Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 36 references

Ising Acceleration for Multi-Robot Multi-Target Planning

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 45-spin Ising chip can plan multi-robot routes at 130x lower energy, within 9% of a strong classical baseline.

desk verdict A solid hardware-aware study with a genuinely useful mapping-portfolio idea, but the headline energy claims are inflated by an asymmetric accounting that excludes the host CPU. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06803 v1 pith:XX6HD4QH submitted 2026-08-07 cs.ET cs.RO

Ahmet Efe , Recep B. Uludag , Chris H. Kim , Ulya R. Karpuzcu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ETcs.RO
keywords Isingmachinesmulti-robotplanningQUBOCMOSacceleratorenergy-efficientroboticstargetsharingpathfindingtourconstruction
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 sets out to show that a compact 45-spin CMOS Ising chip, though far too small to solve realistic planning problems directly, can serve as a low-power candidate generator inside a classical multi-robot planning loop. It decomposes three planning layers—target sharing, tour construction, and pathfinding—into chip-sized subproblems and maps each with a portfolio of hardware-compatible variants. On real chip hardware, the proposed methods achieve a 37-fold energy reduction in pathfinding and an 8,000-fold reduction in target sharing. End to end, the Ising pipeline produces routes within 9% of a strong classical baseline while consuming about 130 times less accelerator energy, at the price of much higher latency. A careful reader would care because battery-powered robots face exactly this trade-off between energy and computation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a multi-mapping pipeline that adapts each planning subproblem to spin- and coefficient-limited hardware. Spin merging duplicates an overloaded logical spin onto a spare physical spin and redistributes large couplings; coefficient quantization generates linear, clipped, rank-based, and square-root integer versions of real-valued couplers; and spin-budget branching freezes a few spins and enumerates their assignments to fit a 49-variable model into 45 spins. Each variant is solved as an independent candidate, decoded, filtered for validity, and scored with the original objective rather than the distorted hardware coefficients. The same pipeline wraps three instantiations: patch-sliding pathfinding on 5x5 windows, clustered tour construction with distance-based splits and local TSP solves, and recursive target sharing with anchored distance-weighted splits batched into one chip submission.

What would settle it

Measure end-to-end wall-clock energy including the host CPU for the full Ising pipeline on the same 3-robot, 10-target instances and compare it with the strong classical pipeline; if the total energy gap shrinks to single digits, or if running tour construction on a chip with a wider coefficient range returns invalid permutations, the paper's central energy and quality claims would not survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that current compact CMOS Ising machines can be effective in selected parts of a robotics planning stack, provided the system is designed around their spin-count and coefficient-range limits. The chip is not used as a standalone planner; it only generates candidate solutions for small subproblems, while the host decomposes, validates, scores, and stitches those candidates into a global plan. Using a real 45-spin all-to-all connected chip, recursive target sharing maps naturally to binary split problems and cuts energy by about 8,000x versus a classical auction baseline, and patch-sliding pathfinding cuts energy by about 37x while matching classical median path length on 996 of 1000 queries. End to end, the Ising pipeline lands within 9.1% median of a strong classical pipeline at roughly 130x lower accelerator energy. The paper also shows a hard limit: one-hot permutation constraints for tour construction require penalty coefficients beyond the chip's integer range, so that layer is evaluated with a logical Ising solver and its energy is projected.

