Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

Spiking Neural Networks for Temporal Processing: Status Quo and Future Prospects

T0 review · 5 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that widely used neuromorphic benchmarks do not measure temporal processing: a network with all temporal pathways removed matches full spatio-temporal training on static-image and event-vision datasets, and comes…

desk verdict A genuinely useful diagnostic and benchmark suite for temporal processing in SNNs, with a right-in-direction but under-quantified central claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09449 v1 pith:RHCOEKJV submitted 2025-02-13 cs.NE

Chenxiang Ma , Xinyi Chen , Yanchen Li , Qu Yang , Yujie Wu , Guoqi Li , Gang Pan , Huajin Tang
show 2 more authors
Kay Chen Tan Jibin Wu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.NE
keywords spikingneuralnetworkstemporalprocessingneuromorphicbenchmarkssegregatedprobesurrogategradientsonlinelearninglong-rangedependenciesevent-basedvision
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper's central claim is that the benchmarks most commonly used to evaluate spiking neural networks do not measure temporal processing at all. On static-image, event-vision, and audio datasets, a network stripped of every temporal pathway (NoTD) matches or nearly matches a network trained with full spatio-temporal backpropagation (STBP), meaning high accuracy can be achieved without ever integrating information across time. To give the field tasks that genuinely require time, the paper introduces three benchmarks—word-level language modeling, permuted sequential MNIST, and a synthetic binary-adding task—and verifies that on these, the full temporal model clearly outperforms the ablated ones. Re-benchmarking more than thirty SNN methods on the new suite shows that online learning algorithms pay a real accuracy price, smoother surrogate gradients help most in recurrent networks, richer neuron models improve on plain LIF, and spiking models still fall behind LSTM and state-space baselines on long sequences, despite a large energy advantage.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing instrument is the Segregated Temporal Probe (STP): a set of three learning algorithms that systematically disable the temporal processing pathways of an otherwise identical spiking network. The intact arm is STBP (Spatio-Temporal Backpropagation), which propagates both activations and error gradients across time. SDBP (Spatial-Domain Backpropagation) keeps the membrane-potential recurrence in the forward pass but cuts gradient propagation along the time dimension, so errors at later time steps cannot reach earlier ones. NoTD (No Temporal Domain) removes the recurrence itself, so every time step is classified independently. The decisive quantity is the accuracy ordering among the three: NoTD matching STBP means the dataset needs no temporal processing; SDBP matching STBP means temporal credit assignment during training is unnecessary; only when STBP beats SDBP and SDBP beats NoTD is the benchmark genuinely temporal. The paper applies this same probe to validate its own three-task suite before benchmarking methods on it.

What would settle it

Re-run the frame-blind NoTD model on DvsGesture at higher temporal resolution (say 100 time steps instead of 20) with matched capacity; if its accuracy falls well below STBP's, the claim that this benchmark is solvable without temporal processing is refuted. Symmetrically, if a frame-independent model closed the gap to STBP on PS-MNIST or binary adding under matched capacity, the claim that these tasks genuinely require temporal integration would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that widely used neuromorphic benchmarks are inadequate for evaluating temporal processing, and that the actual status of the field only becomes visible on tasks that are verified to require time. The authors establish the benchmark deficiency with the Segregated Temporal Probe, which holds architecture, data, and training configuration fixed and varies only how temporal pathways are treated: STBP keeps both forward temporal state and backward temporal gradients; SDBP keeps forward dynamics but blocks temporal gradient flow; NoTD removes temporal coupling entirely. Because NoTD matches STBP on MNIST, CIFAR10/100, N-MNIST, CIFAR10-DVS, and DvsGesture, and because SDBP nearly matches STBP on the audio sets GSC, SHD, SSC, and TIMIT, the paper concludes that these datasets can be solved from single frames, or at least without backward temporal credit assignment, so they cannot certify temporal processing ability. On the proposed benchmark suite the probe shows large gaps in the expected direction (STBP above SDBP above NoTD), confirming the tasks are genuinely temporal. The re-benchmarking then yields a different picture from the literature: online algorithms such as OTTT, SLTT, and E-prop lose substantially to STBP; Triangle and Sigmoid surrogates rank best, especially in recurrent networks; advanced neuron models (ALIF, adLIF, GLIF, LTC, CELIF, PMSN, DH-LIF, and others) beat plain LIF; and on binary adding, spiking models degrade beyond sequence length roughly 400–600 while LSTM and state-space models stay near-perfect at length 2400, with spiking architectures enjoying an order-of-magnitude energy saving on the paper's cost model.

