MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Selective Input Sparsity in Spiking Neural Networks for Pattern Classification

2022· article· en· W4313191607 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venue2022 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Memory and Neural Computing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMNIST databaseInferenceComputer scienceArtificial neural networkArtificial intelligenceSpiking neural networkPattern recognition (psychology)Set (abstract data type)Enhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of input sparsity in Spiking Neural Networks for pattern recognition is introduced and explored with the goals of reductions in network inference time and size, leading to lower resource requirements in hardware implementations. A method is proposed by which selective input sparsity can be inferred from the training set to reduce the size of the network before training and decrease the network inference time. This method also requires no additional pre-processing steps during the testing phase, making it an excellent candidate for edge applications. For a basic fully connected spiking neural network trained to solve the MNIST handwritten digits, selective input sparsity is applied and the network size is reduced by 58.16% and a 41.07% decrease in the network's inference time is observed without notable accuracy hinderance. In the case of the Fashion MNIST dataset, selective input sparsity reduced the network size by 55.99% and reduced the network's inference time by 59.05%.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.758

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it