pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.07722 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-08 · 💻 cs.ET · cs.AR· cs.CE

Recognition: no theorem link

Post-Moore Technologies for Plasma Simulation: A Community Roadmap

Ales Podolnik, David Tskhakaya, Erik M. {\AA}sgrim, Erwin Laure, Etienne Renault, Felix Jung, Filippo Mantovani, Frank Jenko, Jeremy J. Williams, Julian Lenz, Kallia Chronaki, Leon Kos, Luca Pennati, Marta Garcia-Gasulla, Martin Schulz, Michael Bussmann, Minna Palmroth, Stefan Costea, Stefano Markidis, Tapish Narwal, Urs Ganse, Valentin Seitz, Vassilis Papaefstathiou, Yi Ju

Pith reviewed 2026-05-11 02:36 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.ET cs.ARcs.CE
keywords plasma simulationpost-Moore computingFPGA acceleratorsnon-von Neumann architecturesquantum computingparticle-in-cellgyrokinetic methodshigh-performance computing
0
0 comments X

The pith

No single post-Moore technology replaces HPC for plasma simulations; three tiers of opportunity emerge instead.

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

The paper establishes that plasma simulations, which combine high-dimensional particle evolution, field solves, and heavy data movement, face growing limits from slowing general-purpose processor scaling. A co-design review of reconfigurable accelerators, non-von Neumann architectures, and quantum computing against workloads such as particle-in-cell, gyrokinetic, and warm dense matter methods shows that each class fits a different time scale and problem type. A sympathetic reader cares because these simulations drive fusion energy research, space weather forecasting, and materials design, and continued progress requires addressing power and memory bottlenecks without discarding existing platforms. The work therefore recommends selective adoption supported by shared demonstrators and benchmarks rather than wholesale replacement.

Core claim

No single technology can replace existing HPC platforms. Instead, three tiers of opportunity emerge: FPGA-class and data-path accelerators offer near-term kernel offload and workflow-level data services, non-von Neumann architectures represent medium-term directions for operator-level acceleration, and quantum computing, although the least mature, is potentially the most disruptive for warm dense matter and inertial confinement fusion microphysics. The paper outlines best practices for selective adoption and identifies focused demonstrators, benchmarking, and modular software ecosystems as immediate community priorities.

What carries the argument

The tiered classification of post-Moore technologies, produced by co-design evaluation against representative plasma workloads that include particle-in-cell, continuum Vlasov, gyrokinetic, fluid/MHD, hybrid, and warm dense matter methods.

If this is right

  • FPGA-class and data-path accelerators can deliver near-term gains by offloading kernels and handling workflow data movement in existing plasma codes.
  • Non-von Neumann architectures can target operator-level acceleration in the medium term for specific parts of kinetic and fluid models.
  • Quantum computing holds potential for large speedups in warm dense matter and inertial confinement fusion microphysics once hardware matures.
  • Hybrid HPC systems will remain necessary, with new technologies integrated selectively rather than as full replacements.
  • Community priorities should include modular software interfaces, focused hardware demonstrators, and standardized benchmarks to guide adoption.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Plasma codes written with clear separation between kernels, operators, and data services would be easier to port across the three technology tiers as each matures.
  • Investment in quantum prototypes for warm dense matter problems could accelerate progress in inertial confinement fusion modeling if the hardware roadmap aligns with the paper's timeline.
  • The same tiered evaluation method could be applied to related high-dimensional workloads such as astrophysical hydrodynamics or climate modeling to identify cross-domain accelerator opportunities.
  • Empirical results from the recommended demonstrators would allow the community to update the tier assignments as hardware capabilities evolve.

Load-bearing premise

The qualitative assessments of each technology class against representative plasma workloads accurately reflect current capabilities and future trajectories.

