GPU-Accelerated Simulated Oscillator Ising/Potts Machine Solving Combinatorial Optimization Problems

Baris Taskin; Ceyhun Efe Kayan; Ilknur Mustafazade; Nagarajan Kandasamy; Yilmaz Ege Gonul

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

GPU-Accelerated Simulated Oscillator Ising/Potts Machine Solving Combinatorial Optimization Problems

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that a digital, GPU-parallelized simulation of coupled-oscillator Ising and Potts machines can solve large NP-hard combinatorial optimization problems quickly and accurately, using a modified Kuramoto model with…

desk verdict The headline 'up to 11295x speed-up' is real only if the CPU baseline is single-threaded; the paper never says, and that is the main thing a referee should chase. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22631 v1 pith:YHLA2ZZP submitted 2025-05-28 cs.AR

Yilmaz Ege Gonul , Ceyhun Efe Kayan , Ilknur Mustafazade , Nagarajan Kandasamy , Baris Taskin This is my paper

classification cs.AR

keywords oscillator-basedIsingmachinePottsKuramotomodelsub-harmonicinjectionlockingGPUaccelerationCUDAmax-cutgraphcoloring

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

This paper argues that a digital, GPU-parallelized simulation of coupled-oscillator Ising and Potts machines can serve as a practical heuristic solver for large NP-hard combinatorial optimization problems. Using a modified Kuramoto model with sub-harmonic injection locking and noise, the authors solve max-cut instances from the GSET suite with up to 20,000 nodes and 3-coloring instances up to 8,000 nodes. On an NVIDIA A100 GPU, their CUDA implementation runs up to 11,295 times faster than a C implementation of the same algorithm on a 32-core AMD EPYC CPU, while matching the CPU's solution quality. The practical payoff is that a commodity accelerator can bring oscillator-based optimization to graph sizes that are otherwise slow to handle.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the modified Kuramoto differential equation (Eq. 5): $$\frac{d\phi_i}{dt} = K \sum_{j} J_{ij} \sin(2\pi(\phi_i - \phi_j)) + K_s \sin(2\pi N \phi_i) + \eta_i(t).$$ The sub-harmonic injection locking term $K_s \sin(2\pi N \phi_i)$ pins oscillators to $N$ discrete phase states, with $N=2$ for Ising problems and $N \ge 3$ for Potts problems; the coupling term encodes the problem Hamiltonian; and the Gaussian noise $\eta_i(t)$ lets the system escape local minima. The speed comes from a dual-kernel CUDA layout, where one kernel integrates all phase derivatives in parallel and another thresholds phases, with the coupling matrix flattened and processed in batches across thread blocks to balance memory traffic.

What would settle it

Re-run the identical algorithm with an optimized, fully multithreaded CPU implementation on the same 32-core processor and measure the wall-clock speedup on the 20,000-node G81 instance; if the gap falls far below the reported 11,295x, the speedup is inflated by the baseline rather than reflecting the GPU method.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the dynamics of an oscillator Ising/Potts machine can be faithfully and quickly reproduced in floating-point arithmetic on a GPU, and that this digital realization keeps the solution quality of the physical model. The framework integrates Eq. (5), the modified Kuramoto equation with normalized phases, a sub-harmonic injection locking drive, and Gaussian noise, using Forward Euler integration, and assigns oscillator interactions to GPU threads in batches. Across 32 GSET max-cut instances, the computed cuts reach 94.08% to 99.27% of best-known values, and the 3-coloring results reach 95.2% to 99.5% accuracy on the tested instances. Because the same code runs on CPU and GPU, the paper reports identical accuracy for both and attributes the speedup to parallelization.

