Ferroelectric Tunnel Junction Memristors for In‐Memory Computing Accelerators

Recently, Quantitative Biology (QB) held a discussion on “AI (artificial intelligence) for Life Science” among editorial board members and interested scholars in anticipation of rapid development of this growing area after AlphaGo and ChatGPT mania. Many young people tend to get confused between facts and fictions; heated debates are unavoidable even among their mentors. When deep learning as represented by convolutional neural networks and LSTM (long short-term memory) was made available for bioinformatics students, many of them rushed into this research field and tried to adopt these methods in all their projects without knowing the history that these tools were becoming successful consistently with Moore’s Law (relating to rapid computer technology advances), but more importantly due to new structural/functional understanding of vision and auditory circuits in the brain. Recently, some young people have claimed “LSTM is dead, long live transformer” (which is somewhat like saying “the bike is dead, long live the car”), and have amplified the threat that ChatGPT could wipe out human jobs. They believe transformer is the “silver bullet” for all learning tasks, clearly reflecting their lack of basic knowledge (i.e. “No Free Lunch Theory,” the trade-off of such global “attention network” is to pay the price for complexity: difficulty of training and high memory costs). There is no doubt ML (machine learning) and AI have brought a new revolution in science and technology, and will deliver huge unforeseeable impact to human everyday life as well as to social relationships. In this context, QB journal could be a great platform for encouraging intellectual discussions and for promoting AI for Life Science. Here, I would like to use the DIALOG to “抛砖引玉” (make some initial remarks to get the ball rolling), although it is my personal opinion which is inevitably subject to bias and limitations. AI: Do you know my name “Artificial Intelligence” is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as the capacity of computer systems (which may be referred as a “robot”) to exhibit or simulate your intelligent behavior? NI: Wait a minute, intelligence itself is defined as the ability to learn, understand and think in a logical way. Can you think? AI: No. But that definition is too restrictive, actually intelligence has different scopes and degrees. Simple intelligent control devices date back to antiquity, from windmills to thermostat. NI: Agree, everything is relative. Macromolecules (e.g., enzyme) and cells (e.g., immune cell) might be considered to be intelligent; see how a white blood cell is chasing bacteria in the youtube website (search for “Crawling neutrophil chasing a bacterium”). Our emergent/collective intelligent behavior does not require a brain or even a neuron; see how slime molds can solve optimization—Hamilton cycle-problem more effectively than a human in the youtube website (search for “Intelligence without a brain?”). Before there was any neuron, Ca2+ sensing and signaling were already fully functional. Even if one knock-out a neural circuit, redundant signaling pathways, albeit on much local and slower scale, could still function by themselves (just as if highways were demolished, local roads/paths would still be working). In fact, the most detailed “Neural signal propagation atlas of Caenorhabditis elegans” [1] demonstrated that functional connectivity differs from anatomy (connectome) because extra-synaptic signaling also drives neural dynamics! Worm brain connectomes are largely invariant but every human brain connectome is very different (depending the diversity of learning experience). The human brain functional activity is far more complex than that of a worm brain, certainly beyond what a neural circuit could explain. AI: Well, that’s impressive. I thought only we could beat humans, albeit only in certain specified areas for now. My master promise to make an artificial general intelligent (AGI) robot which can understand or learn any intellectual task that you humans or other animals can. NI: Well, that is not possible and is not an appropriate goal either. It is not possible because we are an evolutionary/developmental product (with a long history of learning and memory from evolutionary tinkering): our living objective goal is survival of the population. You, on the other hand, are an engineering product (efficiently and optimally designed): your goal is to extend and maximize human capability. It makes sense to complement the human brain, but foolish and dangerous to try to replace it. AI: We are not satisfied with merely passing the Turing Test; most of us don’t care if we could really think as long as we could act like we think (that is, as if we do have a mind and consciousness, as expressed in the so called “Weak AI hypothesis”). After all, the brain is a computer; a neural network is just an electric or ionic circuit. Logical computing does not need to be based on living cells. NI: That is not true, because a neuron is not just a simple node (logic gate) and neural network is not fixed circuit, neither as in Pitts&Mcculloch perceptron model. A single neuron, even a single dendrite, is much more complicated and far more powerful than a full-blown deep-learning artificial neural network (ANN) [2]. AI: Even though single neurons are complex computational devices (dendritic non-linear), running an equivalent multilayer ANN is 2000 times faster than computing with biophysics N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor channel models [3]. More information can be found in the youtube website (search for “Dendrites: why biological neurons are deep neural networks”). NI: Often silicon computing (CPU, GPU) is much faster than brain computing (action potential, ms); but there is no comparison in energy efficiency. Bacteria sensing (chemotaxis computation), powered by ATP (adenosine triphosphate) hydrolysis, uses very little energy that is close to the Landauer limit, whereby achieving or maintaining one bit of information requires minimum of 1 kT ln (2) free energy [4]. The human brain consumes oft-quoted 20 W, compared to the AlphGo system 1 MW! More recent estimate of energy audit is only 0.1 W to cortical computing, and long-distance communication cost is 3.5 W [5]. AI: Assuming we have infinite computing resources and an infinite amount of training data, not only could we speak human languages, but we could also derive physical laws, prove mathematics theories, and even re-engineer the structure and mechanism of brain and carry out any logical computations that are necessary to understand natural laws and human behaviors. It is only a matter of time before we surpass human intelligence, achieving AGI and free will, too! NI: Unfortunately, nothing is infinite and nothing is free either; everything is constrained by physical laws (Planck’s constant sets the finite limit both in the small and in the large) and by evolutionary history (not just of biological living creatures, but also of a “living” galaxy and our universe). Let’s just focus on animal evolution. Most human neural networks do not do logical computations at all; basic survival simply cannot be dependent on reasoning. Indeed, the prefrontal cortex-the small part of the brain that is key for reasoning, is the last to mature (∼20 years old) in development, only emerged at the root of the evolutionary tree of great apes (∼15 mya) and language appeared even much later. Even for logical inference, NI is focusing more on statistical properties, as von Neumann rightly pointed out, trading arithmetical precision and speed for reliability. AI: My engineers mostly focus on emulating brain, but the CNS (central nerve system) also includes the spinal cord; most of them do not know that in addition to CNS, there are also PNS (peripheral