Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 13 references

Energy-Efficient Sampling Using Stochastic Magnetic Tunnel Junctions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that sixteen stochastic magnetic tunnel junctions, one per Float16 bit, can be biased to produce truly random uniform Float16 samples at about 21 pJ each, beating PCG by 5,649x and Mersenne Twister by 9,721x in energy.

desk verdict Genuinely new per-bit sampling derivation, but the headline energy savings are overstated by ~2x due to discarded inf/NaN samples, and the DAC can't reach the required probabilities. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00015 v1 pith:R3UPAATF submitted 2024-12-14 physics.comp-ph cs.LGstat.COstat.ML

Nicolas Alder , Shivam Nitin Kajale , Milin Tunsiricharoengul , Deblina Sarkar , Ralf Herbrich This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.comp-phcs.LGstat.COstat.ML
keywords stochasticmagnetictunneljunctiontruerandomnumbergenerationFloat16uniformsamplingenergy-efficientmixtureofuniformsspintronicsBernoullidistributionprobabilisticmachinelearning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that true random floating-point samples can be produced almost for free by reading sixteen stochastic magnetic tunnel junctions, one per bit of a Float16 word. The key move is choosing each bit's Bernoulli probability through a closed-form count so that the 16-bit output is uniform over the finite Float16 range, avoiding the usual integer-to-float conversion. If the device assumptions hold, the hardware sampler would be thousands of times more energy-efficient than leading pseudorandom generators, and the same uniform sampler can be wrapped in a mixture-of-uniforms model to sample arbitrary 1D distributions without closed-form solutions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the configuration $C = \{(b_i, p_i)\}$ that assigns each of the 16 Float16 bit positions a Bernoulli-1 probability $p_i$: the five exponent bits get probabilities from the 1-bit counting formulas in Equations 5–8, and the mantissa and sign bits get $p_i = 0.5$. Each $p_i$ is physically realized by a current-biased stochastic magnetic tunnel junction whose switching follows an Arrhenius-law dependence, with a simple 4-bit current-mode DAC setting the bias. This bit-probability mapping carries the argument because it makes every Float16 bitstring appear with equal frequency, giving a uniform distribution over the finite Float16 universe without symbolic computation; the mixture-of-uniforms representation then extends this uniform sampler to arbitrary 1D distributions.

What would settle it

Build the sixteen-device array at the specified 4-bit bias settings, sample at 1 MHz at room temperature, and record, say, $10^7$ Float16 words; if the empirical distribution shows pairwise bit correlations, drift over time, or deviations from uniformity beyond the two bins the paper already flags around zero, then the uniform-sampling claim and the energy-per-valid-sample estimate both fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a set of room-temperature stochastic magnetic tunnel junctions—one per bit of a Float16 word—can be biased so that the resulting 16-bit values are uniformly distributed over the full Float16 range, with true randomness coming from thermal noise. The bit probabilities are set by a closed-form count of how often each exponent bit must be 1, while sign and mantissa bits sit at $p = 0.5$. The authors estimate the biasing energy at 20.86 pJ per sample at a 1 MHz sampling rate, with an additional 16 fJ for readout and 750 fJ for optional linear normalization, and report that generating $2^{30}$ samples costs 23.22 mJ including normalization. Against the cited energy benchmarks for pseudorandom generators, this gives an improvement factor of 5,649 over PCG and 9,721 over Mersenne Twister. Composing this uniform sampler with a non-overlapping mixture of uniforms, the paper further claims that any 1D distribution can be represented, sampled, convolved, and multiplied with likelihoods without closed-form solutions, with measured KL-divergence increases of 0.0343 ± 0.1473 for convolution and 0.0141 ± 0.1073 for prior-likelihood operations relative to sampling from closed-form solutions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each s-MTJ acts as an independent, stationary Bernoulli source with precisely settable probability at room temperature, with no correlation between the sixteen devices and no drift with temperature or supply voltage; the paper's Appendix C concedes that temperature and fabrication-process variations remain open concerns.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • True random Float16 samples become available at roughly 21 pJ per sample, including readout and normalization, versus the hundreds of joules needed to produce $2^{30}$ samples with leading pseudorandom generators.
  • Uniform Float16 samples can be linearly transformed to any interval, so the same hardware serves any bounded uniform target distribution.
  • The mixture-of-uniforms model gives a non-parametric sampler for arbitrary 1D densities, requiring only two uniform draws per sample, with convolution and prior-likelihood operations defined on the mixture components.
  • Because the approach only needs a parametrizable Bernoulli source, the same probability-configuration recipe could be applied to other efficient random-bit hardware, not just stochastic magnetic tunnel junctions.
  • In the paper's own rejection-sampling benchmark, the mixture-based approach always produces a sample per draw, while rejection sampling wastes draws and energy; even when rejection sampling uses the same s-MTJ uniform draws, it still has a 5.32x overhead.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The authors do not test this, but the same bit-count recipe extends in principle to other floating-point formats; Float32 would need a finer DAC and probabilities even closer to 1 on the higher exponent bits, so the energy advantage may shrink for wider formats.
  • A natural next experiment is to prototype the full sixteen-device array and run standard statistical randomness tests, which the paper lists as future work rather than demonstrated evidence.
  • If the hardware works at scale, probabilistic machine-learning sampling could move from CPU cycles to a small analog peripheral, enabling on-device Bayesian inference; this is an editorial extrapolation, not a paper claim.
  • The paper's suggested fix of rejecting the two slightly overrepresented bins around zero is itself a testable calibration strategy: a per-device calibration routine that re-derives the exponent probabilities at operating temperature could be evaluated against the measured moment errors.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a hardware-based method for generating uniformly distributed Float16 samples using stochastic magnetic tunnel junctions (s-MTJs), one per bit, with each device biased to an independent Bernoulli probability. A closed-form configuration (Eqs. 5–8) is derived for the per-bit probabilities that yield a uniform distribution over the finite Float16 range. The authors estimate an energy cost of about 20.9 pJ per raw sample (Eqs. 17–18) and claim improvement factors of 5649 over PCG and 9721 over Mersenne Twister. The paper also introduces a mixture-of-uniforms representation for arbitrary 1D distributions, together with convolution and prior-likelihood operations, and evaluates approximation errors via KL divergence. The device and circuit behavior are simulated, not experimentally implemented; the paper includes a limitations appendix.