Load-bearing premise

The headline speedup assumes the C CPU baseline is a fair reference implementation of the same algorithm, but the paper does not state whether that CPU code uses one core or all 32 cores of the EPYC 7513.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

On the 32 GSET instances, the GPU solver consistently lands within 94% to 99% of best-known cuts, suggesting the approach can serve as a fast heuristic for max-cut on graphs up to 20,000 nodes.
Speedups grow with graph size, from 795x at 800 nodes to 11,295x at 20,000 nodes, so the parallelization is most valuable on large instances where exact solvers become impractical.
The 3-coloring results on custom graphs with 1,000 to 8,000 nodes show that Potts-state problems can be handled natively, without binary encoding overhead.
With runtimes from under half a second to about 23 seconds, the framework is fast enough for iterative use in design-space exploration or other workflows that need many solver calls.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper does not explore automated tuning of K, Ks_max, and noise parameters, so an automatic parameter search could make the framework a drop-in solver for unseen instances.
The same batching and dual-kernel strategy should transfer to multi-GPU or distributed settings, which would let the method attack graphs well beyond 20,000 nodes.
Because the paper's convergence-time argument is sublinear in oscillator count, the GPU's relative advantage may widen further on larger graphs as long as memory bandwidth keeps up.
The comparison against a GPU simulated-annealing solver suggests a cheap hybrid strategy: run both solvers and keep the better solution, since the oscillator machine trades some speed for several percentage points of accuracy.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Gonul et al. describe a CUDA simulator for the modified Kuramoto oscillator Ising/Potts machine, reporting up to 11,295x speedups over a C CPU baseline and 94-99% accuracy on GSET max-cut and SATLIB/custom 3-coloring instances. The novelty is modest but real: prior work includes GPU Ising solvers and digital OIM emulation, but this is the first GPU implementation of the Wang-Roychowdhury OIM/OPM dynamics with triangular Ks annealing that I know of, and the optimization details (float32, batched interactions, shared memory) are concrete and likely transferable. The paper is clearly written and the central engineering claim—a fast, programmable, large-scale digital OIM/OPM testbed—is plausible.

The main soft spot is the CPU baseline. Section IV says the C code runs on a 32-core AMD EPYC 7513 but never states whether it uses one thread or all 32. The implied CPU time for G81 (23.37s GPU times 11,295) is about 73 hours for a 20,000-node O(n^2) simulation, or roughly 1.5 million pair updates per second. That is the signature of a single-threaded scalar loop. If the baseline is single-threaded, the headline speedup is per-core, not against a 32-thread CPU, and a fair multi-threaded comparison would shrink it by up to ~32x. The contribution would survive—a per-core speedup of hundreds to thousands is still useful—but the advertised number is misleading as written.

Other issues are smaller. The accuracy metric for graph coloring is never defined: for 3-coloring, does 99% mean the fraction of vertices with no conflict, or the fraction of satisfied edges? The numbers are not checkable without that definition. The solver is stochastic, yet no repeated runs or error bars are reported. Hyperparameters (K, Ks_max, Kn, h, t_stop) are tuned on the benchmark set, and the sweep in Figure 3(b) covers only two of them; the paper should disclose the values used for each instance. The two largest max-cut graphs (G77, G81) have no best-known reference, so the 99% accuracy claim rests on the smaller instances. None of this is fatal, but it makes the paper less verifiable than it should be.

I'd send this to a referee. The right outcome is probably acceptance after a revision that discloses the CPU thread count, provides a multi-threaded baseline, defines the coloring accuracy metric, and reports repeated-run statistics. The audience is people building or validating analog OIM/OPM hardware, and researchers who want a fast emulator for studying oscillator dynamics. I wouldn't cite it myself, but it deserves a fair, serious review.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a CUDA-based digital simulator for oscillator-based Ising and Potts machines (OIM/OPM), using a modified Kuramoto model with injection locking and Gaussian noise (Eq. 5). The authors evaluate the solver on 32 GSET max-cut instances with 800-20,000 nodes and on SATLIB 3-coloring instances plus four custom 3-colorable graphs with up to 8,000 nodes. They report GPU runtimes of 0.45-23.37 s, speedups of 795x-11,295x over a C CPU implementation, and accuracies up to 99.27% for max-cut and 95.2%-99.5% for coloring. The paper also describes several CUDA optimizations, a triangular Ks annealing schedule, and a comparison with a prior GPU Ising solver.