Load-bearing premise

The energy comparison counts only chip-call energy for the two on-chip layers and projected chip-call energy for tour construction, leaving out the host CPU energy spent on decomposition, mapping, decoding, validation, and stitching.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claims hold, battery-powered robots can offload specific combinatorial planning subproblems to a compact Ising chip and cut energy by orders of magnitude while keeping route quality close to classical planners.
  • The multi-mapping portfolio—spin merging, quantization, branching—makes Ising acceleration robust on small chips: no single mapping rule dominates, and failures occur on different instances.
  • One-hot permutation constraints are the limiting factor for tour construction; until chip coefficient ranges widen, that layer must run on a logical Ising backend.
  • The energy savings come with a latency cost, so the pipeline suits settings where energy is more scarce than time, such as long-duration autonomous missions.
  • Applying the same decompose-map-portfolio pattern to other robotics combinatorial cores could extend the approach once chip spin counts grow.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Including the host energy that performs decomposition, mapping, decoding, and stitching would shrink the reported 130x and 8,000x advantages; the paper's own accounting treats those as accelerator-only.
  • The projected tour-construction energy assumes each logical Tabu call maps to one physical chip call; a real chip run would also need coefficient-range expansion, so the 770x tour advantage is the most fragile number.
  • The same recursive-split idea could be tested directly on larger fleets and denser obstacle maps; the 9% end-to-end gap is measured on 3 robots and 10 targets, and may widen as instance size grows.
  • The multi-mapping portfolio suggests a general design rule for near-term Ising accelerators: generate many hardware-compatible views of one logical problem and let the original objective select among decoded candidates.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies whether a compact 45-spin CMOS Ising chip can serve as a low-power accelerator for multi-robot multi-target planning. It decomposes the planning problem into target sharing, tour construction, and pathfinding, and proposes a multi-mapping pipeline built from spin merging, coefficient quantization, and spin-budget branching. Experiments on a real Ising chip report up to 8,000x lower energy for target sharing and 130x lower energy end to end compared with classical baselines, with the Ising pipeline staying within about 9% of a strong classical route cost.

Significance. If the energy claims hold, the paper provides a useful hardware- and mapping-aware case study showing where compact CMOS Ising machines can fit inside a robotics planning stack. The use of real physical-chip measurements for pathfinding and target sharing, the explicit treatment of coefficient-range and spin-count bottlenecks, and the demonstration that no single mapping rule dominates (Table 3) are worthwhile strengths. The central limitation is that the headline energy comparisons use asymmetric accounting: Ising energy is reported as accelerator-only energy, while classical baselines are charged full CPU runtime energy; moreover, the tour-construction layer is evaluated with a logical Tabu solver and its energy is projected, not measured. These issues directly affect the quantitative claims and must be addressed before the results can be taken as stated.