What would settle it

A side-by-side performance measurement on a full-scale plasma workload that shows one technology class, such as quantum hardware, delivering sustained order-of-magnitude gains over classical HPC across multiple simulation types would undermine the claim that no single replacement exists.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.07722 by Ales Podolnik, David Tskhakaya, Erik M. {\AA}sgrim, Erwin Laure, Etienne Renault, Felix Jung, Filippo Mantovani, Frank Jenko, Jeremy J. Williams, Julian Lenz, Kallia Chronaki, Leon Kos, Luca Pennati, Marta Garcia-Gasulla, Martin Schulz, Michael Bussmann, Minna Palmroth, Stefan Costea, Stefano Markidis, Tapish Narwal, Urs Ganse, Valentin Seitz, Vassilis Papaefstathiou, Yi Ju.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Representative mapping between plasma/WDM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Plasma simulations are among the most computationally demanding scientific workloads, combining high-dimensional kinetic evolution, particle-mesh coupling, field solves, and data-intensive communication. As general-purpose processor scaling slows, post-Moore technologies are being explored to address bottlenecks in data movement, memory access, and power consumption. This paper provides a community perspective on the role of these technologies in plasma simulation, assessing three major classes: reconfigurable and data-path accelerators, non-von Neumann architectures, and quantum computing. Each is evaluated, in a co-design approach, against representative plasma workloads spanning particle-in-cell, continuum Vlasov, gyrokinetic, fluid/MHD, hybrid, and warm dense matter methods. We find that no single technology can replace existing HPC platforms. Instead, three tiers of opportunity emerge: FPGA-class and data-path accelerators offer near-term kernel offload and workflow-level data services, non-von Neumann architectures represent medium-term directions for operator-level acceleration, and quantum computing, although the least mature, is potentially the most disruptive for warm dense matter and inertial confinement fusion microphysics. We outline best practices for selective adoption and identify focused demonstrators, benchmarking, and modular software ecosystems as immediate community priorities.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a community perspective and roadmap on post-Moore technologies for plasma simulation. It assesses three technology classes—reconfigurable and data-path accelerators, non-von Neumann architectures, and quantum computing—via a co-design approach against representative workloads (particle-in-cell, continuum Vlasov, gyrokinetic, fluid/MHD, hybrid, and warm dense matter methods). The central claim is that no single post-Moore technology replaces existing HPC platforms; instead, opportunities form three tiers: near-term kernel offload and workflow data services from FPGA-class accelerators, medium-term operator-level acceleration from non-von Neumann architectures, and long-term disruptive potential from quantum computing for warm dense matter and inertial confinement fusion microphysics. The paper outlines best practices for selective adoption along with priorities for demonstrators, benchmarking, and modular software ecosystems.

Significance. If the qualitative assessments hold, the paper provides a timely, structured framework to guide the plasma simulation community through the post-Moore era by emphasizing complementary rather than replacement roles for emerging hardware. The co-design evaluations against concrete workloads and the explicit call for community benchmarks and demonstrators are strengths that can promote coordinated, evidence-based adoption and reduce duplication of effort. This roadmap can help align research priorities, funding, and software development with realistic integration paths for high-dimensional kinetic simulations.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract: the central claim that 'no single technology can replace existing HPC platforms' underpins the entire three-tier structure, yet the abstract supplies no concrete examples of current HPC bottlenecks (such as data-movement costs in PIC or memory-access patterns in Vlasov solvers) that the evaluations are said to reveal; the body must supply these to make the tier assignments reproducible rather than purely synthetic.
  2. The weakest assumption identified in the review—that the qualitative technology assessments accurately reflect current capabilities and trajectories—is load-bearing for the tier rankings; without explicit criteria, reference benchmarks, or sensitivity analysis in the evaluation sections, the assignment of quantum computing to the 'most disruptive' long-term tier for WDM/ICF remains difficult to falsify or update as hardware evolves.
minor comments (3)
  1. Abstract: the phrase 'we find' suggests a consensus result; the manuscript should briefly state how the assessments were synthesized (e.g., expert workshop, literature survey, or author consensus) to clarify the evidential basis for readers.
  2. Terminology: 'data-path accelerators' and 'operator-level acceleration' appear without initial definitions or examples; adding one-sentence clarifications on first use would improve accessibility for the broad plasma-physics audience.
  3. The call for 'modular software ecosystems' is appropriate but would be strengthened by citing at least one existing framework (e.g., a current PIC or gyrokinetic code base) that could serve as a starting point for the recommended demonstrators.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed review of our community roadmap. The comments help clarify how to strengthen the presentation of our qualitative assessments and the linkage between bottlenecks and tier assignments. We respond to each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract: the central claim that 'no single technology can replace existing HPC platforms' underpins the entire three-tier structure, yet the abstract supplies no concrete examples of current HPC bottlenecks (such as data-movement costs in PIC or memory-access patterns in Vlasov solvers) that the evaluations are said to reveal; the body must supply these to make the tier assignments reproducible rather than purely synthetic.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would be improved by briefly referencing concrete HPC bottlenecks to ground the central claim. The body of the manuscript already supplies these details within the co-design evaluations for each workload (particle-in-cell, continuum Vlasov, etc.), explicitly discussing issues such as data-movement costs in PIC methods and memory-access patterns in Vlasov solvers. To address the concern directly, we will revise the abstract to include one or two such examples and will add explicit cross-references in the evaluation sections that map the identified bottlenecks to the resulting tier assignments. This will make the reasoning chain more transparent and reproducible. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The weakest assumption identified in the review—that the qualitative technology assessments accurately reflect current capabilities and trajectories—is load-bearing for the tier rankings; without explicit criteria, reference benchmarks, or sensitivity analysis in the evaluation sections, the assignment of quantum computing to the 'most disruptive' long-term tier for WDM/ICF remains difficult to falsify or update as hardware evolves.