Load-bearing premise

The probe's validity rests on the assumption that the only meaningful difference among STBP, SDBP, and NoTD is the preservation or removal of temporal pathways, so that a small accuracy gap indeed means temporal processing is unimportant; if training hyperparameters, surrogate-gradient shapes, or network capacity interact with the temporal pathway in ways that mask or exaggerate the differences, the benchmark-adequacy conclusions could shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Accuracy reports on static-image and event-vision neuromorphic benchmarks cannot be read as evidence about temporal processing ability, including prior claims that online learning algorithms are lossless relative to full backpropagation.
  • The temporal gradients that online algorithms drop are precisely what matters: on the new suite, OTTT, SLTT, and E-prop all fall substantially behind STBP.
  • Surrogate gradient shape is a first-order factor for temporal tasks, with smoother functions such as Triangle and Sigmoid ranking highest, especially for recurrent spiking networks.
  • Even the best evaluated spiking neuron models lose to LSTM and state-space models on long-range dependencies, failing on binary adding well before sequence length 2400 where the non-spiking baselines stay accurate.
  • Spiking versions of TCN, LSTM-style gating, and Transformer architectures cut estimated energy cost by roughly one order of magnitude at a modest accuracy cost, an advantage the paper argues matters for energy-constrained deployment.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The STP screen is a reusable diagnostic that the paper leaves implicit: any candidate neuromorphic dataset could be validated by the STBP-versus-NoTD gap before adoption, and datasets that fail should be treated as spatial-pattern benchmarks, not temporal ones.
  • The binary-adding task could be strengthened by varying the number of marked entries or injecting noise into the binary channels, turning a pure memory-span probe into a test of counting and robustness.
  • The measured accuracy-energy trade-off of the Spike-Driven Transformer's internal time window suggests a Pareto frontier worth mapping; intermediate or per-layer time windows may dominate both tested endpoints.
  • If the suite gains adoption, published temporal-processing claims made on the old benchmarks will likely need re-running here, since methods that looked equivalent on static benchmarks separate sharply on these tasks.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper argues that widely used neuromorphic benchmarks are inadequate for evaluating the temporal processing capabilities of spiking neural networks (SNNs). The authors introduce a diagnostic called the Segregated Temporal Probe (STP), which compares three training variants: STBP (full spatio-temporal backpropagation), SDBP (forward temporal dynamics but no temporal gradients), and NoTD (no temporal dynamics in the forward pass). Applying STP to ten standard benchmarks, they report that NoTD matches STBP on static image and event-based vision datasets, while SDBP comes close to STBP on audio datasets, leading them to conclude that these benchmarks do not effectively test temporal processing. They then propose a new benchmark suite consisting of Penn Treebank language modeling, PS-MNIST, and a novel Binary Adding task, validate it with the same STP procedure, and use it to benchmark over thirty SNN methods across learning algorithms, surrogate gradients, normalization schemes, neuron models, and architectures. Their main findings are that online learning rules lose accuracy on temporal tasks, smoother surrogate gradients help, newer neuron models improve temporal processing, and SNNs still lag behind LSTM/SSM/Transformer baselines on long-range dependencies while offering large energy-efficiency gains.

Significance. If established, the claim that standard neuromorphic benchmarks are inadequate for temporal processing would have a major impact on how SNN methods are evaluated, since much of the field relies on CIFAR10-DVS, DvsGesture, SHD, and similar datasets. The proposed benchmark suite and the open-source library are useful and timely resources, and the STP idea of systematically ablating temporal pathways is appealing, parameter-free, and easy to reuse. However, the central claim currently rests on an underspecified and partially confounded diagnostic: the STP decision rule is not quantified, the NoTD variant may still perform a form of temporal readout aggregation, and fixed hyperparameters appear to disadvantage the STBP baseline on at least one benchmark. With tightened controls, quantitative decision criteria, and independent validation of the new suite, this could become an important reference for the neuromorphic community; in its present form, the paper overstates the strength of the evidence.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section II(e), Table I] The STP evaluation criteria use the word 'comparable' without a quantitative threshold or statistical test. For example, on N-MNIST the NoTD-vs-STBP gap is 0.40 points and is treated as comparable, while on GSC the SDBP-vs-STBP gap is 3.91 points and is treated as acceptable; these decisions appear to be made post hoc. The manuscript reports no standard deviations, no repeated runs, and no significance testing. Please define an explicit decision rule (e.g., a maximum tolerated accuracy drop, or a confidence interval on the difference) and report per-seed results so that the classification of each benchmark as 'temporal' or 'non-temporal' is reproducible.
  2. [Section II, Eqs. (4), (7), (9)] The claim that NoTD 'eliminates temporal processing' is not strictly correct as implemented. The gradient formulas in Eqs. (4) and (7) sum over all time steps, and the text later refers to per-frame predictions ('confident frame'), which means the output readout can still aggregate evidence over time even though the hidden layers have no recurrence. If the final prediction is an average or sum of per-frame outputs, NoTD retains a weak but genuine temporal integration mechanism. The paper should specify the exact loss function and readout used for each benchmark; if a temporal readout is used, the interpretation should be weakened to 'no hidden-state temporal dynamics are needed' rather than 'no temporal processing is needed.'
  3. [Section III, Table I, CIFAR10-DVS row] On CIFAR10-DVS, NoTD outperforms STBP by +1.50 accuracy points with the fixed hyperparameters listed in Table VIII (decay 0.3, threshold 1.0, T=10). This is difficult to reconcile with the claim that the dataset simply lacks temporal information; it is more naturally explained by a poorly tuned or optimization-disadvantaged temporal pathway in the STBP baseline. Because the central negative claim about event-based vision benchmarks rests on NoTD being at least comparable to a well-performing STBP, the authors should either tune STBP separately, report a hyperparameter sweep showing that no reasonable STBP configuration substantially improves on the reported value, or otherwise rule out this confound.
  4. [Section III, DvsGesture qualitative analysis] The conclusion that DvsGesture is solvable from single frames and that errors are spatial rather than temporal is based on visual inspection of selected 'confident frames' in Figs. 4, 9, 10, and 11. This is subjective and not falsifiable in its current form. Please provide a quantitative analysis, for example frame-level classification accuracy using the best single frame, ablation of temporal order (e.g., shuffling or reversing frames), or saliency-based measures, to support the claim that temporal structure is not needed.
  5. [Section IV-B, Fig. 6] The proposed benchmark suite is validated using the same STP diagnostic that motivates the negative claim about existing benchmarks. While this is not formally circular, the new suite inherits any weaknesses of the STP probe. An independent validation would substantially strengthen the paper; for instance, one could show directly that a memoryless version of the model cannot solve the tasks, or that task accuracy monotonically degrades as the required temporal span grows even with a well-tuned temporal baseline. Please add such an analysis or explicitly acknowledge this limitation.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sections IV and V, figure captions] The manuscript text contains corrupted character sequences such as '/uni00000033/uni00000037/...' in the caption of Fig. 6 and in the text around Tables II and III. If these tokens appear in the submitted PDF, they need to be repaired before publication.
  2. [Section V-C] The text says that TEBN, TDBN, and LayerNorm 'significantly enhance' performance, but no statistical tests or repeated-run variability are reported. Please temper the language or provide variance estimates.
  3. [Section II, Eq. (5)] The loss L is used before being formally defined. Please state explicitly whether L is a sum of per-time-step losses or a loss computed only at the final time step, as this affects the interpretation of both STBP and NoTD.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