major comments (4)
  1. [6.1] The energy comparison is asymmetric. Section 6.1 states "Reported Ising energy is accelerator energy: measured chip-call energy for physical-chip layers and projected chip-call energy for logical-Ising tour construction," while classical baselines are charged CPU wall-clock time multiplied by a 15 W/core estimate. The host-side work of the Ising pipeline (decomposition, mapping, decoding, validation, scoring, stitching, and control) is excluded from the Ising energy but the same kind of host work is implicitly included in the classical energy proxy. This is load-bearing for the 130x end-to-end claim: the Ising pipeline has a median latency of 341 ms versus 27 ms for the strong classical pipeline (Section 6.2.4), so even a crude host-energy estimate at 15 W for 341 ms is about 5.1 J, far above both the reported 3.07 mJ Ising energy and the 399 mJ classical baseline. The paper should either include host-side energy in the Ising pipeline totals or explicitly and consistently report the comparison as accelerator-only energy versus full CPU energy, and should qualify the abstract and conclusion claims accordingly.
  2. [5.2 / 6.1] The tour-construction energy numbers are projections, not measurements, and the projection assumption is unsupported. Section 5.2 says the physical chip cannot reliably run the one-hot permutation constraints because the required penalty strengths exceed the chip's integer coefficient range, so the layer is evaluated with a logical Tabu sampler that does not have the chip's coefficient-range restriction. Section 6.1 then states that the reported tour-construction time and energy are "projections obtained by replacing each logical Tabu call with one chip solve." This assumes a one-to-one equivalence between a logical Tabu call and a physical chip call, but the chip is explicitly unable to solve the relevant subproblems at the required penalty strengths, and no evidence is given that a chip-compatible encoding would reach comparable solution quality or require the same number of calls. Since the end-to-end energy claim includes 88 projected tour-construction calls, the 130x figure rests in part on an unmeasured and currently untestable assumption. The authors should either measure tour construction on the chip with a coefficient-range-compatible formulation, or clearly remove this layer from the end-to-end energy comparison and report the end-to-end claim for the physical-chip layers alone.
  3. [6.2.4] The end-to-end results are reported for completed runs only, and the success rate is not stated. The text says "completed Ising-pipeline runs use a median of 6,720 pathfinding chip calls," which implies that some runs did not complete, but the route-cost and energy distributions in Figure 14 do not indicate whether failed runs are included. If quality and energy are computed only over successful instances, the 9.1% median gap to the strong classical baseline and the 3.07 mJ median energy may be optimistic. Please report the end-to-end success rate, define what "completed" means, and give cost and energy statistics on the full instance set, including failures.
  4. [6.1] The 15 W/core CPU energy proxy is used as if it were a true energy measurement. The paper acknowledges it is a proxy, but the headline comparisons treat it as a baseline energy value. Because the same proxy is not applied to the host-side work of the Ising pipeline, the proxy is not the main issue by itself; however, the proxy should be validated or at least varied in sensitivity analysis (for example, using measured CPU power or an energy-delay product) before the multiplicative claims such as 8,000x and 130x are presented as quantitative results.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract's "130x lower energy" and "8,000x lower energy" are unqualified. These claims should be accompanied by the accelerator-only versus full-CPU-energy qualification, or by corrected totals if host energy is added.
  2. [5.2] The claim that "direct chip samples often violate these constraints" would be more useful with quantitative support: how often, on which instances, and what invalid-decode rates were observed?
  3. [6.2.1] For pathfinding, quality is reported on solved instances: 996 of 1000 queries were solved by the Ising pathfinder. Please also report the cost distribution for all 1000 queries, or explain why the four failed queries are excluded.
  4. [6.2.2] The statement that the clustered Ising tour method achieves a median optimality gap of 0.0% is based on the logical Tabu backend, not on the physical chip. Please keep this qualifier in the caption and in the main text wherever the result is summarized.
  5. [Figure 11] The energy panel is labeled simply "Energy (J)" but the Ising datapoint is chip energy only. The caption should state this asymmetry explicitly, as is partially done in the text.
  6. [6.1] The phrase "chip calls are submitted sequentially to isolate per-call behavior and make energy accounting unambiguous" is clear, but the later discussion of parallel solver resources in Section 4.3 should not be read as a measured latency or energy benefit; please state that the parallel-dispatch evaluation is outside the scope of the reported measurements.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the evaluation is empirical and self-contained; the energy projection for tour construction is an explicit accounting assumption, not a derivation from the paper's own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are evaluated empirically against classical baselines (BFS, A*, GBFS, 2-opt, 3-opt, SSA, PSA) on randomly generated instances, with no fitted parameters or per-instance tuning of the proposed methods. The multi-mapping portfolios are not tuned per instance; Table 3 shows nearly uniform win shares across mapping choices, and the decode-filter-score loop selects candidates by the original unquantized objective rather than by a quantity defined through the hardware result. The recursive target-sharing method, patch-sliding pathfinding, and clustered tour construction are all stated as concrete algorithms with explicit objectives (e.g., Eq. 6, Eq. 7/8), and their reported solution qualities are measured against independent classical baselines. The only potentially concerning step is the projection of tour-construction energy by replacing each logical Tabu call with one simulated chip solve, as stated in Section 6.1. That step is an explicit accounting convention and an unjustified extrapolation, not a circular reduction: the paper does not fit a parameter from the tour data and then predict the same data, nor does it define tour energy in terms of the end-to-end claim. The end-to-end 130x claim depends on excluding host-side CPU energy and on the validity of the tour projection, which is a correctness or fairness risk, not a self-referential derivation. Self-citations appear only as background hardware references (e.g., the prior coupled-oscillator chip work), and the chip is used as a measured physical device, so no load-bearing argument reduces to an unverified self-citation. Accordingly, no circular step meeting the required evidentiary standard is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; the contributions are mapping techniques. The free parameters are algorithmic constants and an energy proxy, not physical constants. The ad hoc axioms concern the energy accounting and the projection of tour-construction energy, which are the most fragile parts of the quantitative claims.