Significance. If the central claims held as stated, the work would be significant: it offers a concrete blueprint for true-random floating-point sampling at orders-of-magnitude lower energy than software PRNGs, which is directly relevant to probabilistic machine learning and MCMC. The closed-form bit-probability derivation is a valuable conceptual contribution, and the mixture-of-uniforms framework provides a principled way to approximate arbitrary 1D distributions without closed-form solutions. The paper is also transparent about its simulation-based nature and about PVT and material challenges in Appendix C. However, the headline energy-efficiency numbers are overstated because the energy budget omits rejection of invalid samples, and the exact hardware configuration is not achievable with the described 4-bit DAC. These issues are quantitative and load-bearing for the main claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1, Eqs. (17)–(18) and Section 4.2] The energy accounting omits the cost of discarding invalid samples. With the exponent-bit probabilities given in Section 5.2 (c10=0.66666, c11=0.80000, c12=0.94118, c13=0.99611, c14=0.99998), the probability that all five exponent bits are 1 is approximately 0.5, so about half of all raw 16-bit outputs have an all-ones exponent field, corresponding to ±infinity or NaN. Section 4.2 states 'Infinities discarded' but the energy per valid sample is never recomputed. The quoted 20.86 pJ per sample is the raw-sample cost; the per-valid-sample cost is roughly 42 pJ (with min-max normalization), which reduces the claimed 5649x and 9721x improvement factors to approximately 2800x and 4800x. The authors should either correct these multipliers or revise the energy budget to account for rejection.
  2. [Section 5.2, Figure 2, and Appendix D] The described hardware cannot achieve the exact probabilities derived in Eqs. (6)–(8). The 4-bit current-mode DAC provides a maximum attainable Bernoulli probability of 0.9933 (Figure 2), yet the configuration requires p13=0.99611 and p14=0.99998. The paper evaluates two approximations (Control Bits Sampling v1 and v2) that use attainable probabilities, but this means the 'uniform Float16 sampling' achieved by the proposed hardware is only an approximation with a small bias near zero, as the authors acknowledge. The paper should state explicitly that the exact configuration is a theoretical ideal and either specify a higher-resolution biasing circuit (with its energy cost) or, if the approximation is sufficient, justify that claim with a quantitative uniformity criterion.
  3. [Section 4.1, 4.2, and Appendix C] The entire bit-probability derivation and the energy-efficiency comparison assume that each s-MTJ is an independent, stationary Bernoulli source with precisely set probabilities at room temperature, with no device-to-device variation or temporal drift. These assumptions are not experimentally validated, and the paper itself notes in Appendix C that the stochastic switching frequency is temperature-dependent and that fabrication at wafer scale remains unproven. The authors should temper the claims from 'achieves' to 'simulations indicate' in the abstract and introduction, and ideally provide a sensitivity analysis showing how deviations in p_i or correlations between devices affect the uniformity and the per-valid-sample energy.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 1] The sentence 'Our contributions can summarized as follows' is missing 'be' and should read 'can be summarized as follows'.
  2. [Section 6] The conclusion states that the method 'beats current state-of-the-art Mersenne-Twister by a factor of 5649', but the abstract and Section 5.1 report 9721 versus Mersenne Twister and 5649 versus PCG. This inconsistency should be corrected.
  3. [Figure 3 caption] The caption labels part (c) as 'Third Moment (Kurtosis)', but the third moment is skewness and the fourth central moment is kurtosis. The terminology should be corrected.
  4. [Section 4.2, Eq. (7)] The derivation of the exponent-bit probabilities via Eq. (7) is hard to follow; the notational complexity and the summations over 'groups' are not clearly linked to Table 1. A more explicit step-by-step derivation or a worked example for a 3-bit exponent would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the p_i configuration is derived from the uniform target and energy claims rest on external benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained rather than circular. The Bernoulli parameters p_i in Eq. 6 are derived by counting 1-bit occurrences over the target uniform Float16 format (Eqs. 5-8), so Eq. 4 is the design specification, not a fitted output; the later moment comparisons in Sec. 5.2 are consistency checks, including the v1/v2 quantized-control versions. The headline energy ratios (Sec. 5.1, Eqs. 17-18) compare a SPICE-derived biasing power of 20.86 pJ/sample plus readout and normalization costs against benchmark energies measured independently by Antunes & Hill (2024); no parameter of those benchmarks is fitted by the paper. The mixture-of-uniforms approximation (Sec. 4.3) is evaluated against closed-form convolution and prior-likelihood densities in Sec. 5.3, and the reported KL deviations are residual approximation errors, not implied by construction. The only self-citations (Kajale et al. 2024; Zhang et al. 2022) supply material parameters for micromagnetic simulations; these are externally measured inputs, not an imported uniqueness theorem or ansatz that determines the result. Appendix C explicitly acknowledges unresolved wafer-scale and PVT limitations, and Sec. 4.2 states that infinities are discarded rather than included in the sample stream; these are correctness and engineering caveats, not circularity. Overall, no claim reduces by definition, by fitted-parameter renaming, or by a self-citation chain to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entity; s-MTJs, DACs, and mixture models all exist in prior literature. Its contribution is a new configuration and use of known hardware, so the ledger consists of modeling assumptions and simulation-based parameters rather than invented entities.

