<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>A Complementary Resistive Switch-based Crossbar Array Adder · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1410.2031/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1410.2031/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>A Complementary Resistive Switch-based Crossbar Array Adder — mentioned by solsane</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33209781</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1410.2031:33209781</guid><pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2022 22:57:36 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Based on the diagram this does matmul like a resistive crossbar array (something like https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.2031.pdf). Talked about this in a ‘neuroprocessor’ class I took at uni. It’s practically ‘free’ since you perform multiplication by applying resistance to a current, and kirchoff’s law results in a sumnation of currents. Very elegant in concept. That being said, when scaling this approach, I recall one paper saying they had serious issues with signal integrity, in part from analog process mismatch. If this AlScN approach addresses that this would be really big. I’m interested to…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1410.2031/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.ET</category></item></channel></rss>
