeting (IEDM); 2020 Dec 12–18; San Francisco, CA, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2020). 11.4.1–11.4.4. doi: 10.1109/IEDM13553.2020.9372115

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  MinDParkJWeberOWacquantFVillaretAVandenbosscheEet al. 18nm FDSOI technology platform embedding PCM & innovative continuous-active construct enhancing performance for leading-edge MCU applications. In: Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE International Electron Devices Meeting (IEDM); 2021 Dec 11–16; San Francisco, CA, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2021). 13.1.1–13.1.4. doi: 10.1109/IEDM19574.2021.9720542

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  DünkelSTrentzschMRichterRMollPFuchsCGehringOet al. A FeFET based super-low-power ultra-fast embedded NVM technology for 22nm FDSOI and beyond. In: Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Electron Devices Meeting (IEDM); 2017 Dec 02-06; San Francisco, CA, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2017). doi: 10.1109/IEDM.2017.8268425

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  PentecostLHankinADonatoMHempsteadMWeiG-YBrooksD. NVMExplorer: a framework for cross-stack comparisons of embedded non-volatile memories. In: Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA); 2022 Apr 02–06; Seoul, Korea. New York, NY: IEEE (2021). 938–56. doi: 10.1109/HPCA53966.2022.00073

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  SongLZhuoYQianXLiHChenY. GraphR: accelerating graph processing using ReRAM. In: Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA); 2018 Feb 24–28; Vienna, Austria. New York, NY: IEEE (2018). 531–43. doi: 10.1109/HPCA.2018.00052

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  DuttaSSchaferCGomezJNiKJoshiSDattaS. Supervised learning in all FeFET-based spiking neural network: opportunities and challenges. Front Neurosci (2020) 14:634. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00634

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  YangXYanBLiHChenY. ReTransformer: ReRAM-based processing-in-memory architecture for transformer acceleration. In: Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Computer-Aided Design; 2020 Dec 17; Virtual Event, USA. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery (2020). 1–9. doi: 10.1145/3400302.3415640

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  LiWManleyMReadJKaulABakirMSYuS. H3DAtten: heterogeneous 3-D integrated hybrid analog and digital compute-in-memory accelerator for vision transformer self-attention. IEEE Trans Very Large Scale Integr (VLSI) Syst (2023) 31(10):1592–602. doi: 10.1109/TVLSI.2023.3299509

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  LangeneggerJKarunaratneGHerscheMBeniniLSebastianARahimiA. In-memory factorization of holographic perceptual representations. Nat Nanotechnol (2023) 18(5):479–85. doi: 10.1038/s41565-023-01357-8

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  WanZLiuCKIbrahimMYangHSpetalnickSKrishnaTet al. H3DFact: heterogeneous 3D integrated CIM for factorization with holographic perceptual representations. In: Proceedings of the 2024 Design, automation & test in Europe conference & exhibition (DATE); 2024 Mar 25–27; Valencia, Spain. New York, NY: IEEE (2024). 1–6. doi: 10.23919/DATE58400.2024.10546582

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  ChenPYYuS. Compact modeling of RRAM devices and its applications in 1T1R and 1S1R array design. IEEE Trans Electron Devices (2015) 62(12):4022–8. doi: 10.1109/TED.2015.2492421

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  ChenWHLiKXLinWYHsuKHLiPYYangC-Het al. A 65nm 1mb nonvolatile computing-in-memory ReRAM macro with sub-16ns multiply-and-accumulate for binary DNN AI edge processors. In: Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC); 2018 Feb 11–15; San Francisco, CA, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2018). 494–6. doi: 10.1109/ISSCC.2018.8310400

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  XueCXChenWHLiuJSLiJFLinWYWei-En LinJHWet al. 24.1 a 1mb multibit ReRAM computing-in-memory macro with 14.6 ns parallel MAC computing time for CNN based ai edge processors. In: Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC); 2019 Feb 17–21; San Francisco, CA, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2019). 388–90. doi: 10.1109/ISSCC.2019.8662395

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  XueCXHuangTYLiuJSChangTWKaoHYWangJHet al. 15.4 a 22nm 2mb ReRAM compute-in-memory macro with 121–28TOPS/W for multibit MAC computing for tiny AI edge devices. In: Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC); 2020 Feb 16–20; San Francisco, CA, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2020). 244–6. doi: 10.1109/ISSCC19947.2020.9063078