free parameters (9)
  • Penalty weights A and B in pathfinding and tour QUBOs = not specified
    Hand-chosen balance between constraint enforcement (endpoints, connectivity, one-hot) and path/tour cost; affect validity and solution quality. Section 3.1 Eq (3), Section 3.2 Eq (4), Section 5.1 Eq (6).
  • Pathfinding patch side length = 5 cells
    Chosen so free-cell variables fit within 45-spin budget; larger patches would exceed it. Section 5.1.
  • Local target ranking metric = Manhattan distance to final goal
    Heuristic to pick patch boundary candidate; kept classical to preserve coefficient range. Section 5.1.
  • Local tour cluster size limit = at most 7 targets
    Keeps local one-hot TSP subproblems at or below 49 logical variables, enabling 4-spin branching to 45. Section 5.2.
  • Cluster ordering limit = 8 clusters (49 variables)
    Max clusters before ordering so cluster-order QUBO uses (8-1)^2 = 49 variables. Section 5.2.
  • Frozen spins in spin-budget branching = 4 spins (16 branches)
    Bridges 49-variable models to 45-spin chip budget. Section 4.2, 5.2.
  • Anchor selection rule = farthest pair of robots or targets
    Heuristic to guide recursive splits; affects partition quality. Section 5.3.
  • Coefficient quantization rules = linear, clip95, rank, sqrt
    Four fixed integer quantization schemes evaluated as a portfolio; no per-instance tuning reported. Section 4.2, 6.2.5.
  • CPU core power estimate = 15 W per core
    Core-normalized TDP proxy used to convert CPU wall-clock time to energy; not directly measured during solver runs. Section 6.1.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math QUBO and Ising formulations are equivalent via x_i = (1 + s_i)/2.
    Used throughout to translate planning objectives to chip-compatible Ising form. Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption The CMOS Ising chip approximately minimizes the Ising energy of the submitted spin system.
    Relies on device dynamics (annealing) to return low-energy spin assignments; solution quality is not guaranteed. Section 2.1, 2.2.
  • standard math A* with unit-cost four-neighbor motion on a grid returns optimal shortest paths.
    Used as a classical baseline and to compute obstacle-aware distances for tour and target-sharing layers. Section 6.1.
  • standard math One-hot TSP QUBO with sufficiently strong penalties yields valid permutation tours.
    Basis of tour-construction formulations; the paper argues the chip's coefficient range is insufficient for these penalties. Section 3.2, 5.2.
  • ad hoc to paper CPU energy can be approximated as wall-clock time times 15 W per core (core-normalized TDP).
    Enables CPU energy estimates for classical baselines; not validated by direct power measurement. Section 6.1.
  • ad hoc to paper Replacing each logical Tabu sampling call with one physical chip solve yields a valid projection of chip time and energy for tour construction.
    Underlies the projected tour-construction and end-to-end energy numbers, despite the paper stating the chip's coefficient range is insufficient for this layer. Section 5.2, 6.2.2.
  • domain assumption Random 10x10 grids with 20% obstacle density and random robot/target placements represent relevant MRMT workloads.
    Defines the evaluation domain; results may not transfer to other obstacle densities or grid sizes. Section 6.1.
  • domain assumption The 45-spin, [-7,+7] coefficient chip is representative of compact CMOS Ising hardware.
    Establishes the target hardware class for the mapping pipeline; other compact Ising designs may impose different constraints. Section 2.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ising Acceleration for Multi-Robot Multi-Target Planning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XX6HD4QH

@misc{pith2026260806803,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ising Acceleration for Multi-Robot Multi-Target Planning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XX6HD4QH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06803}
}
read the original abstract