The new benchmark suite is validated with the same STP criterion that defines temporal effectiveness, a mild self-definitional loop; the central critique of existing benchmarks remains an empirical ablation.

  1. self definitional [Section IV-B, 'Validation of Benchmarks using the STP', Fig. 6; cf. Section II-e evaluation criteria]
    "We further apply the STP tool to validate the effectiveness of these three benchmarks in assessing temporal processing capabilities. As shown in Fig. 6, STBP significantly outperforms SDBP, which in turn substantially surpasses NoTD."

    The STP evaluation criteria in Section II-e define a benchmark as effective for temporal processing precisely when STBP outperforms SDBP and SDBP outperforms NoTD. Section IV-B then 'validates' the proposed benchmark suite by demonstrating exactly this ordering. Since the suite was constructed from tasks whose labels or required outputs force temporal integration (Binary Adding's label is a sum over all time steps; PS-MNIST requires a prediction at the final step after seeing a sequence of pixels), the observed STBP > SDBP > NoTD ordering is effectively entailed by the task design. The validation thus applies the same criterion that motivated the suite rather than providing an independent check that the benchmarks measure temporal processing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that widely used neuromorphic benchmarks do not adequately assess temporal processing—is supported by an empirical ablation: NoTD and SDBP achieve accuracy comparable to STBP on static and event-based vision datasets. This is a genuine experimental result, not a fitted parameter or a self-citation chain. The STP tool is parameter-free and does not assume the target conclusion. The main circularity concern is limited to Section IV-B, where the new benchmark suite is validated using the same STP ordering that defines benchmark effectiveness; because the tasks are independently motivated as inherently temporal and the later comparison against LSTM/Transformer/SSM baselines is self-contained, this loop does not invalidate the core findings. No load-bearing self-citations, imported uniqueness theorems, or fitted-input-as-prediction patterns were found. Overall circularity is mild.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's central claims rest on the STP diagnostic, which is a reasonable but unproven assumption that accuracy gaps under temporal ablations measure temporal processing importance. The benchmark suite evaluation also relies on re-implementations and fixed hyperparameters. The energy efficiency comparison depends on standard but hardware-specific constants.

free parameters (1)
  • NoTD accuracy gap threshold for 'temporal adequacy'
    The paper concludes a dataset is inadequate for temporal evaluation when NoTD performance is 'comparable' to STBP or SDBP, but the threshold for comparability is not explicitly quantified. This is a judgment call that affects which benchmarks are labeled as temporal.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Gradient-based training with STBP, SDBP, and NoTD is a sufficient diagnostic for a dataset's temporal processing requirements.
    The STP diagnostic assumes that if a network can be trained without temporal gradients or temporal memory and still perform well, the dataset does not require temporal processing. This ignores the possibility that a different architecture or training method could still benefit from temporal processing.
  • domain assumption Hyperparameter choices and network capacity are not confounded with the temporal pathway manipulation.
    The comparison across STBP, SDBP, and NoTD keeps architecture and hyperparameters fixed, assuming that differences in accuracy are due to the temporal pathway manipulation and not to interactions with hyperparameters. No sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • domain assumption The energy cost model with E_AC = 0.9 pJ and E_MAC = 4.6 pJ from a 45 nm CMOS process is representative.
    Appendix C uses fixed energy-per-operation constants from Horowitz to compare spiking and non-spiking architectures. The conclusions about energy efficiency depend on these constants, which do not hold for all hardware.
invented entities (1)
  • Segregated Temporal Probe (STP)
    purpose: A diagnostic tool that compares three training algorithms (STBP, SDBP, NoTD) to determine whether a benchmark requires temporal processing.
    STP is a methodological construct, not a physical entity. Its validity is demonstrated internally through the benchmark comparisons, but there is no external falsifiable prediction beyond the evaluation results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spiking Neural Networks for Temporal Processing: Status Quo and Future Prospects." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RHCOEKJV

@misc{pith2026250209449,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spiking Neural Networks for Temporal Processing: Status Quo and Future Prospects},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RHCOEKJV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09449}
}
read the original abstract