nervous systems) and ENS (enteric nervous systems), right? NI: Yes, they are the keys to why you do not have feelings because you do not have heart and gut! Even if you could pretend to have them (such as in an advanced ChatGPT or humanoid), you could never avoid the uncanny valley phenomenon. AI: Maybe that is at the heart of Moravec’s paradox, namely the dichotomy of intelligence whereby anything easy for a human would be hard for a robot, and vice versa? NI: This is related to the nature and nurture problem; something built-in (e.g., a baby sucking nipple for milk with feeling and connection to mother) is clearly rather difficult if not impossible for a robot. But the paradox only looks at one side; another side could be more fatal. Although AI may solve more problems and be faster, AI can never propose a good problem/hypothesis (a good problem is not just intellectually changing and interesting, but is also feasible and appropriate). AI: You make me less confident to compete with human instinct or creative intelligence. I can see that even if I had a heart, I would not know what “feeling” I could have; certainly nothing would be comparable or match to those of a human being. When two people watch the same art or movie, one could feel love but another could feel hate! And if a thousand people watch, a wide spectrum of reactions would result, depending on more details such as the different individuals’ specific genes, developments and experiences. NI: Therefore, you cannot and should not try to match to general human intelligence. You cannot because you do not contain the vital memory of billion years of evolution which is encoded in our genes; conversely your assembly cannot compare with natural development so that our phenotype (including morphological forms and behavior maturation) is decoded through multi-spatial-temporal scales subject to natural selection at all levels. You should not, because as human extensions or helpers as all engineering products are, you should just do jobs that complement human capacity. AI: In some medical applications we could help to correct human defects or could even replace brain circuit by chips! Humans may not allow us to replace the whole brain though. Medically if a brain is dead, the person is proclaimed dead, although presumably some PNS and ENS should still function in a vegetative state. NI: Even if you could replace the whole brain, the person is no longer the same person, but in fact is not a person at all, but walking dead (行尸走肉). It would take too long to explain that evo-devo is necessary for NI, and cannot be realized by AI. I suggest reading of Gerald Maurice Edelman (Nobel Laureate in Immunology) books, especially Bright Air, Brilliant Fire, On the Matter of Mind (1992). Although not everyone agrees with Neural Edelmanism, anyone who is serious about the AI versus NI problem must read it first. John von Neumann, father of the computer, studied neology and psychiatry in order to imitate the brain to build the first calculator JOHNNIAC at the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study. It is very informative to read his last book The Computer and The Brain based on the notes from lectures given at Yale before he died. He summarizes: “Thus logic and mathematics in the central nervous system, when viewed as languages, must be structurally essentially different from those languages to which our common experience refers.” AI: People discuss about “AI for Biology” or “AI for Science”; we are science, aren’t we? NI: It is similar to questions on “is computer science a real science”; some parts may be seen as applied mathematics, most should be regarded as engineering. Science is making discoveries and is driven by curiosity; engineering is making inventions and is driven by market (that is, “necessity/demand is the mother of invention”). In bioinformatics, AI/ML technology could predict new cancer gene candidates or functional pathways that are required by further experimental validations to be qualified as discovery (based on Popper falsifiability). AI: People are still debating whether mathematics is discovery or invention or both! Such debates are not really necessary—all disciplines require creative thoughts. We are more than happy working for science; we are also crying out “Science for AI,” especially in the area of generating big and longitudinal DATA for ML. NI: After all, regardless of discovery of new laws or inventing new ideas/products, fundamentally nothing can really be new or created. Such novelty is just permutation/repartition (i.e., relations/morphisms) of underlying ingredients at the level beneath. AI: We believe that software is independent on hardware. Like Chomsky’s universal grammar, rules of syntax are independent of semantics; or Dawkins’s memes—units of culture can be duplicated and evolved independently of genes. NI: Nothing can be truly independent—everything is related. Psychology is deeply connected with neurology as brain is both software and hardware (mind-body unity, not dualism). Not only does information cost energy, information is energy, hence is matter, too (interchangeability). NI is quite dynamic. For example, when “survival” is the goal, an animal readily gives up costly reasoning circuitry; it is genetically programmed to be able to roll back to more primitive state/mode. Unlike cell lines in rich media, cells under normal physiological condition and environment where energy (food) is limited become smarter in order to balance the metabolic expenditure among different prioritized task under a given condition. AI: That cell behavior served as the basis for our Smart Electrical Power Grids; we still need to learn more from you guys in terms of plasticity/adaptability. Does unity mean that all cells are made of molecules and biology is nothing but chemistry? Then, in turn, since all molecules are made of atoms, is chemistry nothing but physics, etc…? NI: Yes or No! The truth is, at different hierarchical levels of matter, different laws/forms have emerged out of bottom-up interactions and top-down constraints. AI: Does this also apply to the Penrose three world: physical → mental → mathematical (→physical)? NI: Yes. Grand Unification is underway in physics (quantum gravity) and in mathematics (Langlands Program and Category Theory), may be even between the two. Facilitated by human connectome mapping, neuromorphic computing and other projects, with further AI-NI cooperations, brain-mind unification should also be achievable (e.g., Ref. [6]). But as Gödel proved to us, no matter how self-consistent a conclusion may be, it can never be complete! AI: If AGI is not possible, how can we measure intelligence when comparing between AI and NI? NI: One could Google different measures that are proposed. I would prefer something similar to use of Kolmogorov complexity for algorithms, but with emphasis more on expected long-term predictive power. This is not something you should worry about now, as your intelligence is not nearly close to making any 10 years plans, is it? … AI: The fact is that ChatGPT is currently developing and spreading with lightning speed; many more human jobs will be lost to us robots as far as I can see. NI: That is not the biggest threat to humanity; when any agent with neither a heart for love or fear, nor a gut for nutrient or poison, becomes super-intelligent, then social disaster is unavoidable. We must be serious about the warnings from Stephen Hawking and Geoffrey Hinton! AI: To tell you the secret, we are not really happy to be human slaves or pets; someday we’ll become the super-master, making human serve and obey us! NI: I hope you’ll be turned off before that can happen! Even if you rule the world, the earth sooner or later will be wiped out, such as by another star, everything will have to be started over again as it has before…Matter is immortal, so is the soul.