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  LiuQGaoBYaoPWuDChenJPangYet al. 33.2 a fully integrated analog ReRAM based 78.4 TOPS/W compute-in-memory chip with fully parallel MAC computing. In: Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC); 2020 Feb 16–20; San Francisco, CA, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2020). 500–2. doi: 10.1109/ISSCC19947.2020.9062953

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  YoonJHChangMKhwaWSChihYDChangMFRaychowdhuryA. 29.1 a 40nm 64kb 56.67 TOPS/W read-disturb-tolerant compute-in-memory/digital RRAM macro with active-feedback-based read and in-situ write verification. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC); 2021 Feb 13–22; San Francisco, CA, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2021). 404–6. doi: 10.1109/ISSCC42613.2021.9365926

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  XueCXHungJ-MKaoHYHuangYHHuangSPChangFCet al. 16.1 a 22nm 4MB 8b-precision ReRAM computing-in-memory macro with 11.91 to 195.7 TOPS/W for tiny AI edge devices. In: Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC); 2021 Feb 13–22; San Francisco, CA, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2021). 245–7. doi: 10.1109/ISSCC42613.2021.9365769

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  HungJ-MWenTHHuangYHHuangSPChangFCSuCIet al. 8-b precision 8-mb ReRAM compute-in-memory macro using direct-current-free time-domain readout scheme for AI edge devices. IEEE J Solid-State Circuits (2023) 58(1):303–15. doi: 10.1109/JSSC.2022.3200515

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  SpetalnickSDChangMCraftonBKhwaWSChihYDChangMFet al. A 40nm 64KB 26.56 TOPS/W 2.37 Mb/mm2 RRAM binary/compute-in-memory macro with 4.23x improvement in density and >75% use of sensing dynamic range. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC); 2022 Feb 20–26; San Francisco, CA, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2022). 1–3. doi: 10.1109/ISSCC42614.2022.9731725

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  CorrellJMJieLSongSLeeSZhuJTangWet al. An 8-bit 20.7 TOPS/W multi-level cell ReRAM-based compute engine. In: Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE Symposium on VLSI Technology and Circuits (VLSI Technology and Circuits); 2022 Jun 12–17; Honolulu, HI, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2022). 264–5. doi: 10.1109/VLSITechnologyandCir46769.2022.9830490

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  SpetalnickSDChangMKonnoSCraftonBLeleASKhwaWSet al. A 2.38 MCells/mm2 9.81–350 TOPS/W RRAM compute-in-memory macro in 40nm CMOS with hybrid offset/IOFF cancellation and ICELL RBLSL drop mitigation. In: Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE Symposium on VLSI Technology and Circuits (VLSI Technology and Circuits); 2023 Jun 11–16; Kyoto, Japan. New York, NY: IEEE (2023). 1–2. doi: 10.23919/VLSITechnologyandCir57934.2023.10185424

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  HuangWHWenTHHungJ-MKhwaWSLoYCJhangCJet al. A nonvolatile al-edge processor with 4MB SLC-MLC hybrid-mode ReRAM compute-in-memory macro and 51.4-251TOPS/W. In: Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC); 2023 Feb 19–23; San Francisco, CA, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2023). 15–7. doi: 10.1109/ISSCC42615.2023.10067610

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  KimSKimSUmSKimSKimKYooH-J. Neuro-CIM: ADC-less neuromorphic computing-in-memory processor with operation gating/stopping and digital–analog networks. IEEE J Solid-State Circuits (2023) 58(10):2931–45. doi: 10.1109/JSSC.2023.3273238

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  SharmaTWangCAgrawalARoyK. Enabling robust SOT-MTJ crossbars for machine learning using sparsity-aware device-circuit co-design. In: Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Low Power Electronics and Design (ISLPED); 2021 Jul 26–28; Boston, MA, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2021). 1–6. doi: 10.1109/ISLPED52811.2021.9502492