Temporal processing is fundamental for both biological and artificial intelligence systems, as it enables the comprehension of dynamic environments and facilitates timely responses. Spiking Neural Networks (SNNs) excel in handling such data with high efficiency, owing to their rich neuronal dynamics and sparse activity patterns. Given the recent surge in the development of SNNs, there is an urgent need for a comprehensive evaluation of their temporal processing capabilities. In this paper, we first conduct an in-depth assessment of commonly used neuromorphic benchmarks, revealing critical limitations in their ability to evaluate the temporal processing capabilities of SNNs. To bridge this gap, we further introduce a benchmark suite consisting of three temporal processing tasks characterized by rich temporal dynamics across multiple timescales. Utilizing this benchmark suite, we perform a thorough evaluation of recently introduced SNN approaches to elucidate the current status of SNNs in temporal processing. Our findings indicate significant advancements in recently developed spiking neuron models and neural architectures regarding their temporal processing capabilities, while also highlighting a performance gap in handling long-range dependencies when compared to state-of-the-art non-spiking models. Finally, we discuss the key challenges and outline potential avenues for future research.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09449 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Overview of the paper organization. In Section II, we propose the Segregated Temporal Probe (STP) analytical tool for assessing the effectiveness [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of the computational graphs for three algorithms utilized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualization of samples in neuromorphic benchmarks. (a) Samples [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative results of samples from the DvsGesture dataset, along with the confident frame (highlighted with red boxes) selected by all the algorithms in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Validation of the temporal processing benchmark suite through the STP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of different surrogate gradient functions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Consequently, the gradient mismatch problem [63] can [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of advanced spiking and non-spiking sequence models. Each model is evaluated on the binary adding task with sequence lengths ranging from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Qualitative results of samples from the DvsGesture dataset. In these samples, the most confident frame differs across the three algorithms in STP. Frames [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Visualization of samples from the DvsGesture dataset that STBP classifies correctly, while NoTD does not. The predictions by NoTD are right arm counter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Visualization of samples from the DvsGesture dataset that are misclassified by STBP. The predictions by STBP are other gestures, air drums, other [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Detecting AI-Generated Videos with Spiking Neural Networks

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    MAST with spiking neural networks achieves 93.14% mean accuracy detecting AI-generated videos from 10 unseen generators by exploiting smoother pixel residuals and compact semantic trajectories.

  2. The Promise of Spiking Neural Networks for Ubiquitous Computing: A Survey and New Perspectives

    cs.NE 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey of 76 spiking-neural-network papers on time-series sensor data, organized into six application domains, with recommendations for software and neuromorphic hardware.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Bidirectional recurrent neural networks,

    M. Schuster and K. K. Paliwal, “Bidirectional recurrent neural networks,” IEEE transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 45, no. 11, pp. 2673–2681, 1997

    1997

  2. [2]

    Long short-term memory,

    S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber, “Long short-term memory,” Neural Computation, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 1735–1780, November 1997

    1997

  3. [3]

    An empirical evaluation of generic convolutional and recurrent networks for sequence modeling,

    S. Bai, J. Z. Kolter, and V. Koltun, “An empirical evaluation of generic convolutional and recurrent networks for sequence modeling,”CoRR, vol. abs/1803.01271, 2018

    arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, L. u. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 30. Curran Associates, Inc., 2017

    2017

  5. [5]

    Efficiently modeling long sequences with structured state spaces,

    A. Gu, K. Goel, and C. Re, “Efficiently modeling long sequences with structured state spaces,” in International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022

    2022

  6. [6]

    Model compression and hardware acceleration for neural networks: A comprehensive survey,

    L. Deng, G. Li, S. Han, L. Shi, and Y. Xie, “Model compression and hardware acceleration for neural networks: A comprehensive survey,” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 108, no. 4, pp. 485–532, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Networks of spiking neurons: The third generation of neural network models,

    W. Maass, “Networks of spiking neurons: The third generation of neural network models,” Neural Networks, vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 1659–1671, 1997

    1997

  8. [8]

    Brain- inspired computing: A systematic survey and future trends,

    G. Li, L. Deng, H. Tang, G. Pan, Y. Tian, K. Roy, and W. Maass, “Brain- inspired computing: A systematic survey and future trends,” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 112, no. 6, pp. 544–584, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    Towards spike-based machine intelligence with neuromorphic computing,

    K. Roy, A. Jaiswal, and P. Panda, “Towards spike-based machine intelligence with neuromorphic computing,” Nature, vol. 575, no. 7784, pp. 607–617, 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    Rapid feedforward computation by temporal encoding and learning with spiking neurons,

    Q. Yu, H. Tang, K. C. Tan, and H. Li, “Rapid feedforward computation by temporal encoding and learning with spiking neurons,”IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , vol. 24, no. 10, pp. 1539– 1552, 2013

    2013

  3. [11]

    Loihi: A neuromorphic manycore processor with on-chip learning,

    M. Davies, N. Srinivasa, T. Lin, G. N. Chinya, Y. Cao, S. H. Choday, G. D. Dimou, P. Joshi, N. Imam, S. Jain, Y. Liao, C. Lin, A. Lines, R. Liu, D. Mathaikutty, S. McCoy, A. Paul, J. Tse, G. Venkataramanan, Y. Weng, A. Wild, Y. Yang, and H. Wang, “Loihi: A neuromorphic manycor...

    2018

  4. [12]

    Towards artificial general intelligence with hybrid Tianjic chip architecture,

    J. Pei, L. Deng, S. Song, M. Zhao, Y. Zhang, S. Wu, G. Wang, Z. Zou, Z. Wu, W. He, F. Chen, N. Deng, S. Wu, Y. Wang, Y. Wu, Z. Yang, C. Ma, G. Li, W. Han, H. Li, H. Wu, R. Zhao, Y. Xie, and L. Shi, “Towards artificial general intelligence with hybrid Tianjic chip architecture,...