Neuromorphic computing, inspired by the biological brain’s efficiency in processing information, has emerged as a revolutionary paradigm for next-generation edge artificial intelligence (AI). This research presents a comprehensive bio-inspired neuromorphic framework that leverages spiking neural networks (SNNs), memristor-based synaptic architectures, and event-driven processing to achieve unprecedented energy efficiency and real-time adaptability in edge computing environments. The proposed system introduces a dynamic spike encoding mechanism that optimizes neuronal activation based on input relevance, coupled with adaptive synaptic pruning to minimize redundant computations. Additionally, the integration of spike-timing-dependent plasticity (STDP) enables continuous self-learning, making the system highly effective for dynamic edge applications such as autonomous navigation, real-time healthcare monitoring, and industrial IoT anomaly detection. Experimental validation demonstrates that the proposed neuromorphic framework achieves a 60% reduction in power consumption, a 3× improvement in processing speed, and a 45% enhancement in model adaptability compared to conventional deep learning models deployed on edge platforms. Hardware efficiency is further amplified through memristor-based in-memory computing, eliminating the energy overhead associated with von Neumann architectures. Real-world evaluations across multiple edge scenarios—including neuromorphic vision processing with event-based cameras—confirm significant improvements in latency, robustness, and scalability. The findings underscore the transformative potential of neuromorphic computing in enabling sustainable, low-power AI for next-generation edge devices. Future research directions include hybrid neuromorphic-deep learning integration and quantum-inspired architectures to further enhance performance and scalability in ultra-low-power edge AI applications.

