Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

NeuroCoreX: An Open-Source FPGA-Based Spiking Neural Network Emulator with On-Chip Learning

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read NeuroCoreX claims its FPGA emulator faithfully reproduces a trained spiking neural network's dynamics, matching the simulator's 68% test accuracy on the DIGITS handwritten-digit task.

desk verdict Useful open FPGA SNN testbed with honest write-up, but the 'faithful dynamics' claim rests on a single aggregate accuracy number and the on-chip learning path is unvalidated. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14138 v1 pith:HZ3OCEO2 submitted 2025-06-17 cs.NE cs.AI

Ashish Gautam , Prasanna Date , Shruti Kulkarni , Robert Patton , Thomas Potok This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.NEcs.AI
keywords spikingneuralnetworksFPGAneuromorphichardwareSTDPon-chiplearningLIFneuronDIGITSdatasettimemultiplexing
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 introduces NeuroCoreX, an open-source FPGA-based spiking neural network emulator that can run trained networks in real time and adapt them on-chip using spike-timing-dependent plasticity. Its central validation claim is that the hardware reproduces the behavior of a software simulation: a two-layer spiking network trained on the DIGITS dataset reaches 68% test accuracy both in the SuperNeuroMAT simulator and on the FPGA, with on-chip learning switched off. The authors present this match as evidence that the FPGA's fixed-point neuron and synapse computations faithfully implement the simulator's floating-point dynamics. A second experiment on a citation-graph dataset shows that when STDP learning is enabled, weight evolution on the FPGA diverges from the simulator, which the paper attributes to differences in learning rule and numerical precision and presents as motivation for algorithm–hardware co-design. The wider aim is to give researchers and students an affordable, reconfigurable platform for testing spiking networks and learning rules under real hardware constraints.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a time-multiplexed digital neuron core paired with block-RAM-stored weight and trace matrices. One physical Leaky Integrate-and-Fire neuron circuit emulates up to 100 virtual neurons by updating each in turn under a 100 kHz clock, while a 100 MHz clock services the memory reads and writes needed for the all-to-all weight matrix, the feedforward input weight matrix, and the STDP trace registers. The STDP variant uses a rectangular learning window with signed 8-bit weights and tracks pre- and post-synaptic spike times in dedicated trace matrices, with a binary enable-STDP mask restricting which synapses are plastic. This combination is what allows the platform to claim both faithful reproduction of simulator dynamics and on-chip learning on a low-cost Artix-7 FPGA.

What would settle it

Run a broader battery of comparisons between SuperNeuroMAT and NeuroCoreX on the same trained network, comparing per-neuron spike rasters, membrane potential traces, and final weight matrices across many trials; if spike trains or per-neuron dynamics differ substantially even when accuracies coincide, the claim of faithful reproduction is falsified, while exact raster-level agreement would confirm it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that a single time-multiplexed digital neuron circuit, using fixed-point arithmetic with 1 sign bit, 7 integer bits, and 10 fractional bits, can emulate a 100-neuron all-to-all spiking network closely enough that a benchmark accuracy is preserved exactly: 68% on the DIGITS test set, identical to the simulator. The authors use this equality to assert that the FPGA implementation faithfully reproduces the dynamics of the simulated SNN, validating spike integration, thresholding, and synaptic current accumulation in hardware.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that the hardware faithfully reproduces the simulated spiking network rests on a single match: the same 68% test accuracy on DIGITS with learning disabled; if aggregate accuracy can match while internal dynamics diverge, the correctness claim loses its evidence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A network trained in software simulation can be ported to NeuroCoreX without retraining and can reproduce the same test accuracy on a standard benchmark.
  • Because connectivity is all-to-all and reconfigurable, the platform can implement non-layered topologies such as small-world and graph-structured networks, not just feedforward layers.
  • On-chip STDP enables synaptic weights to evolve in real time during inference, supporting online adaptation for edge, robotics, and embedded applications.
  • The time-multiplexed architecture sets a concrete scalability bound: about 100 neurons on the current Artix-7 board, with a theoretical ceiling near 500 neurons given the clock and memory-bandwidth constraints described in the paper.
  • When STDP is enabled, hardware learning diverges from the simulator, so the paper argues that learning parameters must be tuned separately in each environment for comparable accuracy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A single aggregate accuracy match (68%) is a weak certificate of dynamical equivalence; the paper's own STDP experiment shows that learning trajectories can diverge, so per-neuron, per-timestep comparisons would be a stronger test of the fidelity claim.
  • The observed divergence between the simulator's exponential 64-bit STDP and the hardware's rectangular 8-bit STDP suggests that simulated learning rules should be adapted to hardware precision before deployment, rather than ported unchanged.
  • Because NeuroCoreX can read back membrane potentials and synaptic weights, a natural extension is to replay identical spike trains on simulator and FPGA and compare full spike rasters; exact raster-level agreement would certify equivalence far more convincingly than a single accuracy number.
  • The all-to-all weight matrix, though memory-intensive, makes the platform a convenient testbed for graph-structured spiking networks, and the paper's hybrid scaling idea implies that larger networks could be tiled across multiple FPGA instances.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents NeuroCoreX, an FPGA-based spiking neural network emulator implemented in VHDL, featuring LIF neurons, current-based exponential synapses, all-to-all connectivity for up to 100 neurons, and a pair-based STDP learning rule with a rectangular window. The system is programmed through a UART interface controlled by a Python module. Validation experiments are reported on the DIGITS dataset, where a 68% test accuracy is claimed both in the SuperNeuroMAT simulator and on the NeuroCoreX hardware with STDP disabled, and on the MicroSeer citation-graph dataset, where inference with STDP disabled is said to match the simulator but STDP-enabled weight evolution diverges from it. The paper argues that the DIGITS result establishes that the FPGA faithfully reproduces the simulated SNN dynamics and that the platform enables on-chip, online learning.