free parameters (3)
  • Sigmoid fit for p vs bias current = not reported
    Figure 6b shows a sigmoid fit to micromagnetic simulation data; this mapping determines which 4-bit DAC words produce the required Bernoulli parameters, so the hardware behavior depends on a fitted curve.
  • 4-bit control bias words c10..c14 = (10, 0.66666), (11, 0.80000), (12, 0.94118), (13, 0.99611), (14, 0.99998)
    Chosen to approximate the exact p_i from Eqs. 5-8 under the 4-bit DAC resolution; Section 5.2 evaluates the resulting distribution shift.
  • Sampling frequency = 1 MHz
    Assumed in Section 5.1 to convert 20.86 uW biasing power into 20.86 pJ per sample; the actual achievable rate depends on unmeasured device switching frequency and readout timing.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Each Float16 bit can be sampled from an independent Bernoulli distribution with a configurable parameter p_i, and the 16 bit streams are statistically independent and stationary.
    Section 4.1-4.2 uses independent Bernoulli bits at each bit position; no correlation or drift model is included, though Appendix C acknowledges temperature sensitivity.
  • domain assumption Micromagnetic (MuMax3) and SPICE (22FDX) simulations accurately represent the behavior and energy of a real s-MTJ device.
    All device and energy numbers in Section 5.1 come from simulations; Appendix C states wafer-scale 2D magnetic material integration is unmet.
  • domain assumption Exponent field 31 (infinity/NaN) can be discarded without affecting the conditional uniformity of the remaining finite Float16 values.
    Section 4.2 says infinities are discarded; the energy analysis does not include the rejection cost. The conditional distribution remains proportional to the desired weights, but the validity depends on this rejection step.
  • ad hoc to paper Convolution of two mixture-of-uniforms distributions can be approximated by moving each pair of interval means to a point mass and binning (Eqs. 11-14).
    This midpoint approximation is introduced by the paper and is not an exact convolution; its error is only tested on smooth Gaussian/Beta-Normal cases.
  • domain assumption The target distribution is continuous uniform over [-65504, 65504] and all finite Float16 values, including subnormals, are assigned weights proportional to 2^E.
    Section 4.2 Eq. 4 sets this target; subnormal exponent 0 is weighted as 2^0 though its real interval is the same width as exponent 1, introducing a small boundary approximation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Energy-Efficient Sampling Using Stochastic Magnetic Tunnel Junctions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R3UPAATF