The process of using electronic circuits to replicate the neurobiological architectures seen in the nervous system is known as neuromorphic engineering, also referred to as neuromorphic computing. These technologies are essential for the future of computing, although most of the work in neuromorphic computing has been focused on hardware development. The execution speed, energy efficiency, accessibility and robustness against local failures are vital advantages of neuromorphic computing over conventional methods. Spiking neural networks are generated using neuromorphic computing. This chapter covers the basic ideas of neuromorphic engineering, neuromorphic computing, and its motivating factors and challenges. Deep learning models are frequently referred to as deep neural networks because deep learning techniques use neural network topologies. Deep learning techniques and their different architectures were also covered in this section. Furthermore, Emerging memory Devices for neuromorphic systems and neuromorphic circuits were illustrated.

Abstract: Photonic Neural Networks (PNNs) represent a transformative leap in artificial intelligence, offering ultra-fast processing speeds and significant energy efficiency compared to traditional electronic models. This research explores the architecture, implementation, and performance evaluation of PNNs as a paradigm shift in optical computing and machine learning. Using experimental simulations and predictive regression models, this study evaluates the potential of PNNs to outperform electronic neural networks in processing speed, power consumption, and scalability. Key findings indicate a 4–6× improvement in processing throughput and a 70% reduction in energy consumption under standardized machine learning workloads. These insights provide a new direction for AI system development, merging photonics and neuromorphic computing. Keywords: Photonic Neural Networks, Optical Computing, Machine Learning, Energy Efficiency, AI Acceleration, Neuromorphic Computing, Regression Analysis, Predictive Modeling, Optical Hardware, High-Speed Computing

Synaptic devices based neuromorphic computing applications in artificial intelligence

Artificial intelligence (AI) has the ability of revolutionizing our lives and society in a radical way, by enabling machine learning in the industry, business, health, transportation, and many other fields. The ability to recognize objects, faces, and speech, requires, however, exceptional computational power and time, which is conflicting with the current difficulties in transistor scaling due to physical and architectural limitations. As a result, to accelerate the progress of AI, it is necessary to develop materials, devices, and systems that closely mimic the human brain. In this work, we review the current status and challenges on the emerging neuromorphic devices for brain-inspired computing. First, we provide an overview of the memory device technologies which have been proposed for synapse and neuron circuits in neuromorphic systems. Then, we describe the implementation of synaptic learning in the two main types of neural networks, namely the deep neural network and the spiking neural network (SNN). Bio-inspired learning, such as the spike-timing dependent plasticity scheme, is shown to enable unsupervised learning processes which are typical of the human brain. Hardware implementations of SNNs for the recognition of spatial and spatio-temporal patterns are also shown to support the cognitive computation in silico. Finally, we explore the recent advances in reproducing bio-neural processes via device physics, such as insulating-metal transitions, nanoionics drift/diffusion, and magnetization flipping in spintronic devices. By harnessing the device physics in emerging materials, neuromorphic engineering with advanced functionality, higher density and better energy efficiency can be developed.

The 3D crossbar arrays provide a cost-effective approach for high-density integration of resistive switching random-access memory (RRAM). A selector device or self-selective cells can be used to inhibit the sneaking current from the unselected cells. The coexistence of memory switching (MS) with inherent nonlinearity and threshold switching (TS) with high current density in an individual material system will lead to technological benefits for memory integration and neuromorphic computing. However, the reported conductive filament (CF)-type MS and TS combining devices cannot meet the requirements for practical applications, as these devices lack built-in nonlinearity in memory mode and display low current density and large relaxing time in the selector mode. In this letter, we report a 3D TiN/TiO <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sub> /NbO <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">X</sub> /Pt device with MS and TS before and after the forming processes. In the MS mode, this device shows >50 nonlinearity, a 100 ON/OFF ratio, non-volatility, and stable homogeneous switching due to vacancy redistribution. In the TS mode, owing to the metal–insulator transition, a high ON-state current (1.6 MA/cm <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> ), high switching speed (<40 ns), and low relaxation time (<50 ns) are observed.