Significance. If the central claims were fully substantiated, NeuroCoreX would be a useful open-source contribution: it targets a low-cost FPGA, offers flexible all-to-all connectivity, provides real-time observability through spike-raster and membrane-potential read-back, and incorporates on-chip STDP. The authors deserve credit for openly reporting the MicroSeer STDP divergence and for providing a concrete power estimate. However, the current evidence underdetermines the main validation claim: the only quantitative inference comparison is a single aggregate accuracy number with learning disabled, and the on-chip learning feature is not validated against any reference. The contribution is promising, but the verification needs to be substantially strengthened before the paper's conclusions are supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [III.B] The statement that the authors achieved a 68% test accuracy on the SuperNeuroMAT simulator and observed the same accuracy on NeuroCoreX hardware is the only quantitative evidence for the central claim that the FPGA 'faithfully reproduces the dynamics of the simulated SNN.' A single aggregate accuracy cannot certify functional equivalence: identical accuracy can be accompanied by different per-sample predictions, shifted spike times, or systematically different membrane-potential trajectories, especially at 68% accuracy where the metric is far from ceiling and may be dominated by input statistics rather than exact fixed-point arithmetic. The paper should report per-sample label agreement (or a confusion matrix), spike-timing comparison for the test set, and representative membrane-potential traces from both the simulator and the hardware, along with repeated runs to quantify variability.
  2. [III.C and abstract] On-chip STDP learning is a headline feature of the abstract and title, yet the only experiment involving learning explicitly reports divergence between hardware and simulation. The MicroSeer evaluation gives no classification accuracy, no quantitative weight-evolution comparison, and no description of what parameter tuning was attempted. As written, the paper demonstrates that weights change on the FPGA, but not that learning is correct or that the learned network solves the graph task. This is a load-bearing gap for the 'on-chip learning' claim and must be addressed with quantitative results, for example a weight-trajectory comparison and task accuracy for both simulator and hardware after tuning.
  3. [II.C] The model equations, as written, are incomplete and ambiguous. The membrane-potential update V(t+1)=V(t)-lambda+Isyn(t) does not show how incoming spikes contribute to Isyn, and the synaptic-current update Isyn(t+1)=Isyn(t)-lambda_syn shows only decay. The reset, refractory period, and threshold behavior are described only in prose. Because the paper's validation rests on the equivalence between the hardware and the simulator, the exact discrete-time update rules used by both sides must be stated unambiguously, including fixed-point scaling and overflow handling.
minor comments (6)
  1. [II.A] There is an unresolved placeholder reference to 'EONs []'; either complete the citation or remove the pointer.
  2. [II.E] The matrix notation is inconsistent: the paper mostly uses WAA and Win, but Section II.E introduces WF F; please use a single set of names throughout.
  3. [I and IV] The paper repeatedly states that NeuroCoreX is released as open-source, but no repository URL, license, or version identifier is provided; please add the public repository link.
  4. [III.B] The sentence after the 68% accuracy result claims that the result 'confirms that the FPGA implementation faithfully reproduces the dynamics of the simulated SNN'; this claim exceeds what a single aggregate accuracy can support and should be tempered until per-sample evidence is provided.
  5. [II.C and II.E] Please correct minor typographical issues, including 'upto N = 100' and the missing spaces in 'pre-and postsynaptic'; a full proofread would be useful.
  6. [III.C] The 305 mW power estimate is reported without methodological detail; if it is based on a vendor power-analysis tool, please state that and give the operating conditions used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No construction-level circularity: the 68% simulator/hardware agreement is an empirical transfer check, not a fitted or definitional identity.