    2019

  5. [13]

    Darwin: A neuromorphic hardware co-processor based on spiking neural networks,

    D. Ma, J. Shen, Z. Gu, M. Zhang, X. Zhu, X. Xu, Q. Xu, Y. Shen, and G. Pan, “Darwin: A neuromorphic hardware co-processor based on spiking neural networks,” Journal of Systems Architecture , vol. 77, pp. 43–51, 2017

    2017

  6. [14]

    Darwin3: A large-scale neuromorphic chip with a novel ISA and on-chip learning,

    D. Ma, X. Jin, S. Sun, Y. Li, X. Wu, Y. Hu, F. Yang, H. Tang, X. Zhu, P. Lin, and G. Pan, “Darwin3: A large-scale neuromorphic chip with a novel ISA and on-chip learning,”National Science Review, vol. 11, no. 5, p. nwae102, 03 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Spike-based dynamic computing with asynchronous sensing-computing neuromorphic chip,

    M. Yao, O. Richter, G. Zhao, N. Qiao, Y. Xing, D. Wang, T. Hu, W. Fang, T. Demirci, M. De Marchi, L. Deng, T. Yan, C. Nielsen, S. Sheik, C. Wu, Y. Tian, B. Xu, and G. Li, “Spike-based dynamic computing with asynchronous sensing-computing neuromorphic chip,” Nature Communicatio...

    2024

  8. [16]

    An FPGA implementation of deep spiking neural networks for low-power and fast classification,

    X. Ju, B. Fang, R. Yan, X. Xu, and H. Tang, “An FPGA implementation of deep spiking neural networks for low-power and fast classification,” Neural Computation, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 182–204, 01 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Modeling single- neuron dynamics and computations: A balance of detail and abstraction,

    A. V. Herz, T. Gollisch, C. K. Machens, and D. Jaeger, “Modeling single- neuron dynamics and computations: A balance of detail and abstraction,” Science, vol. 314, no. 5796, pp. 80–85, 2006

    2006

  10. [18]

    Deep spiking neural networks for large vocabulary automatic speech recognition,

    J. Wu, E. Yılmaz, M. Zhang, H. Li, and K. C. Tan, “Deep spiking neural networks for large vocabulary automatic speech recognition,”Frontiers in Neuroscience, vol. 14, p. 199, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    A spiking neural network framework for robust sound classification,

    J. Wu, Y. Chua, M. Zhang, H. Li, and K. C. Tan, “A spiking neural network framework for robust sound classification,” Frontiers in Neuroscience , vol. 12, p. 836, 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    A spiking neural network system for robust sequence recognition,

    Q. Yu, R. Yan, H. Tang, K. C. Tan, and H. Li, “A spiking neural network system for robust sequence recognition,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 621–635, 2016

    2016

  13. [21]

    Progressive tandem learning for pattern recognition with deep spiking neural networks,

    J. Wu, C. Xu, X. Han, D. Zhou, M. Zhang, H. Li, and K. C. Tan, “Progressive tandem learning for pattern recognition with deep spiking neural networks,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 44, no. 11, pp. 7824–7840, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Training spiking neural networks with local tandem learning,

    Q. Yang, J. Wu, M. Zhang, Y. Chua, X. Wang, and H. Li, “Training spiking neural networks with local tandem learning,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 35. Curran Associates, Inc., 2022, pp. 12 662–12 676

    2022

  15. [23]

    Fast-SNN: Fast spiking neural network by converting quantized ANN,

    Y. Hu, Q. Zheng, X. Jiang, and G. Pan, “Fast-SNN: Fast spiking neural network by converting quantized ANN,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 45, no. 12, pp. 14 546–14 562, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Constructing deep spiking neural networks from artificial neural networks with knowledge distillation,

    Q. Xu, Y. Li, J. Shen, J. K. Liu, H. Tang, and G. Pan, “Constructing deep spiking neural networks from artificial neural networks with knowledge distillation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , June 2023, pp. 7886–7895

    2023

  17. [25]

    Temporal efficient training of spiking neural network via gradient re-weighting,

    S. Deng, Y. Li, S. Zhang, and S. Gu, “Temporal efficient training of spiking neural network via gradient re-weighting,” inInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2022, pp. 1–14

    2022

  18. [26]

    IM-Loss: Information maximization loss for spiking neural networks,

    Y. Guo, Y. Chen, L. Zhang, X. Liu, Y. Wang, X. Huang, and Z. Ma, “IM-Loss: Information maximization loss for spiking neural networks,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 35. Curran Associates, Inc., 2022, pp. 156–166

    2022

  19. [27]

    Learnable surrogate gradient for direct training spiking neural networks,

    S. Lian, J. Shen, Q. Liu, Z. Wang, R. Yan, and H. Tang, “Learnable surrogate gradient for direct training spiking neural networks,” inProceed- ings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-23 . International Joint Conferences on Art...