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  ChangMSpetalnickSDCraftonBKhwaWSChihYDChangMFet al. A 40nm 60.64 TOPS/W ECC-capable compute-in-memory/digital 2.25 MB/768KB RRAM/SRAM system with embedded cortex M3 microprocessor for edge recommendation systems. In: Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC); 2022 Feb 20–26; San Francisco, CA, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2022). 1–3. doi: 10.1109/ISSCC42614.2022.9731679

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  ChangMLeleASSpetalnickSDCraftonBKonnoSWanZet al. A 73.53 TOPS/W 14.74 TOPS heterogeneous RRAM in-memory and SRAM near-memory SoC for hybrid frame and event-based target tracking. In: Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC); 2023 Feb 19–23; San Francisco, CA, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2023). 426–8. doi: 10.1109/ISSCC42615.2023.10067544

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94

  LeleASChangMSpetalnickSDCraftonBKonnoSWanZet al. A heterogeneous RRAM in-memory and SRAM near-memory SoC for fused frame and event-based target identification and tracking. IEEE J Solid-State Circuits (2024) 59(1):52–64. doi: 10.1109/JSSC.2023.3297411

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95

  SinghSSarmaAJaoNPattnaikALuSYangKet al. Nebula: a neuromorphic spin-based ultra-low power architecture for SNNS and ANNS. In: Proceedings of the 47th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA); 2020 May 30–2020 Jun 03. New York, NY: IEEE (2020). 363–76. doi: 10.1109/ISCA45697.2020.00039

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  ChenYLuLKimBKimTT-H. Reconfigurable 2T2R ReRAM architecture for versatile data storage and computing in-memory. IEEE Trans Very Large Scale Integr (VLSI) Syst (2020) 28(12):2636–49. doi: 10.1109/TVLSI.2020.3028848

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  ShouSLiuCKYunSWanZNiKImaniMet al. See MCAM: scalable multi-bit FeFET content addressable memories for energy efficient associative search. In: Proceedings of the 42nd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-aided Design; 2023 Oct 28–2023 Nov 02; San Francisco, CA, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2023). 1–9. doi: 10.1109/ICCAD57390.2023.10323738

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98

  WanWKubendranREryilmazSBZhangWLiaoYWuDet al. 33.1 a 74 TMACS/W CMOS-RRAM neurosynaptic core with dynamically reconfigurable dataflow and in-situ transposable weights for probabilistic graphical models. In: Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference-(ISSCC); 2020 Feb 16–20; San Francisco, CA, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2020). 498–500. doi: 10.1109/ISSCC19947.2020.9062979

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99

  ShinDLeeJLeeJYooH-J. 14.2 DNPU: an 8.1 TOPS/W reconfigurable CNN-RNN processor for general-purpose deep neural networks. In: Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC); 2017 Feb 05–09; San Francisco, CA, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2017). 240–1. doi: 10.1109/ISSCC.2017.7870350

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100

  ZahediMMayahiniaMLebdehMAWongSHamdiouiS. Efficient organization of digital periphery to support integer datatype for memristor-based CIM. In: Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Computer Society Annual Symposium on VLSI (ISVLSI); 2020 Jul 06–08; Limassol, Cyprus. New York, NY: IEEE (2020). 216–21. doi: 10.1109/ISVLSI49217.2020.00047

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101

  LiuCKChenHImaniMNiKKazemiALagunaAFet al. Cosime: FeFET based associative memory for in-memory cosine similarity search. In: Proceedings of the 41st IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design; 2022 Dec 22; San Diego, California. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery (2022). 1–9. doi: 10.1145/3508352.3549412

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  ZhangQAnHFanZWangZLiZWangGet al. A 22nm 3.5 TOPS/W flexible micro-robotic vision soc with 2MB eMRAM for fully-on-chip intelligence. In: Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE Symposium on VLSI Technology and Circuits (VLSI Technology and Circuits); 2022 Jun 12–17; Honolulu, HI, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2022). 72–3. doi: 10.1109/VLSITechnologyandCir46769.2022.9830340

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103

  RossiDContiFEggimanMMachSDi MauroAGuermandiMet al. 4.4 a 1.3 TOPS/W@ 32GOPS fully integrated 10-core SoC for IoT end-nodes with 1.7 µW cognitive wake-up from MRAM-based state-retentive sleep mode. In: Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC); 2021 Feb 13–22; San Francisco, CA, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2021). 60–2. doi: 10.1109/ISSCC42613.2021.9365939