full rationale

The paper's central validation is an empirical port of trained weights from the authors' SuperNeuroMAT simulator to the NeuroCoreX FPGA, followed by observing the same 68% aggregate accuracy on the external DIGITS test set. Nothing in this chain is defined in terms of the conclusion: the DIGITS labels are external ground truth, the simulator is a separate software artifact even though authored by the same group, the FPGA executes fixed-point arithmetic rather than copying simulator outputs, and no parameter is fitted to the 68% number and then relabeled as a prediction. The claim that the FPGA 'faithfully reproduces the dynamics' is stronger than the evidence supports, because a single aggregate accuracy statistic can mask per-sample or spike-timing differences, and Section III.C's reported STDP divergence limits the scope of the equivalence claim to inference without learning. However, that is a validation-strength and correctness-risk issue, not circularity. The only self-citations (SuperNeuroMAT, Turing-completeness references, and STDP simplification references) are ancillary or are independently checkable artifacts; no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation chain, and no equation or definition makes the conclusion equivalent to its inputs. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate score is low.

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

No free parameters are fitted to data. Design constants (100 neurons, 8-bit weights, 100 kHz clock, STDP window sizes) are configurable or implementation choices. The central validation relies on external DIGITS labels and on cited assumptions about STDP and LIF; no new theoretical entities are introduced.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Rectangular STDP windows preserve functional behavior of exponential STDP when synaptic weight resolution exceeds 6 bits.
    Invoked in Section II.D to justify replacing exponential STDP with a simplified rectangular rule; supported only by citations [5], [15], [17], not by experiments in this paper.
  • domain assumption LIF networks are Turing-complete and therefore capable of general-purpose computation.
    Invoked in Section I and II.A via references [9] and [12] to justify broad applicability; not needed for the demonstrated workloads.
  • domain assumption Learning from a small fragmented graph is ineffective, so the Citeseer subset was reduced to one connected component.
    Stated in Section III.C before dataset construction; it motivates the MicroSeer benchmark but is not tested.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of NeuroCoreX: An Open-Source FPGA-Based Spiking Neural Network Emulator with On-Chip Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HZ3OCEO2

@misc{pith2026250614138,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: NeuroCoreX: An Open-Source FPGA-Based Spiking Neural Network Emulator with On-Chip Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HZ3OCEO2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14138}
}
read the original abstract

Spiking Neural Networks (SNNs) are computational models inspired by the structure and dynamics of biological neuronal networks. Their event-driven nature enables them to achieve high energy efficiency, particularly when deployed on neuromorphic hardware platforms. Unlike conventional Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs), which primarily rely on layered architectures, SNNs naturally support a wide range of connectivity patterns, from traditional layered structures to small-world graphs characterized by locally dense and globally sparse connections. In this work, we introduce NeuroCoreX, an FPGA-based emulator designed for the flexible co-design and testing of SNNs. NeuroCoreX supports all-to-all connectivity, providing the capability to implement diverse network topologies without architectural restrictions. It features a biologically motivated local learning mechanism based on Spike-Timing-Dependent Plasticity (STDP). The neuron model implemented within NeuroCoreX is the Leaky Integrate-and-Fire (LIF) model, with current-based synapses facilitating spike integration and transmission . A Universal Asynchronous Receiver-Transmitter (UART) interface is provided for programming and configuring the network parameters, including neuron, synapse, and learning rule settings. Users interact with the emulator through a simple Python-based interface, streamlining SNN deployment from model design to hardware execution. NeuroCoreX is released as an open-source framework, aiming to accelerate research and development in energy-efficient, biologically inspired computing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14138 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a). Block diagram of our FPGA based NeuroCoreX, (b). Feedforward [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Simplified STDP learning rule implemented on NeuroCoreX. (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Membrane potential trace of a selected neuron, recorded from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Heat-map of the trained weights from all the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. AIGOR: A Modular, Event-Driven Neuromorphic Architecture for Configurable SNN Inference

