Near-Field RF Coupling (as compute substrate)

last updated 2026-05-22
Coherent Ising MachineCoherent Ising Mach…FDTD-to-Hardware Calibration WallFDTD-to-Hardware Ca…Mature Foundry PositioningMature Foundry Posi…Near-Fiel…

Why hasn’t this been done before

Six reasons (descending importance):

  1. Cultural orthogonality. Antenna engineers minimise coupling. CIM researchers came from optics. Nobody crossed both.
  2. Wired-coupling lower resistance. The non-optical CIM community (Roychowdhury Berkeley, Chris Kim Minnesota, Shukla Notre Dame) all went wired electrical because SPICE-model-friendly and VNA-testable. Radiative coupling needs full-wave FDTD simulation which is computationally expensive and outside standard IC EDA flow.
  3. Reconfigurability harder for radiative. Wired J is set by switchable lumped components. Radiative J is set by fabrication geometry + per-tile resonance modulation; the inverse design problem (find varactor states such that realised J ≈ target J) is non-trivial.
  4. Adjacent RIS field optimises for radiation. Reconfigurable Intelligent Surfaces (RIS) and metamaterial antenna arrays do use varactor-tuned dipole/patch arrays, but the objective is radiation (steer a beam, shape a wavefront) not internal energy minimisation. Mapping RIS to Ising solver has not been formally published.
  5. Tooling cost. Full-wave EM simulation at array scale only became affordable at 16-tile / 64-tile in the last few years.
  6. Calibration wall. Anyone who tried hit the FDTD-to-Hardware Calibration Wall and didn’t publish the failure.

Prior art to verify in DD

Aggressive prior-art search needed in three places:

If those return clean, the “no one’s been here before” claim survives. If a 2022 Chinese paper or DARPA final report turns up doing exactly this, the IP wedge collapses fast.

Adjacent prior art (known)

Why now (technology readiness)

Sources

Recent mentions

Related concepts

Frontier questions