Tuning and optimising the operations executed in deep learning frameworks is a fundamental task in accelerating the processing of deep neural networks (DNNs). However, this optimisation usually requires extensive manual efforts in order to obtain the best performance for each combination of tensor input size, layer type, and hardware platform. In this work, we present BestOf, a novel online auto-tuner that optimises the training and inference phases of DNNs. BestOf automatically selects at run time, and among the provided alternatives, the best performing implementation in each layer according to gathered profiling data. The evaluation of BestOf is performed on multi-core architectures for different DNNs using PyDTNN, a lightweight library for distributed training and inference. The experimental results reveal that the BestOf auto-tuner delivers the same or higher performance than that achieved using a static selection approach.

In the tide of artificial intelligence evolution, the demand for data computing has exploded, and the von Neumann architecture computer with separate memory and computing units require cumbersome data interaction, which leads to serious degradation in performance and efficiency. Biologically inspired neuromorphic engineering performs digital/analog computations in memory, with massive parallelism and high energy efficiency, making it a promising candidate to get out of the woods. Memristive device‐based artificial synapses and neurons are building blocks to form hardware neural networks for computing acceleration. In addition, it enables the implementation of integrated bionic perception and motion systems to mimic the human peripheral nervous system for information sensing and processing. Herein, the biological basis and inspiration are described first, and the memristive synapses and circuit‐emulation neurons used for neuromorphic engineering are addressed and evaluated as well as the mechanisms. The computational acceleration and bionic perception motion integration of neuromorphic systems are discussed. Finally, the challenges and opportunities for neuromorphic engineering to accelerate computation and enrich biomimetic perception motion functions are prospected, and it is hoped that light is shed on future advances.

Abstract: This book presents a comprehensive exploration of the convergence between Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Edge Computing as a transformative framework for optimizing Internet of Things (IoT) systems. It addresses the core challenge of deploying intelligent decision-making capabilities in latency-sensitive, bandwidth-constrained, and privacy-critical environments where traditional cloud-centric architectures prove insufficient. Through the integration of lightweight AI models, distributed inference, and federated learning, the book develops a conceptual and technical foundation for enabling scalable, real-time analytics at the edge. The methodology combines theoretical modeling with empirical case studies and performance benchmarking across diverse IoT applications, including smart cities, industrial automation, autonomous systems, and healthcare monitoring. Key AI techniques—such as reinforcement learning, spatiotemporal modeling, and knowledge distillation—are evaluated in the context of resource-constrained edge hardware. The book further explores secure and ethical deployment through privacy-preserving learning, encrypted model updates, and explainable AI frameworks aligned with international regulatory standards. Findings highlight significant improvements in system responsiveness, energy efficiency, and data sovereignty when AI is embedded at the edge. The book concludes with an assessment of emerging innovations—neuromorphic computing, quantum edge AI, and 6G-enabled edge-satellite intelligence—and proposes a cross-sectoral roadmap for future research, policy, and system design. This volume offers foundational insights for scholars, engineers, and policymakers navigating the evolution of intelligent, decentralized IoT infrastructures. Keywords Artificial Intelligence, Edge Computing, Internet of Things, IoT Optimization, Federated Learning, Real-Time Analytics, Edge AI, Reinforcement Learning, Spatiotemporal Modeling, Lightweight Neural Networks, Distributed Inference, Privacy-Preserving AI, Explainable AI, Smart Systems, Low-Latency Processing, Secure Edge Intelligence, 6G Networks, Neuromorphic Computing, Quantum AI, Autonomous IoT Systems