    Authors: The assessments are qualitative and rest on the collective expertise of the community contributors together with published literature on technology status and workload characteristics. As a roadmap perspective paper, the manuscript does not contain new quantitative benchmarks or formal sensitivity analyses. We accept that making the evaluation criteria more explicit will strengthen the work. In revision we will add a short subsection that states the criteria applied (technology maturity, fit to high-dimensional kinetic and data-intensive workloads, power and data-movement implications), cites relevant existing benchmarks, and discusses how the tier assignments, including the long-term placement of quantum computing for WDM/ICF microphysics, could be updated as hardware evolves. We will also reinforce the paper’s existing call for community benchmarks and demonstrators. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; self-contained qualitative roadmap

full rationale

The paper is a community perspective and roadmap synthesizing expert assessments of post-Moore technologies (FPGA/data-path accelerators, non-von Neumann architectures, quantum computing) against plasma workloads (PIC, Vlasov, gyrokinetic, fluid/MHD, hybrid, WDM). It presents no mathematical derivations, equations, fitted parameters, or quantitative predictions. Central claims about three tiers of opportunity are explicitly qualitative and forward-looking, with no steps that reduce by construction to inputs, self-citations, or ansatzes. The assessments are presented as synthesized opinions rather than falsifiable results derived from prior self-referential work, making the document self-contained without circular load-bearing elements.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on established domain knowledge in plasma physics and computer architecture without introducing new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities. Its claims are based on qualitative assessment of existing technologies.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5606 in / 1332 out tokens · 56129 ms · 2026-05-11T02:36:38.521728+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

124 extracted references · 124 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Daniel S. Abrams. 1999. Quantum Algorithm Providing Exponential Speed Increase for Finding Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors.Physical Review Letters83, 24 (1999), 5162–5165. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.5162

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.83.5162 1999

  2. [2]

    Maxwell Aifer, Kaelan Donatella, Max Hunter Gordon, Samuel Duffield, Thomas Ahle, Daniel Simpson, Gavin Crooks, and Patrick J. Coles. 2024. Thermodynamic linear algebra.npj Unconventional Computing1, 1 (05 Nov 2024), 13. doi:10. 1038/s44335-024-00014-0

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Maxwell Aifer, Samuel Duffield, Kaelan Donatella, Denis Melanson, Phoebe Klett, Zach Belateche, Gavin Crooks, Antonio J Martinez, and Patrick J Coles

    work page

  4. [4]

    In2024 IEEE International Conference on Rebooting Computing (ICRC)

    Thermodynamic bayesian inference. In2024 IEEE International Conference on Rebooting Computing (ICRC). IEEE, 1–20

    work page

  5. [5]

    Maxwell Aifer, Denis Melanson, Kaelan Donatella, Gavin Crooks, Thomas Ahle, and Patrick J Coles. 2024. Error mitigation for thermodynamic computing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.16231(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    A user’s guide to the encyclopedia of dna elements (encode).PLoS Biology, 9(4):e1001046, 2011

    A. Almomany, M. Sutcu, and B. S. K. S. M. K. Ibrahim. 2024. Accelerating elec- trostatic particle-in-cell simulation: A novel FPGA-based approach for efficient plasma investigations.PLOS ONE19, 6 (2024), e0302578. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0302578

    work page doi:10.1371/journal 2024

  7. [7]

    Loureiro, and Erika Ye

    Abtin Ameri, Paola Cappellaro, Hari Krovi, Nuno F. Loureiro, and Erika Ye. 2023. Quantum algorithm for the linear Vlasov equation with collisions.Physical Review A107 (2023), 062412. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.107.062412

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.107.062412 2023

  8. [8]

    Erik M Åsgrim, Luca Pennati, Marco Pasquale, and Stefano Markidis. 2026. Tensor Network Compression for Fully Spectral Vlasov-Poisson Simulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.13092(2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    Chandrasekaran, Jean-Marie Bussat, Rodrigo Alvarez-Icaza, John V

    Ben Varkey Benjamin, Peiran Gao, Emmett McQuinn, Swadesh Choudhary, Anand R. Chandrasekaran, Jean-Marie Bussat, Rodrigo Alvarez-Icaza, John V. Arthur, Paul A. Merolla, and Kwabena Boahen. 2014. Neurogrid: A Mixed- Analog-Digital Multichip System for Large-Scale Neural Simulations.Proc. IEEE 102, 5 (2014), 699–716. doi:10.1109/JPROC.2014.2313565

    work page doi:10.1109/jproc.2014.2313565 2014

  10. [10]

    Birdsall and A

    Charles K. Birdsall and A. Bruce Langdon. 1985.Plasma Physics via Computer Simulation. McGraw-Hill, New York. CRC Press reprint available with DOI 10.1201/9781315275048

    work page doi:10.1201/9781315275048 1985

  11. [11]

    Christophe Bobda, Joel Mandebi Mbongue, Paul Chow, Mohammad Ewais, Naif Tarafdar, Juan Camilo Vega, Ken Eguro, Dirk Koch, Suranga Handagala, Miriam Leeser, Martin Herbordt, Hafsah Shahzad, Peter Hofste, Burkhard Ringlein, Jakub Szefer, Ahmed Sanaullah, and Russell Tessier. 2022. The Future of FPGA Acceleration in Datacenters and the Cloud.ACM Trans. Recon...

    work page doi:10.1145/3506713 2022

  12. [12]