Significance. If the results are reproducible, the paper is a useful engineering contribution: it demonstrates that a digital GPU emulation of OIM/OPM can handle large graphs (up to 20k nodes) with near-best-known solution quality on standard benchmarks, and that careful CUDA optimizations can yield very large speedups over a CPU implementation. The use of public GSET and SATLIB benchmarks is a strength, and Algorithm 1 provides enough pseudocode to reproduce the integration scheme. The main caveats are that the CPU baseline is under-specified, the accuracy metric for graph coloring is undefined, and the stochastic solver is reported without repeated runs; these issues currently make the headline speedup and accuracy claims difficult to assess.

major comments (5)

[Section IV] The CPU baseline is described only as the same algorithm implemented in C and run on a 32-core AMD EPYC 7513, without stating whether the code is single-threaded or multithreaded, nor the compiler flags or optimization level. For G81, a 23.37 s GPU time and 11,295x speedup imply roughly 73 hours of CPU time for a 20,000-node simulation, which is consistent with a single-threaded scalar loop rather than a 32-core implementation. A fair 32-thread CPU run could reduce the speedup by up to about 32x. Because the abstract's headline is the speedup, this under-specification is load-bearing; please report the thread count, compiler, and optimization flags, and provide speedup against both single-threaded and multithreaded CPU baselines.
[Tables I and II] The accuracy metric is not defined for the graph-coloring results in Table II. For max-cut, 'Acc(%)' is evidently GPU-cut divided by best-known cut, but no analogous definition is given for coloring. A proper 3-coloring is a binary property, so a value such as 99.5% for custom-8000 leaves unclear whether a valid coloring was found or whether the reported number is, for example, the fraction of constraint-satisfying edges. Define the metric precisely and, if the reported values are not the fraction of valid colorings, also state how many of the SATLIB and custom instances were solved to a fully proper 3-coloring.
[Section IV-A / Tables I-II] The solver is stochastic: initial phases are random and Eq. (5) includes Gaussian white noise, with Algorithm 1 drawing random numbers via CURAND. All reported runtimes and accuracies in Tables I and II appear to be single runs, with no number of trials, standard deviations, or best-of-N reporting. For a stochastic optimizer this makes it impossible to distinguish a typical solution from a lucky seed. Please report mean and standard deviation (or at least best-of-5/best-of-10) over multiple runs for a representative subset of instances in each table.
[Table I] The best-known values for G81 (20,000 nodes) and G77 (14,000 nodes) are listed as '<NA>', yet these are the two largest instances and produce the two largest speedups. Without a best-known reference, the accuracy of the reported GPU-cut values cannot be established, and these rows should not be included in the statement in Section IV-A that the framework 'consistently achieves over 94% accuracy'. Provide best-known values or clearly mark these rows as speed-only results and exclude them from accuracy summaries.
[Section IV-B] The text states that 'these parameters are optimized' and lists K, Ks_max, Kn, h, and t_stop as tunable quantities. If the same benchmark instances are used for both parameter selection and the reported results, the accuracy numbers may be optimistic for unseen instances. Please report the exact parameter values used for each table, and, if possible, demonstrate robustness by evaluating on a held-out set or by presenting results across the parameter sweep rather than only at the tuned point.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (5) and Algorithm 1] The noise term is described inconsistently: Eq. (5) states that eta_i(t) has standard deviation sqrt(Kn * dt), but Algorithm 1 line 14 uses noise <- Kn * N(0,1) * sqrt(h). Unless Kn is redefined between these two places, the noise scaling should be clarified.
[Table III] The runtime comparison with [18] is made on different GPUs; specify the GPU used in [18] or explicitly state that the wall-clock times are not directly comparable across implementations.
[Fig. 3(b)] The parameter sweep panel in Fig. 3(b) would be easier to interpret if the axes were labeled with the parameter names and the accuracy color scale were identified in a legend.
[Throughout] There are minor formatting inconsistencies, such as '11295x' in the abstract versus '11,295x' in Section IV-A, and 'G-set' versus 'Gset'; please standardize the notation.
[Section IV-A] The statement that 'the accuracy of the GPU and CPU implementations are the same' should be qualified: if the CPU and GPU use different summation orders or random seeds, the results may differ; state whether the implementations are bit-for-bit identical or use the same seed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GPU OIM/OPM solver is empirically validated against external benchmarks, and no prediction reduces to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that a CUDA implementation of the modified Kuramoto OIM/OPM equations (Eq. 5) can solve max-cut and 3-coloring instances with competitive speed and accuracy. This claim is not equivalent to its inputs by construction. The dynamics in Eq. 5 are imported from prior work [6] and implemented numerically; the objective in Eq. 6 is a monotone transformation of the max-cut/coloring cost, so evaluating solutions against GSET best-known cuts and SATLIB colorability is an external check, not a tautology. The reported cut values are produced by forward simulation, not by reading the benchmark optima. Hyperparameters (K, Ks_max, Kn, t_stop) are tuned via sweeps, but tuning generic annealing and step-size parameters does not encode the solution of a specific instance, and the paper does not present these accuracies as held-out predictions. The comparison with prior GPU Ising solver [18] is external. Self-citations [10]-[12] appear in the introduction and hardware context and are not load-bearing for the benchmark results. The under-specified CPU baseline (thread count not disclosed) is a benchmarking-quality concern, not a circularity concern: it does not make the GPU solution values depend on the CPU runtimes. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited with the required specificity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on the prior oscillator-machine model [6], the correctness of the benchmark data, and a set of undisclosed tuning parameters. The speed claim additionally depends on the fairness of the CPU baseline. No new entities are invented.