    cs.AR 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    AIGOR generates modular, timestep-synchronized FPGA SNN cores from a declarative spec and matches snnTorch accuracy and NEST spike patterns on the same Versal cores across two FPGAs.

  2. SuperNeuroMAT: An Efficient Matrix-based Simulator for Spiking Neural Networks

    cs.NE 2026-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper presents SuperNeuroMAT, an open-source CPU SNN simulator whose matrix-based LIF update with dense and sparse modes outperforms four established simulators in runtime and memory across most tested network sizes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [23]

    An fpga-based neuromorphic processor with all-to-all connectivity

    Disha Maheshwari, Aaron Young, Prasanna Date, Shruti Kulkarni, Brett Witherspoon, and Narsinga Rao Miniskar. An fpga-based neuromorphic processor with all-to-all connectivity. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Rebooting Computing (ICRC) , pages 1–5. IEEE, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    A review of non-cognitive applications for neuromorphic computing

    James B Aimone, Prasanna Date, Gabriel A Fonseca-Guerra, Kathleen E Hamilton, Kyle Henke, Bill Kay, Garrett T Kenyon, Shruti R Kulkarni, Susan M Mniszewski, Maryam Parsa, et al. A review of non-cognitive applications for neuromorphic computing. Neuromorphic Computing and Engineering, 2(3):032003, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [2]

    Alpaydin and C

    E. Alpaydin and C. Kaynak. Optical Recognition of Handwrit- ten Digits. UCI Machine Learning Repository, 1998. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C50P49

    doi:10.24432/c50p49 1998

  4. [3]

    Neurogrid simulates cortical cell-types, active dendrites, and top-down attention

    Ben Varkey Benjamin, Nicholas A Steinmetz, Nick N Oza, Jose J Aguayo, and Kwabena Boahen. Neurogrid simulates cortical cell-types, active dendrites, and top-down attention. Neuromorphic Computing and Engineering, 1(1):013001, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [4]

    Citeseer x: A scholarly big dataset

    Cornelia Caragea, Jian Wu, Alina Ciobanu, Kyle Williams, Juan Fern´andez-Ram´ırez, Hung-Hsuan Chen, Zhaohui Wu, and Lee Giles. Citeseer x: A scholarly big dataset. In Advances in Information Retrieval: 36th European Conference on IR Research, ECIR 2014, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, April 13-16, 2014. Proceedings 36 , pages 311–322. Springer, 2014

    work page 2014

  6. [5]

    A combi- national digital logic approach to stdp

    Andrew Cassidy, Andreas G Andreou, and Julius Georgiou. A combi- national digital logic approach to stdp. In 2011 IEEE international Symposium of Circuits and Systems (ISCAS) , pages 673–676. IEEE, 2011

    work page 2011

  7. [6]

    Hyperparameter optimization and feature inclusion in graph neural networks for spiking implementation

    Guojing Cong, Shruti Kulkarni, Seung-Hwan Lim, Prasanna Date, Shay Snyder, Maryam Parsa, Dominic Kennedy, and Catherine Schuman. Hyperparameter optimization and feature inclusion in graph neural networks for spiking implementation. In 2023 International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA) , pages 1541–1546. IEEE, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [7]

    Semi-supervised graph structure learning on neuromorphic computers

    Guojing Cong, Seung-Hwan Lim, Shruti Kulkarni, Prasanna Date, Thomas Potok, Shay Snyder, Maryam Parsa, and Catherine Schuman. Semi-supervised graph structure learning on neuromorphic computers. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Neuromorphic Sys- tems 2022, pages 1–4, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 34 references
  1. [8]