    Ab initio simulation of warm dense matter,

    M. Bonitz, T. Dornheim, Zh. A. Moldabekov, S. Zhang, P. Hamann, H. Kählert, A. Filinov, K. Ramakrishna, and J. Vorberger. 2020. Ab initio simulation of warm dense matter.Physics of Plasmas27, 4 (04 2020), 042710. doi:10.1063/1.5143225

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5143225 2020

  13. [13]

    High precision analytical description of the allowed beta spectrum shape

    Alain J. Brizard and T. S. Hahm. 2007. Foundations of nonlinear gyrokinetic the- ory.Reviews of Modern Physics79, 2 (2007), 421–468. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys. 79.421

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys 2007

  14. [14]

    Bussmann, H

    M. Bussmann, H. Burau, T. E. Cowan, A. Debus, A. Huebl, G. Juckeland, T. Kluge, W. E. Nagel, R. Pausch, F. Schmitt, U. Schramm, J. Schuchart, and R. Widera

    work page

  15. [15]

    J., Adams, N

    Radiative Signatures of the Relativistic Kelvin-Helmholtz Instability. In Proceedings of the International Conference on High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis(Denver, Colorado)(SC ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 5, 12 pages. doi:10.1145/2503210.2504564

    work page doi:10.1145/2503210.2504564

  16. [16]

    P. J. Carvalho, H. Thomsen, R. Coelho, P. Duarte, C. Silva, and H. Fernandes. 2010. ISTTOK plasma control with the tomography diagnostic.Fusion Engineering and Design85, 2 (2010), 266–271. doi:10.1016/j.fusengdes.2010.02.018

    work page doi:10.1016/j.fusengdes.2010.02.018 2010

  17. [17]

    D. M. Ceperley. 1995. Path integrals in the theory of condensed helium.Rev. Mod. Phys.67 (Apr 1995), 279–355. Issue 2. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.67.279

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.67.279 1995

  18. [18]

    Chi-Fang Chen, Michael Kastoryano, Fernando G. S. L. Brandão, and András Gilyén. 2025. Efficient quantum thermal simulation.Nature646, 8085 (2025), 561–566. doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09583-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09583-x 2025

  19. [19]

    Minjia Chen, Yizhi Wang, Chunhui Yao, Adrian Wonfor, Shuai Yang, Richard Penty, and Qixiang Cheng. 2024. I/O-efficient iterative matrix inversion with photonic integrated circuits.Nature Communications15, 1 (15 Jul 2024), 5926. doi:10.1038/s41467-024-50302-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-024-50302-3 2024

  20. [20]

    Gombosi, James A

    Yuxi Chen, Gábor Tóth, Paul Cassak, Xianzhe Jia, Tamas I. Gombosi, James A. Slavin, Stefano Markidis, Ivy Bo Peng, Vania K. Jordanova, and Michael G. Henderson. 2017. Global Three-Dimensional Simulation of Earth’s Dayside Reconnection Using a Two-Way Coupled Magnetohydrodynamics With Em- bedded Particle-in-Cell Model: Initial Results.Journal of Geophysica...

    work page doi:10.1002/2017ja024186 2017

  21. [21]

    C.Z Cheng and Georg Knorr. 1976. The integration of the vlasov equation in configuration space.J. Comput. Phys.22, 3 (1976), 330–351. doi:10.1016/0021- 9991(76)90053-X

    work page doi:10.1016/0021- 1976

  22. [22]

    Tom Conte, Erik DeBenedictis, Natesh Ganesh, Todd Hylton, John Paul Stra- chan, R Stanley Williams, Alexander Alemi, Lee Altenberg, Gavin Crooks, James Crutchfield, et al . 2019. Thermodynamic computing.arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.01968(2019)

    work page arXiv 2019

  23. [23]

    J. P. Couperus, R. Pausch, A. Köhler, O. Zarini, J. M. Krämer, M. Garten, A. Huebl, R. Gebhardt, U. Helbig, S. Bock, K. Zeil, A. Debus, M. Bussmann, U. Schramm, and A. Irman. 2017. Demonstration of a beam loaded nanocoulomb- class laser wakefield accelerator.Nature Communications8, 1 (08 Sep 2017), 487. doi:10.1038/s41467-017-00592-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-017-00592-7 2017

  24. [24]

    Nicolas Crouseilles, Lukas Einkemmer, and Martina Prugger. 2018. An exponen- tial integrator for the drift-kinetic model.Computer Physics Communications 224 (2018), 144–153. doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2017.11.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2017.11.003 2018

  25. [25]

    Lars K. S. Daldorff, Gábor Tóth, Tamas I. Gombosi, Giovanni Lapenta, Jorge Amaya, Stefano Markidis, and Jeremiah U. Brackbill. 2014. Two-way coupling of a global Hall magnetohydrodynamics model with a local implicit particle-in-cell model.J. Comput. Phys.268 (2014), 236–254. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2014.03.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2014.03.009 2014

  26. [26]