Ising machines are emerging as promising hardware for combinatorial optimization. With recent advances in CMOS Ising technology, they are becoming attractive as low-power accelerator systems for robotics, where energy is limited and combinatorial optimization arises in multiple forms. However, a hardware-aware analysis of where such chips fit within a robotics planning stack is still missing. This paper studies the capabilities and limitations of CMOS Ising machines for low-power acceleration in multi-robot multi-target planning. We analyze three planning layers---target sharing, tour construction, and pathfinding---using real 45-spin all-to-all connected CMOS Ising chips as representative devices. We propose new Ising-based planning methods and a multi-mapping pipeline that uses spin merging, coefficient quantization, and spin-budget branching to adapt subproblems to spin- and coefficient-limited hardware. Our results show that the proposed recursive target-sharing method naturally matches the Ising hardware, achieving up to 8,000x lower energy than a classical baseline. End to end, the Ising pipeline produces routes within 9% of a strong classical baseline at 130x lower energy, showing that compact CMOS Ising machines can be effective in selected parts of the planning stack.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06803 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Hardware-aware Ising acceleration pipeline. A spin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Multi-robot multi-target planning as target sharing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Representative spin-merging styles for mapping [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Representative quantized mappings of the same [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Overview of the patch-sliding pathfinding method. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Overview of clustered Ising tour construction. Tar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Recursive target sharing with anchored splits. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Pathfinding evaluation on 1000 random single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Target-sharing evaluation on 100 random in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: End-to-end pipeline comparison on instances with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Martinis, Giovanni Finocchio, and Kerem Y

    Navid Anjum Aadit, Andrea Grimaldi, Mario Carpentieri, Luke Theogarajan, John M. Martinis, Giovanni Finocchio, and Kerem Y. Camsari. 2022. Massively parallel probabilistic computing with sparse Ising machines.Nature Electronics 5, 7 (2022), 460–468. doi:10.1038/s41928-022-00774-2

    doi:10.1038/s41928-022-00774-2 2022

  2. [2]

    Tolga Bektaş. 2006. The Multiple Traveling Salesman Problem: An Overview of Formulations and Solution Procedures.Omega34, 3 (2006), 209–219. doi:10. 1016/j.omega.2004.10.004

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    Hamza Chakraa, François Guérin, Edouard Leclercq, and Dimitri Lefebvre. 2023. Optimization Techniques for Multi-Robot Task Allocation Problems: Review on the State-of-the-Art.Robotics and Autonomous Systems168 (2023), 104492. doi:10.1016/j.robot.2023.104492

    work page arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Hao-Wei Chiang, Chin-Fu Nien, Hsiang-Yun Cheng, and Kuei-Po Huang. 2024. ReAIM: A ReRAM-Based Adaptive Ising Machine for Solving Combinatorial Optimization Problems. InProceedings of the 51st Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA). 58–72. doi:10.1109/ISCA59077.2024.00015

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Sapatnekar, Chris H

    Hüsrev Cılasun, William Moy, Ziqing Zeng, Tahmida Islam, Hao Lo, Alex Vanasse, Megan Tan, Mohammad Anees, Ramprasath S, Abhimanyu Kumar, Sachin S. Sapatnekar, Chris H. Kim, and Ulya R. Karpuzcu. 2025. A Coupled-Oscillator- Based Ising Chip for Combinatorial Optimization.Nature Electronics8, 6 (2025), 537–546. doi:10.1038/s41928-025-01393-3

    doi:10.1038/s41928-025-01393-3 2025

  6. [6]

    Dijkstra

    Edsger W. Dijkstra. 1959. A Note on Two Problems in Connexion with Graphs. Numer. Math.1 (1959), 269–271. doi:10.1007/BF01386390

    doi:10.1007/bf01386390 1959

  7. [7]

    Gerkey and Maja J

    Brian P. Gerkey and Maja J. Matarić. 2004. A Formal Analysis and Taxonomy of Task Allocation in Multi-Robot Systems.The International Journal of Robotics Research23, 9 (2004), 939–954. doi:10.1177/0278364904045564

    doi:10.1177/0278364904045564 2004

  8. [8]

    Yuhui Hao, Yiming Gan, Bo Yu, Qiang Liu, Yinhe Han, Zishen Wan, and Shaoshan Liu. 2024. ORIANNA: An Accelerator Generation Framework for Optimization- Based Robotic Applications. InProceedings of the 29th ACM International Confer- ence on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS). 813–829. doi:10.1145/3620665.3640379

    arXiv 2024

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Yuhui Hao, Yiming Gan, Bo Yu, Qiang Liu, Shao-Shan Liu, and Yuhao Zhu. 2023. BLITZCRANK: Factor Graph Accelerator for Motion Planning. InProceedings of the 60th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC). 1–6. doi:10.1109/ DAC56929.2023.10247780