    Kulkarni, Robert Patton, Mark Coletti, and Thomas Potok

    Prasanna Date, Chathika Gunaratne, Shruti R. Kulkarni, Robert Patton, Mark Coletti, and Thomas Potok. Superneuro: A fast and scalable simulator for neuromorphic computing. In Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Neuromorphic Systems , pages 1–4, 2023

    2023

  2. [9]

    Computational complexity of neuromorphic algorithms

    Prasanna Date, Bill Kay, Catherine Schuman, Robert Patton, and Thomas Potok. Computational complexity of neuromorphic algorithms. In International Conference on Neuromorphic Systems 2021 , pages 1–7, 2021

    2021

  3. [10]

    Encoding integers and rationals on neuromorphic computers using virtual neuron

    Prasanna Date, Shruti Kulkarni, Aaron Young, Catherine Schuman, Thomas Potok, and Jeffrey Vetter. Encoding integers and rationals on neuromorphic computers using virtual neuron. Scientific Reports , 13(1):10975, 2023

    2023

  4. [11]

    Virtual neuron: A neuromorphic approach for encoding numbers

    Prasanna Date, Shruti Kulkarni, Aaron Young, Catherine Schuman, Thomas Potok, and Jeffrey S Vetter. Virtual neuron: A neuromorphic approach for encoding numbers. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Rebooting Computing (ICRC) , pages 100–105. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  5. [12]

    Neuromorphic computing is turing-complete

    Prasanna Date, Thomas Potok, Catherine Schuman, and Bill Kay. Neuromorphic computing is turing-complete. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Neuromorphic Systems 2022 , pages 1–10, 2022

    2022

  6. [13]

    Loihi: A neuromorphic manycore processor with on-chip learning

    Mike Davies, Narayan Srinivasa, Tsung-Han Lin, Gautham Chinya, Yongqiang Cao, Sri Harsha Choday, Georgios Dimou, Prasad Joshi, Nabil Imam, Shweta Jain, et al. Loihi: A neuromorphic manycore processor with on-chip learning. Ieee Micro, 38(1):82–99, 2018

    2018

  7. [14]

    Neuromodulated spike-timing- dependent plasticity, and theory of three-factor learning rules

    Nicolas Fr ´emaux and Wulfram Gerstner. Neuromodulated spike-timing- dependent plasticity, and theory of three-factor learning rules. Frontiers in neural circuits , 9:85, 2016

    2016

  8. [15]

    An adaptive stdp learning rule for neuromorphic systems

    Ashish Gautam and Takashi Kohno. An adaptive stdp learning rule for neuromorphic systems. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 15:741116, 2021

    2021

  9. [16]

    A conductance-based silicon synapse circuit

    Ashish Gautam and Takashi Kohno. A conductance-based silicon synapse circuit. Biomimetics, 7(4):246, 2022

    2022

  10. [17]

    Adaptive stdp-based on-chip spike pattern detection

    Ashish Gautam and Takashi Kohno. Adaptive stdp-based on-chip spike pattern detection. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 17, 2023

    2023

  11. [18]

    A suppression-based stdp rule resilient to jitter noise in spike patterns for neuromorphic computing

    Ashish Gautam, Takashi Kohno, Prasanna Date, Robert Patton, and Thomas Potok. A suppression-based stdp rule resilient to jitter noise in spike patterns for neuromorphic computing. In 2024 International Conference on Neuromorphic Systems (ICONS) , pages 209–216. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  12. [19]

    Time structure of the activity in neural network models

    Wulfram Gerstner. Time structure of the activity in neural network models. Physical review E , 51(1):738, 1995

    1995

  13. [20]

    Kulkarni, Aaron Young, Prasanna Date, Narasinga Rao Miniskar, Jeffrey Vetter, Farah Fahim, Benjamin Parpillon, Jennet Dickinson, Nhan Tran, Jieun Yoo, et al

    Shruti R. Kulkarni, Aaron Young, Prasanna Date, Narasinga Rao Miniskar, Jeffrey Vetter, Farah Fahim, Benjamin Parpillon, Jennet Dickinson, Nhan Tran, Jieun Yoo, et al. On-sensor data filtering using neuromorphic computing for high energy physics experiments. In Proceedings of ...