free parameters (5)

K = not reported
Global coupling strength in Eq. 5; selected via parameter sweep (Fig. 3b) and described as optimized in Section IV-B.
Ks_max = not reported
Maximum amplitude of the triangular SHIL waveform; tuned to balance exploration and stability (Section IV-B).
Kn = not reported
Noise strength in Eq. 5; chosen to escape local minima; value not given.
h = not reported
Forward Euler time step; accuracy vs. cost trade-off; value not given in the paper.
t_stop = varies per instance
Simulation duration adjusted based on convergence time for the largest instance; not tabulated.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The modified Kuramoto model with SHIL and noise (Eq. 5) settles into stable phase configurations that minimize the Hamiltonian (Eq. 6) and thereby solve the mapped optimization problem.
Taken from prior work [6]; not re-derived or numerically proven here. Central to the solver's validity.
domain assumption Forward Euler integration with the chosen step h adequately approximates the continuous ODE dynamics for all tested graphs.
The paper uses Forward Euler 'inspired by' [14],[7] but provides no stability or convergence analysis.
domain assumption The benchmark best-known cut values for G-set are accurate and the SATLIB instances are 3-colorable as labeled.
Assumed from the public benchmark repositories; no independent verification is provided.
ad hoc to paper The CPU baseline implementation in C is a fair reference (performance comparable to a well-written single-threaded solver).
The paper does not state whether the CPU code uses one thread or all 32 cores, which directly affects the reported speedup.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GPU-Accelerated Simulated Oscillator Ising/Potts Machine Solving Combinatorial Optimization Problems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YHLA2ZZP

@misc{pith2026250522631,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GPU-Accelerated Simulated Oscillator Ising/Potts Machine Solving Combinatorial Optimization Problems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YHLA2ZZP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22631}
}

read the original abstract

Oscillator-based Ising machines (OIMs) and oscillator-based Potts machines (OPMs) have emerged as promising hardware accelerators for solving NP-hard combinatorial optimization problems by leveraging the phase dynamics of coupled oscillators. In this work, a GPU-accelerated simulated OIM/OPM digital computation framework capable of solving combinatorial optimization problems is presented. The proposed implementation harnesses the parallel processing capabilities of GPUs to simulate large-scale OIM/OPMs, leveraging the advantages of digital computing to offer high precision, programmability, and scalability. The performance of the proposed GPU framework is evaluated on the max-cut problems from the GSET benchmark dataset and graph coloring problems from the SATLIB benchmarks dataset, demonstrating competitive speed and accuracy in tackling large-scale problems. The results from simulations, reaching up to 11295x speed-up over CPUs with up to 99% accuracy, establish this framework as a scalable, massively parallelized, and high-fidelity digital realization of OIM/OPMs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22631 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Ks parameter ramped up and down in a triangular [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** a) Speed comparison of CPU vs GPU against the G-set benchmark problems b) Parameter sweep analysis on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Graph Coloring Approach to Solving Sudoku with Oscillatory Neural Networks
cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A Kuramoto-oscillator network with an added rule-violation repulsion term solves 4x4 Sudoku near-perfectly and 9x9 Sudoku with high accuracy at low-to-moderate unknown-digit ratios, outperforming prior HNN/ONN solvers.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Limits on fundamental limits to computation,