    2023

  2. [10]

    Hart, Nils J

    Peter E. Hart, Nils J. Nilsson, and Bertram Raphael. 1968. A Formal Basis for the Heuristic Determination of Minimum Cost Paths.IEEE Transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics4, 2 (1968), 100–107. doi:10.1109/TSSC.1968.300136

    1968

  3. [11]

    Fletcher

    Kartik Hegde, Po-An Tsai, Sitao Huang, Vikas Chandra, Angshuman Parashar, and Christopher W. Fletcher. 2021. Mind Mappings: Enabling Efficient Algorithm- Accelerator Mapping Space Search. InProceedings of the 26th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Progr...

    2021

  4. [12]

    Toshimori Honjo, Tomohiro Sonobe, Kensuke Inaba, Takahiro Inagaki, Takuya Ikuta, Yasuhiro Yamada, Takushi Kazama, Koji Enbutsu, Takeshi Umeki, Ryoichi Kasahara, Ken-ichi Kawarabayashi, and Hiroki Takesue. 2021. 100,000-spin coherent Ising machine.Science Advances7, 40 (2021), ...

    2021

  5. [13]

    Qijing Huang, Minwoo Kang, Grace Dinh, Thomas Norell, Aravind Kalaiah, James Demmel, John Wawrzynek, and Yakun Sophia Shao. 2021. CoSA: Scheduling by Constrained Optimization for Spatial Accelerators. InProceedings of the 48th Annual International Symposium on Computer Archite...

    2021

  6. [14]

    Yiyang Huang, Yuhui Hao, Bo Yu, Feng Yan, Yuxin Yang, Feng Min, Yinhe Han, Lin Ma, Shaoshan Liu, Qiang Liu, and Yiming Gan. 2025. Dadu-Corki: Algorithm- Architecture Co-Design for Embodied AI-Powered Robotic Manipulation. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual International Symposi...

    2025

  7. [15]

    Daniel Jaroszewski, Fabian Klos, and Benedikt Sturm. 2020. Ising Formulations of Routing Optimization Problems. arXiv:2012.05022 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Johnson, Mohammad H

    Mark W. Johnson, Mohammad H. S. Amin, Suzanne Gildert, Trevor Lanting, Firas Hamze, Neil Dickson, Richard Harris, Andrew J. Berkley, Jan Johansson, Paul Bunyk, Eric M. Chapple, Colin Enderud, Jeremy P. Hilton, Kamran Karimi, Eric Ladizinsky, Nicolas Ladizinsky, Travis Oh, Ilya...

    2011

  9. [17]

    Ayorkor Korsah, Anthony Stentz, and M

    G. Ayorkor Korsah, Anthony Stentz, and M. Bernardine Dias. 2013. A Compre- hensive Taxonomy for Multi-Robot Task Allocation.The International Journal of Robotics Research32, 12 (2013), 1495–1512. doi:10.1177/0278364913496484

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    Weizhuang Liu, Bo Yu, Yiming Gan, Qiang Liu, Jie Tang, Shaoshan Liu, and Yuhao Zhu. 2021. Archytas: A Framework for Synthesizing and Dynamically Optimizing Accelerators for Robotic Localization. InProceedings of the 54th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitec...

    2021

  11. [19]

    Andrew Lucas. 2014. Ising formulations of many NP problems.Frontiers in Physics2 (2014), 5. doi:10.3389/fphy.2014.00005

    2014

  12. [20]

    McMahon, and Tim Byrnes

    Naeimeh Mohseni, Peter L. McMahon, and Tim Byrnes. 2022. Ising machines as hardware solvers of combinatorial optimization problems.Nature Reviews Physics4, 6 (2022), 363–379. doi:10.1038/s42254-022-00440-8

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    Sean Murray, Will Floyd-Jones, George Konidaris, and Daniel J. Sorin. 2019. A Programmable Architecture for Robot Motion Planning Acceleration. InPro- ceedings of the 30th IEEE International Conference on Application-specific Systems, Architectures and Processors (ASAP). 185–1...

