REVIEW 1 cited by
CAX: Cellular Automata Accelerated in JAX
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Cellular automata have become a cornerstone for investigating emergence and self-organization across diverse scientific disciplines. However, the absence of a hardware-accelerated cellular automata library limits the exploration of new research directions, hinders collaboration, and impedes reproducibility. In this work, we introduce CAX (Cellular Automata Accelerated in JAX), a high-performance and flexible open-source library designed to accelerate cellular automata research. CAX delivers cutting-edge performance through hardware acceleration while maintaining flexibility through its modular architecture, intuitive API, and support for both discrete and continuous cellular automata in arbitrary dimensions. We demonstrate CAX's performance and flexibility through a wide range of benchmarks and applications. From classic models like elementary cellular automata and Conway's Game of Life to advanced applications such as growing neural cellular automata and self-classifying MNIST digits, CAX speeds up simulations up to 2,000 times faster. Furthermore, we demonstrate CAX's potential to accelerate research by presenting a collection of three novel cellular automata experiments, each implemented in just a few lines of code thanks to the library's modular architecture. Notably, we show that a simple one-dimensional cellular automaton can outperform GPT-4 on the 1D-ARC challenge.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
ARC-NCA: Towards Developmental Solutions to the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus
ARC-NCA shows that per-task test-time training of Neural Cellular Automata can solve about 13 percent of a 262-task ARC-AGI subset, but the claimed parity with ChatGPT 4.5 relies on results from different benchmark splits.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.