    2023

  20. [28]

    Online stabilization of spiking neural networks,

    Y. Zhu, J. Ding, T. Huang, X. Xie, and Z. Yu, “Online stabilization of spiking neural networks,” in The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    NDOT: Neuronal dynamics-based online training for spiking neural networks,

    H. Jiang, G. D. Masi, H. Xiong, and B. Gu, “NDOT: Neuronal dynamics-based online training for spiking neural networks,” in Forty- first International Conference on Machine Learning , 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Rethinking the membrane dynamics and optimization objectives of spiking neural networks,

    H. Shen, Q. Zheng, H. Wang, and G. Pan, “Rethinking the membrane dynamics and optimization objectives of spiking neural networks,” in The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    A hybrid neural coding approach for pattern recognition with spiking neural networks,

    X. Chen, Q. Yang, J. Wu, H. Li, and K. C. Tan, “A hybrid neural coding approach for pattern recognition with spiking neural networks,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 3064–3078, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Attention spiking neural networks,

    M. Yao, G. Zhao, H. Zhang, Y. Hu, L. Deng, Y. Tian, B. Xu, and G. Li, “Attention spiking neural networks,”IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 45, no. 8, pp. 9393–9410, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Enhancing adaptive history reserving by spiking convolutional block attention module in recurrent neural networks,

    Q. Xu, Y. Gao, J. Shen, Y. Li, X. Ran, H. Tang, and G. Pan, “Enhancing adaptive history reserving by spiking convolutional block attention module in recurrent neural networks,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36. Curran Associates, Inc., 2023, pp. 58 ...

    2023

  26. [34]

    Synaptic learning with augmented spikes,

    Q. Yu, S. Song, C. Ma, L. Pan, and K. C. Tan, “Synaptic learning with augmented spikes,”IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 1134–1146, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Ternary spike: Learning ternary spikes for spiking neural networks,

    Y. Guo, Y. Chen, X. Liu, W. Peng, Y. Zhang, X. Huang, and Z. Ma, “Ternary spike: Learning ternary spikes for spiking neural networks,” Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 12 244–12 252, Mar. 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    SpikeLM: Towards general spike-driven language modeling via elastic bi-spiking mechanisms,

    X. Xing, Z. Zhang, Z. Ni, S. Xiao, Y. Ju, S. Fan, Y. Wang, J. Zhang, and G. Li, “SpikeLM: Towards general spike-driven language modeling via elastic bi-spiking mechanisms,” in Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning , 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Toward large-scale spiking neural networks: A comprehensive survey and future directions,

    Y. Hu, Q. Zheng, G. Li, H. Tang, and G. Pan, “Toward large-scale spiking neural networks: A comprehensive survey and future directions,” CoRR, vol. abs/2409.02111, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition,

    Y. LeCun, L. Bottou, Y. Bengio, and P. Haffner, “Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition,” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 86, no. 11, pp. 2278–2324, 1998

    1998

  31. [39]

    Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images,

    A. Krizhevsky and G. Hinton, “Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images,” University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Tech. Rep. 0, 2009

    2009

  32. [40]

    Training spiking neural networks using lessons from deep learning,

    J. K. Eshraghian, M. Ward, E. O. Neftci, X. Wang, G. Lenz, G. Dwivedi, M. Bennamoun, D. S. Jeong, and W. D. Lu, “Training spiking neural networks using lessons from deep learning,” Proceedings of the IEEE , 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Converting static image datasets to spiking neuromorphic datasets using saccades,

    G. Orchard, A. Jayawant, G. K. Cohen, and N. Thakor, “Converting static image datasets to spiking neuromorphic datasets using saccades,” Frontiers in Neuroscience, vol. 9, p. 437, 2015. 13

    2015

  34. [42]

    CIFAR10-DVS: An event-stream dataset for object classification,

    H. Li, H. Liu, X. Ji, G. Li, and L. Shi, “CIFAR10-DVS: An event-stream dataset for object classification,” Frontiers in Neuroscience , vol. 11, p. 244131, 2017

    2017

  35. [43]

    A low power, fully event-based gesture recognition system,

    A. Amir, B. Taba, D. J. Berg, T. Melano, J. L. McKinstry, C. di Nolfo, T. K. Nayak, A. Andreopoulos, G. Garreau, M. Mendoza, J. Kusnitz, M. DeBole, S. K. Esser, T. Delbr¨ uck, M. Flickner, and D. S. Modha, “A low power, fully event-based gesture recognition system,” in IEEE Co...

    2017

  36. [44]

    Enhancing SNN-based spatio-temporal learning: A benchmark dataset and cross-modality attention model,

    S. Zhou, B. Yang, M. Yuan, R. Jiang, R. Yan, G. Pan, and H. Tang, “Enhancing SNN-based spatio-temporal learning: A benchmark dataset and cross-modality attention model,” Neural Networks , vol. 180, p. 106677, 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    Speech commands: A dataset for limited-vocabulary speech recognition,

    P. Warden, “Speech commands: A dataset for limited-vocabulary speech recognition,” CoRR, vol. abs/1804.03209, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    DARPA TIMIT acoustic-phonetic continuous speech corpus CD-ROM. NIST speech disc 1-1.1,

    J. S. Garofolo, L. F. Lamel, W. M. Fisher, J. G. Fiscus, and D. S. Pallett, “DARPA TIMIT acoustic-phonetic continuous speech corpus CD-ROM. NIST speech disc 1-1.1,” p. 27403, 1993

    1993

  39. [47]

    An efficient and perceptually motivated auditory neural encoding and decoding algorithm for spiking neural networks,

    Z. Pan, Y. Chua, J. Wu, M. Zhang, H. Li, and E. Ambikairajah, “An efficient and perceptually motivated auditory neural encoding and decoding algorithm for spiking neural networks,”Frontiers in Neuroscience, vol. 13, p. 1420, 2020