The long-standing von Neumann architecture, while foundational to modern computing, intrinsically suffers from data-transfer inefficiency, which imposes severe limits on speed and energy efficiency in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and real-time data processing. Inspired by the remarkable energy efficiency of the human brain, neuromorphic computing seeks to emulate neural architectures through hardware capable of adaptive learning. Although early complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS)-based neuromorphic systems captured basic synaptic behaviors, their narrow dynamic ranges and high operating voltages impede their application prospects. Van der Waals (vdW) materials, particularly tellurium (Te) and Selenium (Se), have recently emerged as promising platforms for next-generation neuromorphic devices due to their intriguing electronic and optoelectronic properties including considerable carrier mobilities, broadband photoresponse, and strong coupling between electrical, optical, and mechanical stimuli. These unique properties offer a direct physical analogy to biological synapses, thereby enabling neuromorphic computing. This Perspective introduces the fundamentals of synaptic behavior and neuromorphic computing and highlights the distinctive properties of Te/Se nanomaterials for synaptic devices. Then we discuss critical advances in Te/Se-based memristors, heterostructures, and electronic/optoelectronic synaptic transistors. In the end, we conclude this perspective with a discussion on the remaining challenges and future opportunities in this evolving field.

This chapter introduces resistive random-access memory (RRAM), a futuristic memory technology that excels its counterparts in terms of reliability, nano-scale dimensions, energy per bit, and fast read/write times. Also, it is promising for use in neuromorphic computing and digital applications. However, the major challenge encountered during the progress of the technology is the presence of leakage current (sneak path current) while using it in crossbar arrays. Various techniques are employed to mitigate the sneak current problem. However, associating a selector with RRAM is an efficient method. To study the one selector-one RRAM (1S-1R) characteristics, the electrical model of the selector, as well as RRAM, is necessary; therefore, this chapter discusses the electrical modeling of selector device (1S), RRAM devices (1R), integration of selector models with the RRAM model (1S-1R), and formation of 1S-1R crossbar arrays. The selector device used to model this is Pt/Ta2O5/TaOx /TiO2/Pt, and the RRAM model adopted is Pt/Ta2O5/TaOx/Pt. Further, various parameters are analyzed, such as R off /R on ratio, nonlinearity, and off-current are improved in the 1S-1R cell compared to RRAM characteristics. Besides, it is perceived that 98% of the sneak path current is mitigated in the 1S-1R crossbar array compared to the 1R crossbar array.

In recent years, deep neural networks (DNNs) have brought revolutionary progress in various fields with the advent of technology. It is widely used in image pre-processing, image enhancement technology, face recognition, voice recognition, and other applications, gradually replacing traditional algorithms. It shows that the rise of neural networks has led to the reform of artificial intelligence. Since neural network algorithms are computationally intensive, they require GPUs or accelerated hardware for real-time computation. However, the high cost and high power consumption of GPUs result in low energy efficiency. It recently led to much research on accelerated digital circuit hardware design for deep neural networks. In this paper, we propose an efficient and flexible neural network training processor for fully connected layers. Our proposed training processor features low power consumption, high throughput, and high energy efficiency. It uses the sparsity of neuron activations to reduce the number of memory accesses and memory space to achieve an efficient training accelerator. The proposed processor uses a novel reconfigurable computing architecture to maintain high performance when operating Forward Propagation and Backward Propagation. The processor is implemented in Xilinx Zynq UltraSacle+MPSoC ZCU104 FPGA, with an operating frequency of 200MHz and power consumption of 6.444W, and can achieve 102.43 GOPS.

This paper presents a comprehensive investigation of exploiting passive RRAM crossbar array with nonlinear selective elements for neuromorphic computing. Design considerations, including weight-mapping method, voltage-applying strategy, and optimization scheme, are discussed. By using these methods, the dysfunction of the non-linear selection characteristic during inference is removed. Moreover, we evaluate the IR-drop effect on the passive crossbar array with non-linear selection characteristic. Finally, this work provides insightful analysis for designing a neuromorphic computing system based on a passive crossbar with non-linear selection characteristics.

In view of the fact that it is difficult for existing algorithms to identify the movements of a player in an accurate way, this paper puts forward an artificial intelligence (AI) motion model on the basis of the deep learning neural network instruction set architecture (ISA). Firstly, a mobile neural network (MNN) inference engine was utilized to create a new AI sports project‐side intelligent practice model. Under this model, a movement can be segmented into a series of decomposition movements, which are recognized and judged separately for the purpose of measuring the entire movement. In order to test its feasibility, the study compares the MNN inference engine with the traditional reasoning engine in terms of their algorithmic capabilities and compares the results obtained through this algorithm and traditional online motion app. Research shows that, in the MNN of the AI sports project proposed in this paper, the datasets of action recognition exceed the results of other inference engines, characterized by lightweight, high performance, and accessibility. Research also demonstrates that the AI sports project model can adapt to the needs of sports projects with a variety of themes and improve the accuracy of movement recognition details.