    Fonseca Guerra, Prasad Joshi, Philipp Plank, and Sumedh R

    Mike Davies, Andreas Wild, Garrick Orchard, Yulia Sandamirskaya, Gabriel A. Fonseca Guerra, Prasad Joshi, Philipp Plank, and Sumedh R. Risbud. 2021. Advancing Neuromorphic Computing With Loihi: A Survey of Results and Outlook.Proc. IEEE109, 5 (2021), 911–934. doi:10.1109/JPROC.2021.3067593

    work page doi:10.1109/jproc.2021.3067593 2021

  27. [27]

    Di Siena, C

    A. Di Siena, C. Bourdelle, A. Bañón Navarro, G. Merlo, T. Görler, E. Fransson, A. Polevoi, S.H. Kim, F. Koechl, A. Loarte, E. Fable, C. Angioni, P. Mantica, and F. Jenko. 2026. First global gyrokinetic profile predictions of ITER burning plasma. Nuclear Fusion66, 4 (mar 2026), 046001. doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ae46af

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ae46af 2026

  28. [28]

    A Di Siena, W Zholobenko, D Silvagni, D Brida, F Jenko, and ASDEX Upgrade Team. 2026. Full-device turbulence simulations with core-edge coupling.Nuclear Fusion66, 1 (2026), 014001. doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ae1a98

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ae1a98 2026

  29. [29]

    Dimarco, Q

    G. Dimarco, Q. Li, L. Pareschi, and B. Yan. 2015. Numerical methods for plasma physics in collisional regimes.Journal of Plasma Physics81, 1 (2015), 305810106. doi:10.1017/S0022377814000762

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022377814000762 2015

  30. [30]

    Samuel Duffield, Maxwell Aifer, Gavin Crooks, Thomas Ahle, and Patrick J. Coles

    work page

  31. [31]

    Thermodynamic matrix exponentials and thermodynamic parallelism. Phys. Rev. Res.7 (Feb 2025), 013147. Issue 1. doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.7. 013147

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.7 2025

  32. [32]

    Lukas Einkemmer, Mayya Tokman, and John Loffeld. 2017. On the performance of exponential integrators for problems in magnetohydrodynamics.J. Comput. Phys.330 (2017), 550–565. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2016.11.027

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2016.11.027 2017

  33. [33]

    Alexander Engel, Graeme Smith, and Scott E. Parker. 2019. Quantum Algorithm for the Vlasov Equation.Physical Review A100 (2019), 062315. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevA.100.062315

    work page 2019

  34. [34]

    E. A. Frieman and Liu Chen. 1982. Nonlinear gyrokinetic equations for low- frequency electromagnetic waves in general plasma equilibria.Physics of Fluids 25, 3 (1982), 502–508. doi:10.1063/1.863762

    work page doi:10.1063/1.863762 1982

  35. [35]

    Urs Ganse, Tuomas Koskela, Markus Battarbee, Yann Pfau-Kempf, Konstantinos Papadakis, Markku Alho, Maarja Bussov, Giulia Cozzani, Maxime Dubart, Har- riet George, Evgeny Gordeev, Maxime Grandin, Konstantinos Horaites, Jonas Suni, Vertti Tarvus, Fasil Tesema Kebede, Lucile Turc, Hongyang Zhou, and Minna Palmroth. 2023. Enabling technology for global 3D + 3...

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0134387 2023

  36. [36]

    Germaschewski, B

    K. Germaschewski, B. Allen, T. Dannert, M. Hrywniak, J. Donaghy, G. Merlo, S. Ethier, E. D’Azevedo, F. Jenko, and A. Bhattacharjee. 2021. Toward exas- cale whole-device modeling of fusion devices: Porting the GENE gyrokinetic microturbulence code to GPU.Physics of Plasmas28, 6 (06 2021), 062501. doi:10.1063/5.0046327

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0046327 2021

  37. [37]

    András Gilyén, Yuan Su, Guang Hao Low, and Nathan Wiebe. 2019. Quan- tum singular value transformation and beyond: exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics. InProceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2019). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 193–204. doi:10.1145/3313276.3316366

    work page doi:10.1145/3313276.3316366 2019

  38. [38]

    Goldston

    Robert J. Goldston. 1995.Introduction to Plasma Physics(1 ed.). CRC Press. doi:10.1201/9780367806958

    work page doi:10.1201/9780367806958 1995

  39. [39]

    Nicolas Lee Guidotti. 2025. Accelerating Particle-Mesh Algorithms with FPGAs and OmpSs@OpenCL. arXiv:2501.14795. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2501.14795

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.14795 2025

  40. [40]

    Sujal Gupta and Jolly Xavier. 2025. Neuromorphic Photonic On-Chip Computing. Chips4, 3 (2025). doi:10.3390/chips4030034

    work page doi:10.3390/chips4030034 2025

  41. [41]

    J. M. Hanson, A. J. Klein, M. E. Mauel, D. A. Maurer, G. A. Navratil, and T. Sunn Pedersen. 2009. A digital control system for external magnetohydrodynamic modes in tokamak plasmas.Review of Scientific Instruments80, 4 (04 2009), 043503. doi:10.1063/1.3112607