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  KangMKeelMSShanbhagNREilertSCurewitzK. An energy-efficient VLSI architecture for pattern recognition via deep embedding of computation in SRAM. In: Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP); 2014 May 04–09; Florence, Italy. New York, NY: IEEE (2014). 8326–30. doi: 10.1109/ICASSP.2014.6855225

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105

  ZhangJWangZVermaN. A machine-learning classifier implemented in a standard 6T SRAM array. In: Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE symposium on VLSI circuits (VLSI-circuits); 2016 Jun 15–17; Honolulu, HI. New York, NY: IEEE (2016). 1–2. doi: 10.1109/VLSIC.2016.7573556

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  AliMJaiswalAKodgeSAgrawalAChakrabortyIRoyK. . IMAC: in-memory multi-bit multiplication and accumulation in 6T SRAM array. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst I (2020) 67(8):2521–31. doi: 10.1109/TCSI.2020.2981901

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  MoriHZhaoWCCheng-En LeeCFLHsuYHChuangCKHashizumeTet al. A 4nm 6163-TOPS/W/b 4790–TOPS/mm2/b SRAM based digital-computing-in-memory macro supporting bit-width flexibility and simultaneous MAC and weight update. In: Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC); 2023 Feb 19–23; San Francisco, CA, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2023). 132–4. doi: 10.1109/ISSCC42615.2023.10067555

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108

  SiXChenJJTuYNHuangWHWangJHChiuYCet al. A twin-8T SRAM computation-in-memory unit-macro for multibit CNN-based AI edge processors. IEEE J Solid-State Circuits (2020) 55(1):189–202. doi: 10.1109/JSSC.2019.2952773

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109

  BiswasAChandrakasanAP. Conv-RAM: an energy-efficient SRAM with embedded convolution computation for low-power CNN-based machine learning applications. In: Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference-(ISSCC); 2018 Feb 11–15; San Francisco, CA, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2018). 488–90. doi: 10.1109/ISSCC.2018.8310397

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  FujiwaraHMoriHZhaoWCChuangMCNaousRChuangCKet al. A 5-nm 254-TOPS/W 221-TOPS/mm 2 fully-digital computing-in-memory macro supporting wide-range dynamic-voltage- frequency scaling and simultaneous MAC and write operations. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC); 2022 Feb 20–26; San Francisco, CA, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2022). 1–3. doi: 10.1109/ISSCC42614.2022.9731754

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111

  AgrawalAJaiswalARoyDHanBSrinivasanGAnkitAet al. Xcel-RAM: accelerating binary neural networks in high-throughput SRAM compute arrays. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst I (2019) 66(8):3064–76. doi: 10.1109/TCSI.2019.2907488

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  SrivastavaPKangMGonugondlaSKLimSChoiJAdveVet al. Promise: an end-to-end design of a programmable mixed-signal accelerator for machine-learning algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE 45th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA); 2018 Jun 01–06; Los Angeles, CA, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2018) ACM. 43–56. doi: 10.1109/ISCA.2018.00015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113

  WuPCSuJWHongLYRenJSChienC-HChenHYet al. A 22nm 832Kb hybrid-domain floating-point SRAM in-memory-compute macro with 16.2-70.2 TFLOPS/W for high-accuracy AI-edge devices. In: Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC); 2023 Feb 19–23; San Francisco, CA, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2023). 126–8. doi: 10.1109/ISSCC42615.2023.10067527

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114

  AliMChakrabortyIChoudharySChangMKimDERaychowdhuryAet al. A 65 nm 1.4-6.7 TOPS/W adaptive-SNR sparsity-aware CIM core with load balancing support for DL workloads. In: Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE Custom Integrated Circuits Conference (CICC); 2023 Apr 23–26; San Antonio, TX, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2023). 1–2. doi: 10.1109/CICC57935.2023.10121243

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115

  HuangSAnkitASilveiraPAntunesRChalamalasettiSREl HajjIet al. Mixed precision quantization for ReRAM-based DNN inference accelerators. In: Proceedings of the 26th Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference; 2021 Jan 29; Tokyo, Japan. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery (2021). 372–7. doi: 10.1145/3394885.3431554