    2020

  40. [48]

    The heidelberg spiking data sets for the systematic evaluation of spiking neural networks,

    B. Cramer, Y. Stradmann, J. Schemmel, and F. Zenke, “The heidelberg spiking data sets for the systematic evaluation of spiking neural networks,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 2744–2757, 2020

    2020

  41. [49]

    Spatio-temporal backpropa- gation for training high-performance spiking neural networks,

    Y. Wu, L. Deng, G. Li, J. Zhu, and L. Shi, “Spatio-temporal backpropa- gation for training high-performance spiking neural networks,” Frontiers in Neuroscience, vol. 12, p. 331, 2018

    2018

  42. [50]

    Online training through time for spiking neural networks,

    M. Xiao, Q. Meng, Z. Zhang, D. He, and Z. Lin, “Online training through time for spiking neural networks,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 35, pp. 20 717–20 730, 2022

    2022

  43. [51]

    Towards memory-and time-efficient backpropagation for training spiking neural networks,

    Q. Meng, M. Xiao, S. Yan, Y. Wang, Z. Lin, and Z.-Q. Luo, “Towards memory-and time-efficient backpropagation for training spiking neural networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 6166–6176

    2023

  44. [53]

    A surrogate gradient spiking baseline for speech command recognition,

    A. Bittar and P. N. Garner, “A surrogate gradient spiking baseline for speech command recognition,” Frontiers in Neuroscience , vol. 16, p. 865897, 2022

    2022

  45. [54]

    TC-LIF: A two- compartment spiking neuron model for long-term sequential modelling,

    S. Zhang, Q. Yang, C. Ma, J. Wu, H. Li, and K. C. Tan, “TC-LIF: A two- compartment spiking neuron model for long-term sequential modelling,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 38, no. 15, 2024, pp. 16 838–16 847

    2024

  46. [55]

    A progressive training framework for spiking neural networks with learnable multi- hierarchical model,

    Z. Hao, X. Shi, Z. Huang, T. Bu, Z. Yu, and T. Huang, “A progressive training framework for spiking neural networks with learnable multi- hierarchical model,” inThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  47. [56]

    Incorporating learnable membrane time constant to enhance learning of spiking neural networks,

    W. Fang, Z. Yu, Y. Chen, T. Masquelier, T. Huang, and Y. Tian, “Incorporating learnable membrane time constant to enhance learning of spiking neural networks,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2021, pp. 2661–2671

    2021

  48. [57]

    GLIF: A unified gated leaky integrate-and-fire neuron for spiking neural networks,

    X. Yao, F. Li, Z. Mo, and J. Cheng, “GLIF: A unified gated leaky integrate-and-fire neuron for spiking neural networks,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 35, pp. 32 160–32 171, 2022

    2022

  49. [58]

    PMSN: A parallel multi-compartment spiking neuron for multi-scale temporal processing,

    X. Chen, J. Wu, C. Ma, Y. Yan, Y. Wu, and K. C. Tan, “PMSN: A parallel multi-compartment spiking neuron for multi-scale temporal processing,” CoRR, vol. abs/2408.14917, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Accurate online training of dynamical spiking neural networks through forward propagation through time,

    B. Yin, F. Corradi, and S. M. Boht´e, “Accurate online training of dynamical spiking neural networks through forward propagation through time,” Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 518–527, 2023

    2023

  51. [60]

    Temporal dendritic heterogeneity incorporated with spiking neural networks for learning multi-timescale dynamics,

    H. Zheng, Z. Zheng, R. Hu, B. Xiao, Y. Wu, F. Yu, X. Liu, G. Li, and L. Deng, “Temporal dendritic heterogeneity incorporated with spiking neural networks for learning multi-timescale dynamics,” Nature Communications, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 277, 2024

    2024

  52. [61]

    A review of the integrate-and-fire neuron model: I. homogeneous synaptic input,

    A. N. Burkitt, “A review of the integrate-and-fire neuron model: I. homogeneous synaptic input,” Biological Cybernetics, vol. 95, pp. 1–19, 2006

    2006

  53. [62]

    Temporal effective batch normalization in spiking neural networks,

    C. Duan, J. Ding, S. Chen, Z. Yu, and T. Huang, “Temporal effective batch normalization in spiking neural networks,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 35, pp. 34 377–34 390, 2022

    2022

  54. [63]

    Adaptive smoothing gra- dient learning for spiking neural networks,

    Z. Wang, R. Jiang, S. Lian, R. Yan, and H. Tang, “Adaptive smoothing gra- dient learning for spiking neural networks,” in International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 2023, pp. 35 798–35 816

    2023

  55. [64]

    Building a large annotated corpus of english: The Penn Treebank,

    M. Marcus, B. Santorini, and M. A. Marcinkiewicz, “Building a large annotated corpus of english: The Penn Treebank,” Computational Lin- guistics, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 313–330, 1993

    1993

  56. [65]

    Long short-term memory and learning-to-learn in networks of spiking neurons,

    G. Bellec, D. Salaj, A. Subramoney, R. Legenstein, and W. Maass, “Long short-term memory and learning-to-learn in networks of spiking neurons,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 31, 2018

    2018

  57. [66]

    A solution to the learning dilemma for recurrent networks of spiking neurons,

    G. Bellec, F. Scherr, A. Subramoney, E. Hajek, D. Salaj, R. Legenstein, and W. Maass, “A solution to the learning dilemma for recurrent networks of spiking neurons,” Nature Communications, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 3625, 2020

