Cited by 99Sparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesAdvanced Memory and Neural ComputingLow-power high-performance VLSI design

Compressed Sensing With Approximate Message Passing Using In-Memory Computing

Open access
Le Gallo, Manuel, Sebastian, Abu, Cherubini, Giovanni, Giefers, Heiner, Eleftheriou, Evangelos·2018·IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices

Abstract

In-memory computing is a promising non-von Neumann approach where certain computational tasks are performed within resistive memory units by exploiting their physical attributes. In this paper, we propose a new method for fast and robust compressed sensing (CS) of sparse signals with approximate message passing recovery using in-memory computing. The measurement matrix for CS is encoded in the conductance states of resistive memory devices organized in a crossbar array. In this way, the matrix-vector multiplications associated with both the compression and recovery tasks can be performed by the same crossbar array without intermediate data movements at potential O(1) time complexity. For a signal of size N, the proposed method achieves a potential O(N)-fold recovery complexity reduction compared with a standard software approach. We show the array-level robustness of the scheme through large-scale experimental demonstrations using more than 256k phase-change memory devices.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/ted.2018.2865352

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • For all programmed levels, the standard deviation of conductance distributions is less than 1.2 μS, which is more than two times lower than that reported in previous works on nanoscale PCM arrays for a similar conductance range.

    “For all levels, we achieve a standard deviation less than 1.2 μS, which is more than two times lower than that reported in previous works on nanoscale PCM arrays for a similar conductance range40,41.”

    From Accurate deep neural network inference using computational phase-change memory (2020) · cites this paper as [40]

    The Physical Implementation section describes PCM conductance distributions across a 0–50 μS range, and the Fig. 2 caption says it shows standard deviations for five programmed levels (page unavailable). Our copy does not give numerical standard deviations for those levels, so it cannot establish the claimed more-than-twofold comparison with 1.2 μS. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Training with 4-bit digital weights improves performance after transfer to PCM with respect to FP32, but accuracy decreases by more than 1% after transferring the 4-bit weights to PCM.

    “Training with 4-bit digital weights (using the method described in the ref. 33), which is roughly the effective precision of our PCM devices40, improves the performance after transfer with respect to FP32, but nevertheless the accuracy decreases by more than 1% after transferring the 4-bit weights to PCM.”
  • For evaluation times long after NVM programming, conductance drift can be compensated in the digital domain without expensive re-programming.

    “For evaluation times teval long after NVM programming, the conductance drift Eq. (8) can be compensated in the digital domain without any expensive re-programming36,73.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Le Gallo, M., Sebastian, A., Cherubini, G., Giefers, H., & Eleftheriou, E.
Affiliations
IBM Research - Zurich (CH)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices
Published
2018-10
Volume
65
Issue
10
Pages
4304-4312
ISSN
  • 0018-9383 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-9646
OpenAlex
W2889448077
Cited by
99
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 2
FWCI
8.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices (publishedVersion)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • H2020 European Research Council (682675)
  • H2020 LEIT Information and Communication Technologies (780215)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Sparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Advanced Memory and Neural Computing
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Low-power high-performance VLSI design
Keywords
compressed sensing, approximate message passing, in-memory computing, resistive random access memory, crossbar arrays, phase-change memory, sparse signal recovery, matrix-vector multiplication, non-von Neumann architecture

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review