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3112607 2009

  42. [42]

    Williams, Ivy Peng, and Stefano Markidis

    Pratibha Raghupati Hegde, Paolo Marcandelli, Yuanchun He, Luca Pennati, Jeremy J. Williams, Ivy Peng, and Stefano Markidis. 2026. A hybrid quantum- classical particle-in-cell method for plasma simulations.Future Generation Computer Systems175 (2026), 108087. doi:10.1016/j.future.2025.108087

    work page doi:10.1016/j.future.2025.108087 2026

  43. [43]

    Hayato Higuchi, Juan William Pedersen, Kiichiro Toyoizumi, Kohji Yoshikawa, Chusei Kiumi, and Akimasa Yoshikawa. 2025. Quantum calculation for two- stream instability and advection test of Vlasov–Maxwell equations: numerical evaluation of Hamiltonian simulation.Journal of Plasma Physics91, 4 (2025), E116. doi:10.1017/S0022377825100500

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022377825100500 2025

  44. [44]

    R. W. Hockney and J. W. Eastwood. 1988.Computer Simulation Using Particles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. doi:10.1201/9781439822050 Often cited by original publication year; DOI corresponds to CRC/T&F electronic edition. NextAccel’26, July 06, 2026, Belfast, UK Pennati et al

    work page doi:10.1201/9781439822050 1988

  45. [45]

    Shiyue Hua, Erwan Divita, Shanshan Yu, Bo Peng, Charles Roques-Carmes, Zhan Su, Zhang Chen, Yanfei Bai, Jinghui Zou, Yunpeng Zhu, Yelong Xu, Cheng-kuan Lu, Yuemiao Di, Hui Chen, Lushan Jiang, Lijie Wang, Longwu Ou, Chaohong Zhang, Junjie Chen, Wen Zhang, Hongyan Zhu, Weijun Kuang, Long Wang, Huaiyu Meng, Maurice Steinman, and Yichen Shen. 2025. An integra...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-025-08786-6 2025

  46. [46]

    In: 2025 IEEE 64th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC)

    L.L.T.C. Jansen, E. Petri, M. van Berkel, and W.P.M.H. Heemels. 2025. Nuclear fusion plasma fuelling with ice pellets using a neuromorphic controller. In 2025 IEEE 64th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). 45–50. doi:10.1109/ CDC57313.2025.11312112

    work page arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Jenko, W

    F. Jenko, W. Dorland, M. Kotschenreuther, and B. N. Rogers. 2000. Electron temperature gradient driven turbulence.Physics of Plasmas7, 5 (05 2000), 1904–1910. doi:10.1063/1.874014

    work page doi:10.1063/1.874014 2000

  48. [48]

    Honglin Jian, Zikui Shen, Lei Deng, Jun Wang, and Xilin Wang. 2025. Dynamic vision sensor enhanced laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy: parameter op- timisation and correction method for improving spectral stability.J. Anal. At. Spectrom.40 (2025), 3530–3540. Issue 12. doi:10.1039/D5JA00318K

    work page doi:10.1039/d5ja00318k 2025

  49. [49]

    Kfoury, Samia Choueiri, Ali Mazloum, Ali AlSabeh, Jose Gomez, and Jorge Crichigno

    Elie F. Kfoury, Samia Choueiri, Ali Mazloum, Ali AlSabeh, Jose Gomez, and Jorge Crichigno. 2024. A Comprehensive Survey on SmartNICs: Architectures, Development Models, Applications, and Research Directions.IEEE Access12 (2024), 107297–107336. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3437203

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2024.3437203 2024

  50. [50]

    Poźniak, Andrzej Wojeński, Paweł Linczuk, Grze- gorz Kasprowicz, Maryna Chernyshova, Didier Mazon, Tomasz Czarski, Julian Colnel, Karol Malinowski, and Denis Guibert

    Piotr Kolasiński, Krzysztof T. Poźniak, Andrzej Wojeński, Paweł Linczuk, Grze- gorz Kasprowicz, Maryna Chernyshova, Didier Mazon, Tomasz Czarski, Julian Colnel, Karol Malinowski, and Denis Guibert. 2023. High-Performance FPGA Streaming Data Concentrator for GEM Electronic Measurement System for WEST Tokamak.Electronics12, 17 (2023). doi:10.3390/electronic...

    work page doi:10.3390/electronics12173649 2023

  51. [51]

    S. E. Kruger, J. Leddy, E. C. Howell, S. Madireddy, C. Akcay, T. Bechtel Amara, J. McClenaghan, L. L. Lao, D. Orozco, S. P. Smith, X. Sun, A. Samaddar, and A.-Y. Pankin. 2024. Thinking Bayesian for plasma physicists.Physics of Plasmas31, 5 (05 2024), 050901. doi:10.1063/5.0205668

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0205668 2024

  52. [52]