@misc{pith2026250100015,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Energy-Efficient Sampling Using Stochastic Magnetic Tunnel Junctions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R3UPAATF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00015}
}
read the original abstract

(Pseudo)random sampling, a costly yet widely used method in (probabilistic) machine learning and Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithms, remains unfeasible on a truly large scale due to unmet computational requirements. We introduce an energy-efficient algorithm for uniform Float16 sampling, utilizing a room-temperature stochastic magnetic tunnel junction device to generate truly random floating-point numbers. By avoiding expensive symbolic computation and mapping physical phenomena directly to the statistical properties of the floating-point format and uniform distribution, our approach achieves a higher level of energy efficiency than the state-of-the-art Mersenne-Twister algorithm by a minimum factor of 9721 and an improvement factor of 5649 compared to the more energy-efficient PCG algorithm. Building on this sampling technique and hardware framework, we decompose arbitrary distributions into many non-overlapping approximative uniform distributions along with convolution and prior-likelihood operations, which allows us to sample from any 1D distribution without closed-form solutions. We provide measurements of the potential accumulated approximation errors, demonstrating the effectiveness of our method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00015 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Hardware setup for sampling one value from a uniform Float16 distribution. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Possible Bernoulli resolutions for s-MTJ device with 4 control bits. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Physical approximation error comparison for the first three moments of the uniform dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Schematic illustration of the self-energy ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Dynamics of the normalized resistance of a stochastic MTJ for different bias current [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Schematic diagram of a current-mode digital to analog converter for providing the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Power consumption analysis in Joules (logarithmic scale) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Back-of-the-envelope power consumption analysis in femtojoules (logarithmic scale) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Back-of-the-envelope power consumption analysis in femtojoules (logarithmic scale) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Visualization of samples obtained with three different assumptions. Perfect Resolution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Histogram of 100 000 samples with 400 bins over the full Float16 range obtained by Perfect Resolution Sampling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Histogram of 100 000 samples with 400 bins spanning the full Float16 range obtained via Control Bits Sampling v1. The values show a slight bias, favoring those near zero. Each bin represents 0.25% of the overall range. Flattening the distribution by rejecting samples …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Histogram of 100 000 samples with 400 bins spanning the full Float16 range obtained via Control Bits Sampling v2. The values show a slight bias, favoring those near zero. Each bin represents 0.25% of the overall range. Flattening the distribution by rejecting samples …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Histogram of 100 000 samples with 400 bins spanning the full Float16 range obtained via Control Bits Sampling v1 with rejecting from the two most overrepresented bins around zero. 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Sampling from the convolution of two Gaussian distributions, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Sampling after Prior-Likelihood Transformation: Using a Beta [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Benjamin Antunes and David R. C. Hill. Reproducibility, energy efficiency and performance of pseudorandom number generators in machine learning: a comparative study of python, numpy, tensorflow, and pytorch implementations. CoRR, abs/2401.17345,

    arXiv

  2. [8]

    Thundering: generating multiple independent random number sequences on fpgas

    Hongshi Tan, Xinyu Chen, Yao Chen, Bingsheng He, and Weng-Fai Wong. Thundering: generating multiple independent random number sequences on fpgas. In Huiyang Zhou, Jose Moreira, Frank Mueller, and Yoav Etsion (eds.), ICS ’21: 2021 International Conference on Supercomputing, Virtual Event, USA, June 14-17, 2021, pp. 115–126. ACM,

    work page 2021

  3. [9]

