Improved time complexity for spintronic oscillator ising machines compared to a popular classical optimization algorithm for the Max-Cut problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Solving certain combinatorial optimization problems like Max-Cut becomes challenging once the graph size and edge connectivity increase beyond a threshold, with brute-force algorithms which solve such problems exactly on conventional digital computers having the bottleneck of exponential time complexity. Hence currently, such problems are instead solved approximately using algorithms like Goemans–Williamson (GW) algorithm, run on conventional computers with polynomial time complexity. Phase binarized oscillators (PBOs), also often known as oscillator Ising machines, have been proposed as an alternative to solve such problems. In this paper, restricting ourselves to the combinatorial optimization problem Max-Cut solved on three kinds of graphs (Mobius Ladder, random cubic, Erdös Rényi) up to 100 nodes, we empirically show that computation time/time to solution (TTS) for PBOs (captured through Kuramoto model) grows at a much lower rate (logarithmically: O ( log ( N ) ), with respect to graph size N) compared to GW algorithm, for which TTS increases as square of graph size ( O (N 2)). However, Kuramoto model being a physics-agnostic mathematical model, this time complexity/ TTS trend for PBOs is a general trend and is device-physics agnostic. So for more specific results, we choose spintronic oscillators, known for their high operating frequency (in GHz), and model them through Slavin’s model which captures the physics of their coupled magnetization oscillation dynamics. We thereby empirically show that TTS of spintronic oscillators also grows logarithmically with graph size ( O ( log ( N ) ), while their accuracy is comparable to that of GW. So spintronic oscillators have improved time complexity over GW algorithm. For large graphs, they are expected to compute Max-Cut values much faster than GW algorithm, as well as other oscillators operating at lower frequencies, while maintaining the same level of accuracy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".