I. L. Markov, “Limits on fundamental limits to computation,”Nature, vol. 512, pp. 147–154, Aug. 2014

work page 2014
[2]

Beitrag zur theorie des ferromagnetismus,

E. Ising, “Beitrag zur theorie des ferromagnetismus,”Zeitschrift f ¨ur Physik, vol. 31, p. 253–258, Feb. 1925

work page 1925
[3]

The potts model,

F. Y . Wu, “The potts model,”Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 54, pp. 235–268, Jan 1982

work page 1982
[4]

Quantum annealing with manufactured spins,

M. W. Johnson, M. H. S. Amin, S. Gildert, T. Lanting, F. Hamze, N. Dickson, R. Harris, A. J. Berkley, J. Johansson, P. Bunyk, E. M. Chapple, C. Enderud, J. P. Hilton, K. Karimi, E. Ladizinsky, N. Ladizinsky, T. Oh, I. Perminov, C. Rich, M. C. Thom, E. Tolka- cheva, C. J. S. Truncik, S. Uchaikin, J. Wang, B. Wilson, and G. Rose, “Quantum annealing with man...

work page 2011
[5]

Coherent potts machine based on an optical loop with a multilevel phase-sensitive amplifier,

K. Inoue, K. Yoshida, and S. Kitahara, “Coherent potts machine based on an optical loop with a multilevel phase-sensitive amplifier,”Optics Communications, vol. 528, p. 129022, 2023

work page 2023
[6]

Oim: Oscillator-based ising ma- chines for solving combinatorial optimisation problems,

T. Wang and J. Roychowdhury, “Oim: Oscillator-based ising ma- chines for solving combinatorial optimisation problems,” inUn- conventional Computation and Natural Computation(I. McQuillan and S. Seki, eds.), (Cham), pp. 232–256, Springer International Publishing, 2019

work page 2019
[7]

Oscillator-based potts machine (opm) for the implementation of the vector potts model,

J. Roychowdhury and S. Seal, “Oscillator-based potts machine (opm) for the implementation of the vector potts model,” Technical Report No. UCB/EECS-2022-198, EECS University of California, Berke- ley, http://www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2022/EECS-2022- 198.html, August 2022

work page 2022
[8]

2.6 a 2 ×30k-spin multichip scalable annealing processor based on a processing-in-memory approach for solving large-scale combinatorial optimization problems,

T. Takemoto, M. Hayashi, C. Yoshimura, and M. Yamaoka, “2.6 a 2 ×30k-spin multichip scalable annealing processor based on a processing-in-memory approach for solving large-scale combinatorial optimization problems,” inProceedings of IEEE International Solid- State Circuits Conference - (ISSCC), pp. 52–54, 2019

work page 2019

Show all 18 references

[9]

A probabilistic compute fabric based on coupled ring oscillators for solving combinatorial optimization problems,

I. Ahmed, P. Chiu, W. Moy, and C. H. Kim, “A probabilistic compute fabric based on coupled ring oscillators for solving combinatorial optimization problems,”IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, vol. 56, no. 9, pp. 2870–2880, 2021

2021
[10]

High-speed phase- based computing,

N. Sica, R. Kuttappa, V . Honkote, and B. Taskin, “High-speed phase- based computing,” inProceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS), pp. 1–5, 2024

2024
[11]

A multi-stage potts machine based on coupled cmos ring oscillators,

Y . E. Gonul and B. Taskin, “A multi-stage potts machine based on coupled cmos ring oscillators,” in2025 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference (DATE), pp. 1–7, 2025

2025
[12]

Multi-phase coupled cmos ring oscillator based potts machine,

Y . E. Gonul and B. Taskin, “Multi-phase coupled cmos ring oscillator based potts machine,” inProceedings of the 43rd IEEE/ACM Inter- national Conference on Computer-Aided Design, ICCAD ’24, (New York, NY , USA), Association for Computing Machinery, 2025