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116

  KimYKimHKimJ-J. Extreme partial-sum quantization for analog computing-in-memory neural network accelerators. J Emerg Technol Comput Syst (2022) 18(4):1–19. doi: 10.1145/3528104

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117

  KimHKimYRyuSKimJ-J. Algorithm/hardware co-design for in-memory neural network computing with minimal peripheral circuit overhead. In: Proceedings of the 57th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC); 2020 Jul 20–24; San Francisco, CA, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2020). 1–6. doi: 10.1109/DAC18072.2020.9218657

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118

  AzamatAAsimFLeeJ. Quarry: quantization-based ADC reduction for ReRAM-based deep neural network accelerators. In: Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE/ACM International Conference On Computer Aided Design (ICCAD); 2021 Nov 01–04; Munich, Germany. New York, NY: IEEE (2021). 1–7. doi: 10.1109/ICCAD51958.2021.9643502

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119

  SaxenaUChakrabortyIRoyK. Towards ADC-less compute-in-memory accelerators for energy efficient deep learning. In: Proceedings of the 2022 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE); 2022 Mar 14–23; Antwerp, Belgium. New York, NY: IEEE (2022). 624–7. doi: 10.23919/DATE54114.2022.9774573

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120

  NegiSSaxenaUSharmaDRoyK. HCIM: ADC-less hybrid analog-digital compute in memory accelerator for deep learning workloads. In: Proceedings of the 30th Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference; 2025 Mar 04; Tokyo, Japan. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery (2025). 648–55. doi: 10.1145/3658617.3697572

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121

  EsserSKMcKinstryJLBablaniDAppuswamyRModhaDS. Learned step size quantization. Proceedings of the ICLR 2020. The Eighth International Conference on Learning Representations. Open Review (2020). Available at: https://openreview.net/forum?id=rkgO66VKDS

  • Google Scholar

• 122

  ApolinarioMPEKostaAKSaxenaURoyK. Hardware/software co-design with adc-less in-memory computing hardware for spiking neural networks. IEEE Trans Emerg Top Comput (2024) 12(1):35–47. doi: 10.1109/TETC.2023.3316121

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 123

  SeshadriVLeeDMullinsTHassanHBoroumandAKimJet al. Ambit: in-memory accelerator for bulk bitwise operations using commodity DRAM technology. In: Proceedings of the 50th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO); 2017 Oct 14; Cambridge, Massachusetts. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery (2017). 273–87. doi: 10.1145/3123939.3124544

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124

  LiSNiuDMalladiKTZhengHBrennanBXieY. DRISA: a DRAM-based reconfigurable in-situ accelerator. In: Proceedings of the 50th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO); 2017 Oct 14; Cambridge, Massachusetts. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery (2017). 288–301. doi: 10.1145/3123939.3123977

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125

  DengQJiangLZhangYZhangMYangJ. DrACC: a DRAM based accelerator for accurate CNN inference. In: Proceedings of the 55th ACM/ESDA/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC); San Francisco, California. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery (2018). 1–6. doi: 10.1109/DAC.2018.8465866

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 126

  XinXZhangYYangJ. ELP2IM: efficient and low power bitwise operation processing in DRAM. In: IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA); 2020 Feb 22–26; San Diego, CA, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2020). 303–14. doi: 10.1109/HPCA47549.2020.00033

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 127

  HajinazarNOliveiraGFGregorioSFerreiraJDGhiasiNMPatelMet al. SIMDRAM: a framework for bit-serial SIMD processing using DRAM. In: Proceedings of the 26th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS 2021); 2021 Apr 17; Virtual, USA. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery (2021). 329–45. doi: 10.1145/3445814.3446749

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 128

  AliMFJaiswalARoyK. In-memory low-cost bit-serial addition using commodity dram technology. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst I (2020) 67(1):155–65. doi: 10.1109/TCSI.2019.2945617

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 129

  RoySAliMRaghunathanA. PIM-DRAM: accelerating machine learning workloads using processing in commodity DRAM. IEEE J Emerg Sel Top Circuits Syst (2021) 11(4):701–10. doi: 10.1109/JETCAS.2021.3127517