    2020

  58. [67]

    Accurate and efficient time-domain classification with adaptive spiking recurrent neural networks,

    B. Yin, F. Corradi, and S. M. Boht ´e, “Accurate and efficient time-domain classification with adaptive spiking recurrent neural networks,” Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 3, no. 10, pp. 905–913, 2021

    2021

  59. [68]

    Surrogate gradient learning in spiking neural networks: Bringing the power of gradient-based opti- mization to spiking neural networks,

    E. O. Neftci, H. Mostafa, and F. Zenke, “Surrogate gradient learning in spiking neural networks: Bringing the power of gradient-based opti- mization to spiking neural networks,”IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 51–63, 2019

    2019

  60. [69]

    Estimating or propagating gradients through stochastic neurons for conditional computation,

    Y. Bengio, N. L ´eonard, and A. C. Courville, “Estimating or propagating gradients through stochastic neurons for conditional computation,”CoRR, vol. abs/1308.3432, 2013

    2013 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Going deeper with directly-trained larger spiking neural networks,

    H. Zheng, Y. Wu, L. Deng, Y. Hu, and G. Li, “Going deeper with directly-trained larger spiking neural networks,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 35, no. 12, 2021, pp. 11 062–11 070

    2021

  62. [71]

    Layer normalization,

    L. J. Ba, J. R. Kiros, and G. E. Hinton, “Layer normalization,” CoRR, vol. abs/1607.06450, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  63. [72]

    Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift,

    S. Ioffe and C. Szegedy, “Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift,” in Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML , ser. JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, vol. 37. JMLR.org, 2015, pp. 448–456

    2015

  64. [73]

    Parallel spiking neurons with high efficiency and ability to learn long-term dependencies,

    W. Fang, Z. Yu, Z. Zhou, D. Chen, Y. Chen, Z. Ma, T. Masquelier, and Y. Tian, “Parallel spiking neurons with high efficiency and ability to learn long-term dependencies,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, 2023, pp. 53 674–53 687

    2023

  65. [74]

    CLIF: Complementary leaky integrate-and-fire neuron for spiking neural networks,

    Y. Huang, X. Lin, H. Ren, H. Fu, Y. Zhou, Z. Liu, B. Pan, and B. Cheng, “CLIF: Complementary leaky integrate-and-fire neuron for spiking neural networks,” in Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol

  66. [75]

    Unleashing the potential of spiking neural networks for sequential modeling with contextual embedding,

    X. Chen, J. Wu, H. Tang, Q. Ren, and K. C. Tan, “Unleashing the potential of spiking neural networks for sequential modeling with contextual embedding,” CoRR, vol. abs/2308.15150, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Learning delays in spiking neural networks using dilated convolutions with learnable spacings,

    I. Hammouamri, I. K. Hassani, and T. Masquelier, “Learning delays in spiking neural networks using dilated convolutions with learnable spacings,” in The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Rep- resentations, ICLR. OpenReview.net, 2024

    2024

  68. [77]

    Towards ultra-low-power neuromorphic speech enhancement with spiking-fullsubnet,

    X. Hao, C. Ma, Q. Yang, J. Wu, and K. C. Tan, “Towards ultra-low-power neuromorphic speech enhancement with spiking-fullsubnet,” CoRR, vol. abs/2410.04785, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Spike- driven transformer,

    M. Yao, J. Hu, Z. Zhou, L. Yuan, Y. Tian, B. Xu, and G. Li, “Spike- driven transformer,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, 2024

    2024

  70. [79]

    SpikingJelly: An open-source machine learning infrastructure platform for spike-based intelligence,

    W. Fang, Y. Chen, J. Ding, Z. Yu, T. Masquelier, D. Chen, L. Huang, H. Zhou, G. Li, and Y. Tian, “SpikingJelly: An open-source machine learning infrastructure platform for spike-based intelligence,” Science Advances, vol. 9, no. 40, p. eadi1480, 2023

    2023

  71. [80]

    Accurate and efficient time-domain classification with adaptive spiking recurrent neural networks,

    B. Yin, F. Corradi, and S. M. Boht ´e, “Accurate and efficient time-domain classification with adaptive spiking recurrent neural networks,” Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 3, no. 10, pp. 905–913, Oct 2021

    2021

  72. [81]

    Fixing weight decay regularization in adam,

    I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter, “Fixing weight decay regularization in adam,” CoRR, vol. abs/1711.05101, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  73. [82]

    Regularizing and optimizing LSTM language models,

    S. Merity, N. S. Keskar, and R. Socher, “Regularizing and optimizing LSTM language models,” in 6th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR. OpenReview.net, 2018

    2018

  74. [83]

    1.1 computing’s energy problem (and what we can do about it),

    M. Horowitz, “1.1 computing’s energy problem (and what we can do about it),” in 2014 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference Digest of Technical Papers (ISSCC). IEEE, 2014, pp. 10–14

    2014

  75. [84]

    Towards scalable GPU- accelerated SNN training via temporal fusion,

    Y. Li, J. Li, K. Sun, L. Leng, and R. Cheng, “Towards scalable GPU- accelerated SNN training via temporal fusion,” in Artificial Neural Networks and Machine Learning – ICANN . Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2024, pp. 58–73. 1 Appendix “Spiking Neural Networks for Temporal ...

    2024

  76. [235]

    19 949–19 972

    PMLR, 21–27 Jul 2024, pp. 19 949–19 972

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.