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    Sean Murray, William Floyd-Jones, Ying Qi, George Konidaris, and Daniel J. Sorin. 2016. The Microarchitecture of a Real-Time Robot Motion Planning Accelerator. InProceedings of the 49th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO). 45:1–45:12. doi:10.11...

    2016

  15. [23]

    Srijan Nikhar, Sidharth Kannan, Navid Anjum Aadit, Shuvro Chowdhury, and Kerem Y. Camsari. 2024. All-to-all reconfigurability with sparse and higher-order Ising machines.Nature Communications15 (2024), 8977. doi:10.1038/s41467-024- 53270-w

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    Xiaoyu Niu, Yanjun Zhang, Yifan Zhang, Hongzheng Tian, Bo Yu, Shaoshan Liu, and Sitao Huang. 2024. Accelerating Autonomous Path Planning on FP- GAs with Sparsity-Aware HW/SW Co-Optimizations. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM/SIGDA International Symposium on Field Programmable Gat...

    2024

  17. [25]

    Félix Quinton, Christophe Grand, and Charles Lesire. 2023. Market Approaches to the Multi-Robot Task Allocation Problem: A Survey.Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems107, 2 (2023), 29. doi:10.1007/s10846-022-01803-0

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    Deval Shah, Ningfeng Yang, and Tor M. Aamodt. 2023. Energy-Efficient Realtime Motion Planning. InProceedings of the 50th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA). 1–17. doi:10.1145/3579371.3589092

    2023

  19. [27]

    Pavel Surynek. 2022. Problem Compilation for Multi-Agent Path Finding: A Survey. InProceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI). 5615–5622. doi:10.24963/ijcai.2022/783

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    Takashi Takemoto, Masato Hayashi, Chihiro Yoshimura, and Masanao Yamaoka

  21. [29]

    Kosuke Tatsumura, Masaya Yamasaki, and Hayato Goto. 2021. Scaling out Ising machines using a multi-chip architecture for simulated bifurcation.Nature Electronics4 (2021), 208–217. doi:10.1038/s41928-021-00546-4

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    Kasho Yamamoto, Kazushi Kawamura, Kota Ando, Normann Mertig, Takashi Takemoto, Masanao Yamaoka, Hiroshi Teramoto, Akira Sakai, Shinya Takamaeda- Yamazaki, and Masato Motomura. 2021. STATICA: A 512-Spin 0.25M-Weight Annealing Processor With an All-Spin-Updates-at-Once Architect...

    2021

  23. [31]

    Masanao Yamaoka, Chihiro Yoshimura, Masato Hayashi, Takuya Okuyama, Hidetaka Aoki, and Hiroyuki Mizuno. 2016. A 20k-Spin Ising Chip to Solve Combinatorial Optimization Problems With CMOS Annealing.IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits51, 1 (2016), 303–309. doi:10.1109/JSSC.2015.2498601

    2016

  24. [32]

    Yuxin Yang, Xiaoming Chen, and Yinhe Han. 2023. Dadu-RBD: Robot Rigid Body Dynamics Accelerator with Multifunctional Pipelines. InProceedings of the 56th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO). 297–309. doi:10.1145/3613424.3614298

    2023

  25. [33]

    Christopher Beck

    Jiachen Zhang, Giovanni Lo Bianco, and J. Christopher Beck. 2022. Solving Job-Shop Scheduling Problems with QUBO-Based Specialized Hardware. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS). 404–412. doi:10.1609/icaps.v3...

    2022 doi

  26. [42]

    doi:10.1145/3626202.3637597

  27. [493]

    doi:10.1145/3466752.3480077

  28. [2020]

    doi:10.1109/JSSC.2019.2949230

    A2 × 30k-Spin Multi-Chip Scalable CMOS Annealing Processor Based on a Processing-in-Memory Approach for Solving Large-Scale Combinatorial Optimization Problems.IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits55, 1 (2020), 145–156. doi:10.1109/JSSC.2019.2949230

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.