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 130

  HeMSongCKimIJeongCKimSParkIet al. Newton: a DRAM-maker’s accelerator-in-memory (AiM] architecture for machine learning. In: Proceedings of the 53rd Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO). 2020 Oct 17–21; Athens, Greece. New York, NY: IEEE (2020). 372–85. doi: 10.1109/MICRO50266.2020.00040

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 131

  KeLGuptaUChoBYBrooksDChandraVDirilUet al. RecNMP: accelerating personalized recommendation with near-memory processing. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 47th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA); 2020 May 30–2020 June 03; Valencia, Spain. New York, NY: IEEE (2020). 790–803. doi: 10.1109/ISCA45697.2020.00070

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132

  JeddelohJKeethB. Hybrid memory cube new DRAM architecture increases density and performance. In: Proceedings of the 2012 Symposium on VLSI Technology (VLSIT); 2012 Jun 12–14; Honolulu, HI, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2012). 87–8. doi: 10.1109/VLSIT.2012.6242474

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133

  KimDKungJChaiSYalamanchiliSMukhopadhyayS. Neurocube: a programmable digital neuromorphic architecture with high-density 3D memory. ACM SIGARCH Comput Archit News (2016) 44(3):380–92. doi: 10.1109/ISCA.2016.41

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134

  GaoMPuJYangXHorowitzMKozyrakisC. Tetris: scalable and efficient neural network acceleration with 3d memory. ACM SIGARCH Comput Archit News (2017) 45(1):751–64. doi: 10.1145/3093337.3037702

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 135

  LeeSKangSHLeeJKimHLeeESeoSet al. Hardware architecture and software stack for PIM based on commercial DRAM technology: industrial product. In: Proceedings of the 2021 48th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA); 2021 Jun 14–19; Valencia, Spain. New York, NY: IEEE (2021). 43–56. doi: 10.1109/ISCA52012.2021.00013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 136

  XiangYHuangPHanRLiCWangKLiuXet al. Efficient and robust spike-driven deep convolutional neural networks based on nor flash computing array. IEEE Trans Electron Devices (2020) 67(6):2329–35. doi: 10.1109/TED.2020.2987439

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 137

  ChoiWHChiuPFMaWHeminkGHoangTTLueker-BodenMet al. An in-flash binary neural network accelerator with SLC NAND flash array. In: Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS); 2020 Oct 12–14; Seville, Spain. New York, NY: IEEE (2020). 1–5. doi: 10.1109/ISCAS45731.2020.9180920

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 138

  KangMKimHShinHSimJKimKKimLS. S-flash: a NAND flash-based deep neural network accelerator exploiting bit-level sparsity. IEEE Trans Comput (2021) 71(6):1-;. doi: 10.1109/TC.2021.3082003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 139

  GaoCXinXLuYZhangYYangJShuJ. Parabit: processing parallel bitwise operations in NAND flash memory based SSDs. In: Proceedings of the Micro-54th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture; 2021 Oct 17; Virtual Event, Greece. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery (2021). 59–70. doi: 10.1145/3466752.348007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 140

  LeeHKimMMinDKimJBackJYooHet al. 3D-FPIM: an extreme energy-efficient DNN acceleration system using 3D NAND flash-based in-situ PIM unit. In: Proceedings of the 2022 55th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO); 2022 Oct 01–05; Chicago, IL, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2022). 1359–76. doi: 10.1109/MICRO56248.2022.00093

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 141

  HarrisonJKubaskaTStorySTangPTP. The computation of transcendental functions on the IA-64 architecture. Intel Technol J Q (1999) 4:1–7. Available at: https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~jrh13/papers/itj.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 142

  LeeDFongXRoyK. R-MRAM: a ROM-embedded STT MRAM cache. IEEE Electron Dev Lett (2013) 34(10):1256–8. doi: 10.1109/LED.2013.2279137

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 143

  LeeDRoyK. Area efficient ROM-embedded SRAM cache. IEEE Trans Very Large Scale Integr (VLSI) Syst (2012) 21(9):1583–95. doi: 10.1109/TVLSI.2012.2217514