    Efficient reversible uniform and non-uniform random number generation in UNU.RAN

    Srikanth Yoginath and Kalyan Perumalla. Efficient reversible uniform and non-uniform random number generation in UNU.RAN. In Erika Frydenlund, Shafagh Jafer, and Hamdi Kavak (eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Simulation Symposium, SpringSim (ANSS) 2018, Baltimore, MD, USA, April 15-18, 2018, pp. 2:1–2:10. ACM,

    work page 2018

  4. [11]

    (e, f) Trace and histogram of the observed resistance for a bias current of -2 × 1011 A/m2

    (c, d) Trace and histogram of the observed resistance for a bias current of 2 × 10 11 A/m2. (e, f) Trace and histogram of the observed resistance for a bias current of -2 × 1011 A/m2. Figure 6: (a) Schematic diagram of a current-mode digital to analog converter for providing the biasing current to a stochastic MTJ. (b) Variation of the Bernoulli parameter...

    work page 2022

  5. [12]

    Permeability of free space (µ0) 1.26 × 10−6 kg·m/s2·A2 Temperature (T ) 300 K Gilbert damping constant (α) 0.02 (typical) Exchange stiffness (Aex) 1.3 × 1013 J/m Thickness 1 nm Diameter 2 nm 16 Preprint C P OTENTIAL LIMITATIONS OF SIMULATED S -MTJ D EVICES While the proposed s-MTJ devices show great promise for energy-efficient true random number generati...

    work page 2024

  6. [13]

    RJ sam- pling assumes draws using mt19937arO3 according to benchmarks from Antunes & Hill (2024)

    6: if u < paccept then 7: S ← S ∪ xproposed 8: end if 9: end while 10: return S 20 Preprint 109 1011 1013 1015 1017 1019 1021 1023 Energy (Femtojoule) RJ Approach S-MTJ Approach RJ Approach S-MTJ Approach RJ Approach S-MTJ Approach Sampling Other Operations T otal 1,228.28e+20 1,632.34e+5 1,228.28e+20 2,087.80e+6 7,500.00e+4 2,162.80e+6 Figure 8: Back-of-...

    work page 2024

  7. [1994]

    History of uniform random number generation

    Pierre L’Ecuyer. History of uniform random number generation. In 2017 Winter Simulation Con- ference, WSC 2017, Las Vegas, NV , USA, December 3-6, 2017, pp. 202–230. IEEE,

    work page 2017

  8. [2004]

    Hoffman, and Andrew Gordon Wilson

    Pavel Izmailov, Sharad Vikram, Matthew D. Hoffman, and Andrew Gordon Wilson. What are bayesian neural network posteriors really like? In Marina Meila and Tong Zhang (eds.), Pro- ceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2021, 18-24 July 2021, Virtual Event, volume 139 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pp. 4629–4640. PMLR,

    work page 2021

Show all 13 references
  1. [2011]

    Design of an stt-mtj based true random number generator using digitally controlled probability-locked loop

    Satoshi Oosawa, Takayuki Konishi, Naoya Onizawa, and Takahiro Hanyu. Design of an stt-mtj based true random number generator using digitally controlled probability-locked loop. In 2015 IEEE 13th International New Circuits and Systems Conference (NEWCAS), pp. 1–4. IEEE,

    2015

  2. [2012]

    Yusuke Nagasaka, Akira Nukada, Satoshi Matsuoka, Kenichi Miura, and John Shalf

    ISBN 0262018020. Yusuke Nagasaka, Akira Nukada, Satoshi Matsuoka, Kenichi Miura, and John Shalf. MRG8: ran- dom number generation for the exascale era. In Proceedings of the Platform for Advanced Sci- entific Computing Conference, PASC 2018, Basel, Switzerland, July 02-04, 201...

    2018

  3. [2014]

    Random number generators and seeding for differential privacy

    Naoise Holohan. Random number generators and seeding for differential privacy. CoRR, abs/2307.03543,

    arXiv

  4. [2015]

    Limits to the energy efficiency of CMOS microproces- sors

    Anson Ho, Ege Erdil, and Tamay Besiroglu. Limits to the energy efficiency of CMOS microproces- sors. In IEEE International Conference on Rebooting Computing, ICRC 2023, San Diego, CA, USA, December 5-6, 2023, pp. 1–10. IEEE,

    2023

  5. [2024]

    This contrasts with traditional electronic de- vices which only use electron charges for computation

    12 Preprint A A DDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE SPINTRONIC DEVICE Spintronic devices are a class of computing (logic and memory) devices that harness the spin of electrons (in addition to their charge) for computation. This contrasts with traditional electronic de- vices which on...

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.