    2023

  14. [21]

    Bram efficient multi-ported memory on fpga

    Jiun-Liang Lin and Bo-Cheng Charles Lai. Bram efficient multi-ported memory on fpga. In VLSI Design, Automation and Test (VLSI-DAT) , pages 1–4. IEEE, 2015

    2015

  15. [22]

    Fpga-nhap: A general fpga-based neuromorphic hardware acceleration platform with high speed and low power

    Yijun Liu, Yuehai Chen, Wujian Ye, and Yu Gui. Fpga-nhap: A general fpga-based neuromorphic hardware acceleration platform with high speed and low power. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers, 69(6):2553–2566, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Regulation of synaptic efficacy by coincidence of postsynaptic aps and epsps

    Henry Markram, Joachim L ¨ubke, Michael Frotscher, and Bert Sakmann. Regulation of synaptic efficacy by coincidence of postsynaptic aps and epsps. Science, 275(5297):213–215, 1997

    1997

  17. [25]

    Neuromorphic computing for the masses

    Shadi Matinizadeh, Arghavan Mohammadhassani, Noah Pacik-Nelson, Ioannis Polykretis, Krupa Tishbi, Suman Kumar, ML Varshika, Ab- hishek Kumar Mishra, Nagarajan Kandasamy, James Shackleford, et al. Neuromorphic computing for the masses. In 2024 International Con- ference on Neur...

    2024

  18. [26]

    Spinnaker 2: A 10 million core processor system for brain simulation and machine learning

    Christian Mayr, Sebastian Hoeppner, and Steve Furber. Spinnaker 2: A 10 million core processor system for brain simulation and machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.02385 , 2019

    1911 arXiv

  19. [27]

    A million spiking-neuron integrated circuit with a scalable communication network and interface

    Paul A Merolla, John V Arthur, Rodrigo Alvarez-Icaza, Andrew S Cassidy, Jun Sawada, Filipp Akopyan, Bryan L Jackson, Nabil Imam, Chen Guo, Yutaka Nakamura, et al. A million spiking-neuron integrated circuit with a scalable communication network and interface. Science, 345(6197...

    2014

  20. [28]

    Neuro-spark: A submicrosecond spiking neural networks architecture for in-sensor filtering

    Narsinga Rao Miniskar, Aaron R Young, Kazi Asifuzzaman, Shruti Kulkarni, Prasanna Date, Alice Bean, and Jeffrey S Vetter. Neuro-spark: A submicrosecond spiking neural networks architecture for in-sensor filtering. In 2024 International Conference on Neuromorphic Systems (ICONS...

    2024

  21. [29]

    Caspian: A neuromorphic development platform

    J Parker Mitchell, Catherine D Schuman, Robert M Patton, and Thomas E Potok. Caspian: A neuromorphic development platform. In Proceedings of the 2020 Annual Neuro-Inspired Computational Elements Workshop, pages 1–6, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    Neuromorphic computing for scientific applications

    Robert Patton, Prasanna Date, Shruti Kulkarni, Chathika Gunaratne, Seung-Hwan Lim, Guojing Cong, Steven R Young, Mark Coletti, Thomas E Potok, and Catherine D Schuman. Neuromorphic computing for scientific applications. In 2022 IEEE/ACM Redefining Scalability for Diversely Het...

    2022

  23. [31]

    Sparse binary matrix-vector multiplication on neuromorphic computers

    Catherine D Schuman, Bill Kay, Prasanna Date, Ramakrishnan Kan- nan, Piyush Sao, and Thomas E Potok. Sparse binary matrix-vector multiplication on neuromorphic computers. In 2021 IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium Workshops (IPDPSW) , pages 308–31...

    2021

  24. [32]

    Brian 2, an intuitive and efficient neural simulator

    Marcel Stimberg, Romain Brette, and Dan FM Goodman. Brian 2, an intuitive and efficient neural simulator. elife, 8:e47314, 2019

    2019

  25. [33]

    A quarter of a century of neuromorphic architectures on fpgas–an overview

    Wiktor J Szczerek and Artur Podobas. A quarter of a century of neuromorphic architectures on fpgas–an overview. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.20415, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Arithmetic primitives for efficient neuromor- phic computing

    Ahna Wurm, Rebecca Seay, Prasanna Date, Shruti Kulkarni, Aaron Young, and Jeffrey Vetter. Arithmetic primitives for efficient neuromor- phic computing. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Rebooting Computing (ICRC), pages 1–5. IEEE, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.