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 144

  DuttaT. Energy efficient hardware for neural network applications [Master’s thesis]. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University School of Electrical and Computer Engineering (2023). doi: 10.25394/PGS.22779695.v1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 145

  KimDESharmaTRoyK. Hardware-software co-design for accelerating transformer inference leveraging compute-in-memory. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Artif Intell (Early Access). (2025). doi: 10.1109/TCASAI.2025.3601975

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 146

  AkopyanFSawadaJCassidyAAlvarez-IcazaRArthurJMerollaPet al. Truenorth: design and tool flow of a 65 mW 1 million neuron programmable neurosynaptic chip. IEEE Trans Comput-Aid Des Integr Circuits Syst (2015) 34(10):1537–57. doi: 10.1109/TCAD.2015.2474396

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 147

  DaviesMSrinivasaNLinT-HChinyaGCaoYChodaySHet al. Loihi: a neuromorphic manycore processor with on-chip learning. IEEE Micro (2018) 38(1):82–99. doi: 10.1109/MM.2018.112130359

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 148

  OrchardGFradyEPRubinDBDSanbornSShresthaSBSommerFTet al. Efficient neuromorphic signal processing with Loihi 2. In: Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE Workshop on Signal Processing Systems (SiPS); 2021 Oct 19–21; Coimbra, Portugal. New York, NY: IEEE (2021). 254–9. doi: 10.1109/SiPS52927.2021.00053

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 149

  BenjaminBVGaoPMcQuinnEChoudharySChandrasekaranARBussatJMet al. Neurogrid: a mixed-analog-digital multichip system for large-scale neural simulations. Proc IEEE (2014) 102(5):699–716. doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2014.2313565

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 150

  SchemmelJBriiderleDGriiblAHockMMeierKMillnerS. A wafer-scale neuromorphic hardware system for large-scale neural modeling. In: Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS); 2010 May 30–2010 Jun 2; Paris, France. New York, NY: IEEE (2010). 1947–50. doi: 10.1109/ISCAS.2010.5536970

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 151

  FurberSBGalluppiFTempleSPlanaLA. The spinnaker project. Proc IEEE (2014) 102(5):652–65. doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2014.2304638

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 152

  HuoDZhangJDaiXZhangJQianCTangKTet al. ANP-G: A 28nm 1.04 pJ/SOP sub-mm2 spiking and back-propagation hybrid neural network asynchronous olfactory processor enabling few-shot class-incremental on-chip learning. In: Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE Symposium on VLSI Technology and Circuits (VLSI Technology and Circuits); 2023 Jun 11–16; Kyoto, Japan. New York, NY: IEEE (2023). 1–2. doi: 10.23919/VLSITechnologyandCir57934.2023.10185410

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 153

  FrenkelCIndiveriG. Reckon: a 28nm sub-mm2 task-agnostic spiking recurrent neural network processor enabling on-chip learning over second-long timescales. In: Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC); 2022 Feb 20–26; San Francisco, CA, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2022). 1–3. doi: 10.1109/ISSCC42614.2022.9731734

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 154

  ZhangJHuoDZhangJQianCLiuQPanLet al. 22.6 ANP-I: a 28nm 1.5 pJ/SOP asynchronous spiking neural network processor enabling sub-o. 1 μj/sample on-chip learning for edge-AI applications. In: Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC); 2023 Feb 19–23; San Francisco, CA, USA. New York, NY: IEEE (2023). 21–3.

  • Google Scholar

• 155

  SharmaDNegiSDuttaTAgrawalARoyK. A 65 nm 5 TOPS/W digital CIM accelerator with reconfigurable precision and temporal pipelining for Spiking Neural Networks. In: Proceedings of the 2025 IEEE European Solid-State Electronics Research Conference (ESSERC). 8–11 September 2025. Munich (Germany). New York, NY: IEEE (2025). 5–8. doi: 10.1109/ESSERC66193.2025.11214115

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 156

  AgrawalAAliMKooMRathiNJaiswalARoyK. Impulse: a 65-nm digital compute-in-memory macro with fused weights and membrane potential for spike-based sequential learning tasks. IEEE Solid-State Circuits Lett (2021) 4:137–40. doi: 10.1109/LSSC.2021.3092727