    Kutluyarov, Aida G

    Ruslan V. Kutluyarov, Aida G. Zakoyan, Grigory S. Voronkov, Elizaveta P. Grakhova, and Muhammad A. Butt. 2023. Neuromorphic Photonics Circuits: Contemporary Review.Nanomaterials13, 24 (2023). doi:10.3390/nano13243139

    work page doi:10.3390/nano13243139 2023

  53. [53]

    Lavorenti, Federico, Henri, Pierre, Califano, Francesco, Deca, Jan, Lindsay, Simon, Aizawa, Sae, and Benkhoff, Johannes. 2023. Solar-wind electron precipitation on weakly magnetized bodies: The planet Mercury.A&A674 (2023), A153. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245711

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245711 2023

  54. [54]

    Manuel Le Gallo, Abu Sebastian, Roland Mathis, Matteo Manica, Heiner Giefers, Tomas Tuma, Costas Bekas, Alessandro Curioni, and Evangelos Eleftheriou

    work page

  55. [55]

    doi:10.1038/s41928-018-0054-8

    Mixed-precision in-memory computing.Nature Electronics1, 4 (01 Apr 2018), 246–253. doi:10.1038/s41928-018-0054-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41928-018-0054-8 2018

  56. [56]

    Jiancong Li, Sheng guang Ren, Yi Li, Ling Yang, Yinjie Yu, Run Ni, Houji Zhou, Han Bao, Yuhui He, Jia Chen, Han Jia, and Xiangshui Miao. 2023. Sparse matrix multiplication in a record-low power self-rectifying memristor array for scientific computing.Science Advances9, 25 (2023), eadf7474. doi:10.1126/sciadv. adf7474

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv 2023

  57. [57]

    Jiancong Li, Yibai Xue, Yi Li, Han Jia, Zhiwei Zhou, Ling Yang, Shengguang Ren, Jia Chen, Yuhui He, Kanhao Xue, Ming Xu, and Xiangshui Miao. 2025. Fully analog iteration for solving matrix equations with in-memory computing. Science Advances11, 7 (2025), eadr6391. doi:10.1126/sciadv.adr6391

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.adr6391 2025

  58. [58]

    Yuke Li, Arjun Kashyap, Yanfei Guo, and Xiaoyi Lu. 2024. Compression Analysis for BlueField-2/3 Data Processing Units: Lossy and Lossless Perspectives.IEEE Micro44, 2 (2024), 8–19. doi:10.1109/MM.2023.3343636

    work page doi:10.1109/mm.2023.3343636 2024

  59. [59]

    Curry, and Craig Ulmer

    Jianshen Liu, Carlos Maltzahn, Matthew L. Curry, and Craig Ulmer. 2022. Pro- cessing Particle Data Flows with SmartNICs. In2022 IEEE High Performance Ex- treme Computing Conference (HPEC). 1–8. doi:10.1109/HPEC55821.2022.9926325

    work page doi:10.1109/hpec55821.2022.9926325 2022

  60. [60]

    Leibo Liu, Jianfeng Zhu, Zhaoshi Li, Yanan Lu, Yangdong Deng, Jie Han, Shouyi Yin, and Shaojun Wei. 2019. A Survey of Coarse-Grained Reconfigurable Archi- tecture and Design: Taxonomy, Challenges, and Applications.ACM Comput. Surv.52, 6, Article 118 (Oct. 2019), 39 pages. doi:10.1145/3357375

    work page doi:10.1145/3357375 2019

  61. [61]

    Guang Hao Low and Isaac L. Chuang. 2019. Hamiltonian Simulation by Qubiti- zation.Quantum3 (July 2019), 163. doi:10.22331/q-2019-07-12-163

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2019-07-12-163 2019

  62. [62]

    Junichiro Makino, Makoto Taiji, Toshikazu Ebisuzaki, and Daiichiro Sugimoto

    work page

  63. [63]

    GRAPE-4: A Massively Parallel Special-Purpose Computer for Collisional N-Body Simulations.The Astrophysical Journal480, 1 (may 1997), 432. doi:10. 1086/303972

    work page 1997

  64. [64]

    Piergiulio Mannocci, Giacomo Larelli, Marco Bonomi, and Daniele Ielmini

    work page

  65. [65]

    doi:10.1038/s44335-025-00044-2

    Achieving high precision in analog in-memory computing systems.npj Unconventional Computing3, 1 (07 Jan 2026), 1. doi:10.1038/s44335-025-00044-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s44335-025-00044-2 2026

  66. [66]

    Stefano Markidis, Andong Hu, Ivy Peng, Luca Pennati, Ian Lumsden, Dewi Yokelson, Stephanie Brink, Olga Pearce, Thomas RW Scogland, Bronis R de Supinski, et al. 2025. Exascale Implicit Kinetic Plasma Simulations on El˜ Capitan for Solving the Micro-Macro Coupling in Magnetospheric Physics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.20719(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  67. [67]

    Stefano Markidis, Luca Pennati, Gilbert Netzer, Marco Pasquale, and Ivy Peng

    work page

  68. [68]

    InProceedings of the Super- computing Asia and International Conference on High Performance Computing in Asia Pacific Region (SCA/HPCAsia ’26)

    QPU Micro-Kernels for Stencil Computation. InProceedings of the Super- computing Asia and International Conference on High Performance Computing in Asia Pacific Region (SCA/HPCAsia ’26). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 68–80. doi:10.1145/3773656.3773676

    work page doi:10.1145/3773656.3773676

  69. [69]

    C. Mead. 1990. Neuromorphic electronic systems.Proc. IEEE78, 10 (1990), 1629–1636. doi:10.1109/5.58356

    work page doi:10.1109/5.58356 1990

  70. [70]

    Martinez, Faris Sbahi, and Patrick J

    Denis Melanson, Mohammad Abu Khater, Maxwell Aifer, Kaelan Donatella, Max Hunter Gordon, Thomas Ahle, Gavin Crooks, Antonio J. Martinez, Faris Sbahi, and Patrick J. Coles. 2025. Thermodynamic computing system for AI applications.Nature Communications16, 1 (22 Apr 2025), 3757. doi:10.1038/ s41467-025-59011-x

    work page 2025

  71. [71]

    Gabriele Merlo, S Janhunen, F Jenko, A Bhattacharjee, CS Chang, J Cheng, P Davis, J Dominski, K Germaschewski, R Hager, et al. 2021. First coupled GENE– XGC microturbulence simulations.Physics of Plasmas28, 1 (2021). doi:10.1063/ 5.0026661

    work page 2021

  72. [72]

    Ashley Montanaro. 2015. Quantum speedup of Monte Carlo methods.Proceed- ings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences471, 2181 (Sept. 2015), 20150301. doi:10.1098/rspa.2015.0301

    work page doi:10.1098/rspa.2015.0301 2015

  73. [73]

    Saber Moradi, Ning Qiao, Fabio Stefanini, and Giacomo Indiveri. 2018. A Scal- able Multicore Architecture With Heterogeneous Memory Structures for Dy- namic Neuromorphic Asynchronous Processors (DYNAPs).IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Circuits and Systems12, 1 (2018), 106–122. doi:10.1109/TBCAS. 2017.2759700

    work page doi:10.1109/tbcas 2018

  74. [74]

    Koyama, Hao Zhang, Teruhisa S

    Gentaro Morimoto, Yohei M. Koyama, Hao Zhang, Teruhisa S. Komatsu, Yousuke Ohno, Keigo Nishida, Itta Ohmura, Hiroshi Koyama, and Makoto Taiji. 2021. Hardware acceleration of tensor-structured multilevel ewald summation method on MDGRAPE-4A, a special-purpose computer system for molecular dynamics simulations. InProceedings of the International Conference ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3458817.3476190 2021

  75. [75]

    T Nishizawa, S Tokuda, A Sanpei, M Hasegawa, K Yamasaki, and A Fujisawa

    work page

  76. [76]

    doi:10.1088/1361-6587/ad9521

    Equilibrium reconstruction of axisymmetric plasmas by combining Gauss- ian process regression and Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling.Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion67, 1 (nov 2024), 015006. doi:10.1088/1361-6587/ad9521

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6587/ad9521 2024

  77. [77]

    Itta Ohmura, Gentaro Morimoto, Yousuke Ohno, Aki Hasegawa, and Makoto Taiji. 2014. MDGRAPE-4: a special-purpose computer system for molecu- lar dynamics simulations.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences372, 2021 (08 2014), 20130387. doi:10.1098/rsta.2013.0387

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.2013.0387 2014

  78. [78]

    Minna Palmroth, Urs Ganse, Yann Pfau-Kempf, Markus Battarbee, Lucile Turc, Thiago Brito, Maxime Grandin, Sanni Hoilijoki, Arto Sandroos, and Sebastian von Alfthan. 2018. Vlasov methods in space physics and astrophysics.Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics4, 1 (16 Aug 2018), 1. doi:10.1007/s41115- 018-0003-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s41115- 2018

  79. [79]

    Andersson, Klaus Steiniger, René Widera, Tapish Narwal, Michael Bussmann, and Stefano Markidis

    Luca Pennati, Måns I. Andersson, Klaus Steiniger, René Widera, Tapish Narwal, Michael Bussmann, and Stefano Markidis. 2025. A Parallel and Highly-Portable HPC Poisson Solver: Preconditioned Bi-CGSTAB with alpaka. In2025 IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium Workshops (IPDPSW). 473–483. doi:10.1109/IPDPSW66978.2025.00073

    work page doi:10.1109/ipdpsw66978.2025.00073 2025

  80. [80]

    Yueran Qi, Yang Feng, Jixuan Wu, Zhaohui Sun, Maoying Bai, Chengcheng Wang, Hai Wang, Xuepeng Zhan, Junyu Zhang, Jing Liu, and Jiezhi Chen. 2023. An Efficient and Robust Partial Differential Equation Solver by Flash-Based Computing in Memory.Micromachines14, 5 (2023). doi:10.3390/mi14050901

    work page doi:10.3390/mi14050901 2023

Showing first 80 references.