2025
[13]

Ising formulations of many np problems,

A. Lucas, “Ising formulations of many np problems,”Frontiers in Physics, vol. 2, 2014

2014
[14]

Digital emulation of oscillator ising machines,

S. Sreedhara, J. Roychowdhury, J. Wabnig, and P. Srinath, “Digital emulation of oscillator ising machines,” in2023 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE), pp. 1–2, 2023

2023
[15]

CURAND Library

NVIDIA Corporation, “CURAND Library.” https://docs.nvidia.com/ cuda/curand/index.html, 2024

2024
[16]

G-set benchmarks, https://web.stanford.edu/ ∼yyye/yyye/gset/, Ac- cessed: 2025-03-01

“G-set benchmarks, https://web.stanford.edu/ ∼yyye/yyye/gset/, Ac- cessed: 2025-03-01.”

2025
[17]

Hoos and T

H. Hoos and T. St ¨utzle,SATLIB: An online resource for research on SAT, pp. 283–292. 04 2000

2000
[18]

Gpu based parallel ising computing for combinatorial optimization problems in vlsi physical design

C. Cook, H. Zhao, T. Sato, M. Hiromoto, and S. X. D. Tan, “Gpu based parallel ising computing for combinatorial optimization problems in vlsi physical design.” arXiv:1807.10750 [physics.comp- ph], 2019

2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Limits on fundamental limits to computation,

I. L. Markov, “Limits on fundamental limits to computation,”Nature, vol. 512, pp. 147–154, Aug. 2014

work page 2014

[2] [2]

Beitrag zur theorie des ferromagnetismus,

E. Ising, “Beitrag zur theorie des ferromagnetismus,”Zeitschrift f ¨ur Physik, vol. 31, p. 253–258, Feb. 1925

work page 1925

[3] [3]

The potts model,

F. Y . Wu, “The potts model,”Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 54, pp. 235–268, Jan 1982

work page 1982

[4] [4]

Quantum annealing with manufactured spins,

M. W. Johnson, M. H. S. Amin, S. Gildert, T. Lanting, F. Hamze, N. Dickson, R. Harris, A. J. Berkley, J. Johansson, P. Bunyk, E. M. Chapple, C. Enderud, J. P. Hilton, K. Karimi, E. Ladizinsky, N. Ladizinsky, T. Oh, I. Perminov, C. Rich, M. C. Thom, E. Tolka- cheva, C. J. S. Truncik, S. Uchaikin, J. Wang, B. Wilson, and G. Rose, “Quantum annealing with man...

work page 2011

[5] [5]

Coherent potts machine based on an optical loop with a multilevel phase-sensitive amplifier,

K. Inoue, K. Yoshida, and S. Kitahara, “Coherent potts machine based on an optical loop with a multilevel phase-sensitive amplifier,”Optics Communications, vol. 528, p. 129022, 2023

work page 2023

[6] [6]

Oim: Oscillator-based ising ma- chines for solving combinatorial optimisation problems,

T. Wang and J. Roychowdhury, “Oim: Oscillator-based ising ma- chines for solving combinatorial optimisation problems,” inUn- conventional Computation and Natural Computation(I. McQuillan and S. Seki, eds.), (Cham), pp. 232–256, Springer International Publishing, 2019

work page 2019

[7] [7]

Oscillator-based potts machine (opm) for the implementation of the vector potts model,

J. Roychowdhury and S. Seal, “Oscillator-based potts machine (opm) for the implementation of the vector potts model,” Technical Report No. UCB/EECS-2022-198, EECS University of California, Berke- ley, http://www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2022/EECS-2022- 198.html, August 2022

work page 2022

[8] [8]

2.6 a 2 ×30k-spin multichip scalable annealing processor based on a processing-in-memory approach for solving large-scale combinatorial optimization problems,

T. Takemoto, M. Hayashi, C. Yoshimura, and M. Yamaoka, “2.6 a 2 ×30k-spin multichip scalable annealing processor based on a processing-in-memory approach for solving large-scale combinatorial optimization problems,” inProceedings of IEEE International Solid- State Circuits Conference - (ISSCC), pp. 52–54, 2019

work page 2019