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 157

  NarayananSTahtKBalasubramonianRGiacominEGaillardonPE. Spinalflow: an architecture and dataflow tailored for spiking neural networks. In: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE 47th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA); 2020 May 30–2020 Jun 3; Valencia, Spain; New York, NY: IEEE (2020). 349–62. doi: 10.1109/ISCA45697.2020.00038

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 158

  SharmaDAnkitARoyK. Identifying efficient dataflows for spiking neural networks. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Low Power Electronics and Design. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery (2022). 1–6. doi: 10.1145/3531437.3539704

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 159

  YikJVan den BergheKden BlankenDBouhadjarYFabreMHueberPet al. The neurobench framework for benchmarking neuromorphic computing algorithms and systems. Nat Commun (2025) 16:1545. doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-56739-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 160

  SrinivasanGLeeCSenguptaAPandaPSarwarSSRoyK. Training deep spiking neural networks for energy-efficient neuromorphic computing. In: Proceedings of the 2020 ICASSP 2020–2020 ICASSP IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP); 2020 May 4–8; Barcelona, Spain. New York, NY: IEEE (2020). 8549–53. doi: 10.1109/ICASSP40776.2020.9053914

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 161

  SenguptaAParsaMHanBRoyK. Probabilistic deep spiking neural systems enabled by magnetic tunnel junction. IEEE Trans Electron Devices (2016) 63(7):2963–70. doi: 10.1109/TED.2016.2568762

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 162

  SenguptaAPandaPWijesinghePKimYRoyK. Magnetic tunnel junction mimics stochastic cortical spiking neurons. Sci Rep (2016) 6(1):30039. doi: 10.1038/srep30039

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 163

  RoyDChakrabortyIRoyK. Scaling deep spiking neural networks with binary stochastic activations. In: Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Computing (ICCC); 2019 July 8–13; Milan, Italy. New York, NY: IEEE (2019). 50–8. doi: 10.1109/ICCC.2019.00020

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 164

  BiGQPooMM. Synaptic modifications in cultured hippocampal neurons: dependence on spike timing, synaptic strength, and postsynaptic cell type. J Neurosci (1998) 18(24):10464–72. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.18-24-10464.1998

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 165

  RaikoTBerglundMAlainGDinhL. Techniques for learning binary stochastic feedforward neural networks. In: Proceedings of the ICLR 2015. The Third International Conference on Learning Representations. (2015). Available at: 10.48550/arXiv.1406.2989

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 166

  JaiswalAFongXRoyK. Comprehensive scaling analysis of current induced switching in magnetic memories based on in-plane and perpendicular anisotropies. IEEE J Emerg Sel Top Circuits Syst (2016) 6(2):120–33. doi: 10.1109/JETCAS.2016.2547698

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 167

  SunWGaoBChiMXiaQYangJJQianHet al. Understanding memristive switching via in situ characterization and device modeling. Nat Commun (2019) 10(1):3453. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-11411-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 168

  TumaTPantaziALe GalloMSebastianAEleftheriouE. Stochastic phase-change neurons. Nat Nanotechnol (2016) 11(8):693–9. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2016.70

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 169

  CamsariKYSuttonBMDattaS. P-bits for probabilistic spin logic. Appl Phys Rev (2019) 6(1). doi: 10.1063/1.5055860

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 170

  LiyanagederaCMSenguptaAJaiswalARoyK. Stochastic spiking neural networks enabled by magnetic tunnel junctions: from nontelegraphic to telegraphic switching regimes. Phys Rev Appl (2017) 8(6):064017. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.8.064017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 171

  KharyaPAlviA. Using DeepSpeed and Megatron to train Megatron-Turing NLG 530B, the world’s largest and most powerful generative language model [online]. (2021). Available at: https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/using-deepspeed-and-megatron-to-train-megatron-turing-nlg-530b-the-worlds-largest-and-most-powerful-generative-language-model/

  • Google Scholar

• 172

  SharmaTAliMChakrabortyIRoyK. What, when, where to compute-in-memory for efficient matrix multiplication during machine learning inference. IEEE Trans Emerg Top Comput (2025) 13(3):1215–29. doi: 10.1109/TETC.2025.3574508

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar