Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 54 references

Hybrid variable spiking graph neural networks for energy-efficient scientific machine learning

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes Hybrid Variable Spiking Graph Neural Networks, which replace only some activations in a GNN with Variable Spiking Neurons, and shows they match or beat vanilla GNN regression accuracy on three computational mechanics…

desk verdict A useful hybrid spiking GNN for mechanics regression, but the energy-efficiency claim rests on spiking activity, not measured energy. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09379 v1 pith:JDNS7N6Z submitted 2024-12-12 cs.LG

Isha Jain , Shailesh Garg , Shaurya Shriyam , Souvik Chakraborty This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords variablespikingneuronsgraphneuralnetworksenergy-efficientdeeplearningregressioncomputationalmechanicssurrogategradientpolycrystallinematerials
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 proposes Hybrid Variable Spiking Graph Neural Networks (HVS-GNNs), which replace only a few activation functions inside an ordinary graph neural network with Variable Spiking Neurons (VSNs) that emit graded spikes when their accumulated memory crosses a threshold. The aim is to keep the regression accuracy of a vanilla GNN on computational mechanics problems while making communication sparse enough to cut the energy budget. Across three material-science datasets, polycrystal stiffness and yield strength, Terfenol-D magnetostriction, and porous graphene stress fields, the hybrid models match or beat the vanilla GNN and consistently beat the same hybrids built with leaky integrate-and-fire neurons. The authors take the measured percentage of firing events as the indicator of energy efficiency, and they add a spiking-loss term that lowers firing activity further at marginal accuracy cost.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Variable Spiking Neuron (VSN), a neuron whose output at each spike time step is $y = \sigma(z \tilde{y})$, where $z$ is the input, $\tilde{y}$ is a binary threshold event that resets the memory $M$ when it fires, and $\sigma(0)=0$. It combines leaky integrate-and-fire memory dynamics with a continuous graded output, so it carries richer information than a binary LIF spike while remaining silent on sub-threshold steps. The hybrid design keeps most network activations continuous and inserts VSNs only between successive GNN layers, which the authors found to be the placement that balances accuracy and sparsity. Training uses surrogate backpropagation with a fast-sigmoid surrogate, and an optional spiking loss term $L_{\mathrm{slf}} = \alpha_L L_v + \beta_L S$ penalizes the spiking activity $S$, defined as the number of spikes produced divided by the total possible spikes in a spiking layer.

What would settle it

Measure the energy per inference of a trained HVS-GNN and its matching artificial-neuron GNN on a neuromorphic or edge accelerator at equal accuracy; if the hybrid does not consume less energy, or if its spiking activity on that hardware is not below 100 percent, the paper's efficiency claim would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that sparse communication can be introduced into GNNs without sacrificing regression performance by replacing selected activations, rather than all activations, with VSNs. A VSN integrates its input into a memory state with leakage, fires a graded spike through a continuous activation when the memory crosses a threshold, and resets; because the activation satisfies sigma(0)=0, no information is forwarded on non-firing steps. Placing these neurons between successive GNN layers, where the base architecture has plain activations, yields models whose mean-squared errors are comparable to or better than the all-artificial-neuron baseline on all three examples, while spiking activity stays below 37%, 18%, and 59% respectively. Trained with the spiking loss function, the same hybrids fire even less often with only small increases in error. The paper concludes that VSNs work inside GNN architectures and that the approach is a step toward energy-efficient scientific machine learning on graph data.

Load-bearing premise

Energy savings are inferred from the fraction of neurons that fire rather than from measured energy; if sparse graded spikes do not reduce real energy consumption on the hardware actually used, the central energy-efficiency claim is not supported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any existing GNN can be converted into the hybrid variable spiking variant with minimal effort by replacing activations between successive layers.
  • In all three mechanics examples, HVS-GNN regression error is comparable to or better than the vanilla artificial-neuron GNN, and it is consistently lower than the leaky integrate-and-fire hybrid.
  • Spiking activity stays well below 100 percent, reaching at most 37 percent, 18 percent, and 59 percent across the three examples, and the spiking loss function reduces it further with only marginal accuracy loss.
  • For node-level prediction in the graphene example, both tested placements of VSNs keep error close to the vanilla baseline across all 14 repeated blocks.
  • The energy-efficiency benefit is tied to event-driven hardware; the authors note that the savings are maximized when all activations are replaced and that real-world neuromorphic energy use still needs measurement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An editor's inference: the same selective-replacement recipe should transfer to other graph regression tasks with irregular domains, such as mesh-based finite-element surrogates, because the mechanism does not depend on material-specific features.
  • An editor's inference: the paper's spiking-activity metric counts spike events, not measured energy; a stricter test would measure Joules per inference, since graded spikes carrying continuous values may not be cheaper than dense activations on hardware without event-driven execution.
  • An editor's inference: because the authors found between-layer placement to work best, a natural testable extension is to place VSNs inside the message-passing update itself, where activations are currently kept continuous, to see whether in-layer spiking preserves accuracy.
  • An editor's inference: comparing HVS-GNNs against ANN-to-SNN converted GNNs, which the paper argues are inefficient, could map the accuracy-sparsity frontier of native hybrid training more completely.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes Hybrid Variable Spiking Graph Neural Networks (HVS-GNNs), which replace a subset of the activation functions inside a GNN with Variable Spiking Neurons (VSNs) while retaining continuous activations elsewhere. A VSN accumulates its input into a memory variable with leakage parameter β and, only when the memory crosses a threshold Th, emits a graded (continuous) output σ(z); otherwise it emits zero (Eq. 7). Spiking activity S (Eq. 8) is reported as the fraction of neurons that fire, and an optional spiking loss function (Eq. 9) penalizes S. The approach is evaluated on three computational mechanics regression benchmarks: stiffness and yield strength of α-titanium polycrystals (including an out-of-distribution test on unseen textures), magnetostriction of Terfenol-D polycrystals, and the tensile stress field in porous graphene. Across these benchmarks, HVS-GNNs match or modestly beat vanilla GNNs (A-GNNs) in most configurations and consistently beat GNNs with LIF neurons, while spiking activities remain below 60% in all measured layers and drop further when the spiking loss is used. The paper concludes that HVS-GNNs promote sparse communication and hence energy efficiency, while conceding that real-world energy savings on neuromorphic hardware require further study.

Significance. The paper addresses a relevant and under-explored combination: spiking activation functions inside graph neural networks for regression tasks in computational mechanics, rather than the classification tasks that dominate the SNN literature. Its strengths are the breadth of the empirical evaluation (three distinct datasets, graph-level and node-level targets, in-distribution and out-of-distribution tests), the consistent comparison against LIF-based hybrids, and the transparent reporting of per-layer spiking activity; if the accuracy results survive repeated-seed testing, the finding that graded-spike neurons can be selectively inserted into GNNs with little accuracy loss is a useful contribution. The significance is currently capped by the gap between the advertised energy efficiency and the evidence: the only quantitative support is the spiking-activity proxy of Eq. (8), and the authors themselves state in Section 4 that a real-world energy study is still required. No code or trained models are shipped, which limits reproducibility. The paper should be judged as a sparsity and accuracy study, with the energy conclusion conditional on unverified hardware assumptions.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4 and Eq. (8)] The paper's central energy-efficiency claim (title, abstract, and conclusion) is supported only by the spiking-activity proxy S of Eq. (8), which counts threshold crossings rather than energy or operations. Under the VSN dynamics of Eq. (7), every firing event computes the continuous nonlinearity σ(z), so on conventional hardware a firing VSN costs at least as much as a standard activation, and the dense SAGEConv, PNAConv, GRU, and linear layers that dominate the operation count of all three architectures are never sparsified; the sketch in Fig. 1 asserts 'Sparsity ∝ Energy reduction' but provides no quantitative relation. The manuscript offers no energy measurement, no MAC/FLOP accounting, and no mapping to event-driven neuromorphic hardware, and Section 4 itself concedes that 'a more comprehensive study is required to gauge the energy savings in a real-world scenario when running the HVS-GNNs on neuromorphic hardware.' Because the energy claim is load-bearing for the paper's framing, the revision should either supply an operation-level or hardware-level energy assessment or explicitly re-scope the claims to sparsity of communication.
  2. [Tables 2–4] All reported MSE values are single-run point estimates with no error bars, no multi-seed variance, and no significance testing. Several central comparisons involve small margins: in Example 3 the three-way spread is A-GNN 0.535, HVS-GNN1 0.645, HVS-GNN2 0.576, and in Example 2 the claimed superiority of HVS-GNN2 (4.29×10⁻⁹) over A-GNN (9.67×10⁻⁹) rests on a single run. Without repeated-seed statistics, the claims of parity with A-GNN, of superiority in Example 2, and of a 'marginal' accuracy cost for SLF (Figs. 6–7, 10, 13–14) are not established at the precision the text uses.
  3. [Table 2, Evaluation-2] The claim in §3.1 that HVS-GNN performance is 'comparable' to A-GNN in the out-of-distribution evaluation is not supported for stiffness k: HVS-GNN1 reaches 49.01×10⁻³ versus 6.69×10⁻³ for A-GNN (roughly 7× worse) and HVS-GNN2 reaches 10.00×10⁻³ versus 6.69×10⁻³ (roughly 1.5× worse); only for yield strength f_y does HVS-GNN2 beat A-GNN (31.01 versus 33.42). The discussion of out-of-distribution robustness should be qualified, supported by seed variance, or accompanied by an explanation of why sparsified activations degrade out-of-distribution transfer for k.
  4. [§2.2 and Fig. 2] The number of spike time steps (STSs) used in the experiments is never stated, which matters because Eq. (7) is a temporal recurrence. If, as suggested by the Fig. 2 caption ('unit length spike train with VSNs'), only one STS is used, then the leakage parameter β is irrelevant and the VSN reduces to the static rule y = σ(z) if z ≥ Th else 0, so the claimed spiking dynamics are not actually exercised. The revision should state T explicitly and, for each experiment, whether β, Th, and the SLF weights α_L and β_L of Eq. (9) were hand-tuned or trained, together with the resulting values; otherwise the dynamics of Eq. (7) neither describe nor determine the reported sparsity and accuracy numbers.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.3] The section heading 'graphene memberane' should be corrected to 'graphene membrane.'
  2. [Figs. 6–7, 10, 13–14] The legend entries such as 'L = 1, L = 0.000, = 1.79 10-3' are rendering artifacts: they should read α_L, β_L, and ϵ, and the actual SLF hyperparameter values should also be stated in the text or in a table.
  3. [Eq. (8)] The definition of S should state how the counts are aggregated over nodes, edges, and time steps, particularly for Example 3 where spiking activity is reported per block in Figs. 13–14.
  4. [§3.1–§3.3] Examples 1 and 3 describe only train/test splits; the validation procedure (if any) and the model-selection criterion should be reported for all three examples, together with training seeds and data split generation, to support reproducibility.
  5. [Eqs. (7) and (9)] The leakage parameter β in Eq. (7) and the SLF weight β_L in Eq. (9) create notational confusion, especially in the figure legends where both are rendered as 'β'; consider renaming one of them.
  6. [Abstract] The phrase 'restricts its applications in applications like edge computing' is redundant and should be rewritten, for example as 'restricts its application in edge computing.'

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Regression accuracy is independently benchmarked, but the energy-efficiency headline rests on a self-cited spiking-activity proxy and a loss term that directly minimizes that proxy.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 2.2, around Eqs. (7)-(8); Conclusion, 'Spiking Activity' bullet]
    "The manuscript [36, 37] suggests that if the spiking activity of VSNs is less than one or 100%, they prove to be more energy efficient in performing synaptic operations of convolution layers in the deep learning model."

    The only quantitative support for the paper's energy-efficiency claim is the spiking activity S defined in Eq. (8). The inference that S < 1 implies reduced energy is not derived or measured here; it is imported from refs. [36,37], prior papers by the same authors that introduce VSNs and the same S metric. No hardware measurement or operation-level energy count is provided, and Eq. (7) shows each VSN still performs a leaky-memory update, threshold comparison, and, when firing, a continuous activation sigma(z). The central energy-efficiency result therefore reduces to a self-cited convention equating low S with low energy rather than an independently established or measured quantity.

  2. other [Section 2.2, Eq. (9); Example 1, Figs. 6-7]
    "This loss Lslf is termed the Spiking Loss Function (SLF) and is computed as, Lslf = αLLv + βLS ... They show a drop in spiking activity when using the SLF function."

    The reported finding that SLF training reduces spiking activity is a direct consequence of the objective in Eq. (9), where S is one of the terms being minimized. Presenting the reduction in S as an empirical result supporting sparse communication is therefore partly by construction: the loss explicitly penalizes the very quantity later reported as evidence of energy efficiency. The MSE comparisons remain independent evidence for accuracy, but the sparsity-promotion result is built into the training objective.

full rationale

The accuracy claims are not circular: HVS-GNNs are tested on three external computational-mechanics datasets and compared against A-GNN and HLIF-GNN baselines (Tables 2-4), so the regression performance has independent content. The circularity is concentrated in the energy-efficiency narrative. The only quantitative energy proxy is spiking activity S (Eq. 8), and the link S < 1 implies lower energy is taken from the same authors' prior work (refs. [36,37]) rather than from hardware measurements or an energy model. Additionally, the SLF loss (Eq. 9) directly minimizes S, so the observed sparsity reductions are partly self-imposed by the objective. The paper's own conclusion concedes that 'a more comprehensive study is required to gauge the energy savings in a real-world scenario when running the HVS-GNNs on neuromorphic hardware,' confirming that the headline energy claim is an unvalidated proxy. Hence the score is moderate: the main accuracy contribution stands independently, but the paper's title-level promise of energy efficiency reduces to a self-cited metric.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the VSN building block from the authors' prior work, plus a set of hand-tuned hyper-parameters (leakage, threshold, SLF weights, spike layer placement) and the proxy assumption that spiking activity equals energy consumption. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • VSN leakage parameter beta = not reported
    Eq. 7 defines memory leakage beta; authors state it can be hand-tuned or trained. No per-example values are provided.
  • VSN threshold Th = not reported
    Eq. 7 defines the firing threshold; authors state it can be hand-tuned or trained. No per-example values are provided.
  • SLF weights alpha_L and beta_L = varying per example; see figure captions (e.g., alpha_L=1, beta_L=0.001; alpha_L=2, beta_L=0.01)
    Eq. 9 defines these weights; they are explicitly tuned as hyper-parameters to balance accuracy and sparsity in each example.
  • Placement of spiking layers (variants 1 and 2) = variant 1 or 2 per example
    Section 2.2 states the placement choice is 'based on our experimentation'; the selected variants affect the reported accuracy and spiking activity.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The fast-sigmoid surrogate gradient adequately approximates the discontinuous VSN dynamics for backpropagation.
    Invoked in Section 2.2 for training; no theoretical or empirical validation within this paper that the surrogate yields unbiased gradients for graded spikes.
  • domain assumption Spiking activity S (Eq. 8) is a valid proxy for energy consumption.
    The energy-efficiency conclusions throughout rely on S; the paper provides no direct energy measurements on hardware.
  • domain assumption Neuromorphic hardware supports graded spikes and converts sparsity into energy savings.
    The paper cites refs on graded-spike hardware but does not run on such hardware; the degree of energy savings remains untested.
  • ad hoc to paper Replacing activations between successive GNN layers yields good results.
    Section 2.2 states this is based on experimentation, not derived from theory or systematic ablation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hybrid variable spiking graph neural networks for energy-efficient scientific machine learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JDNS7N6Z

@misc{pith2026241209379,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hybrid variable spiking graph neural networks for energy-efficient scientific machine learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JDNS7N6Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09379}
}
read the original abstract

Graph-based representations for samples of computational mechanics-related datasets can prove instrumental when dealing with problems like irregular domains or molecular structures of materials, etc. To effectively analyze and process such datasets, deep learning offers Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) that utilize techniques like message-passing within their architecture. The issue, however, is that as the individual graph scales and/ or GNN architecture becomes increasingly complex, the increased energy budget of the overall deep learning model makes it unsustainable and restricts its applications in applications like edge computing. To overcome this, we propose in this paper Hybrid Variable Spiking Graph Neural Networks (HVS-GNNs) that utilize Variable Spiking Neurons (VSNs) within their architecture to promote sparse communication and hence reduce the overall energy budget. VSNs, while promoting sparse event-driven computations, also perform well for regression tasks, which are often encountered in computational mechanics applications and are the main target of this paper. Three examples dealing with prediction of mechanical properties of material based on microscale/ mesoscale structures are shown to test the performance of the proposed HVS-GNNs in regression tasks. We have also compared the performance of HVS-GNN architectures with the performance of vanilla GNNs and GNNs utilizing leaky integrate and fire neurons. The results produced show that HVS-GNNs perform well for regression tasks, all while promoting sparse communication and, hence, energy efficiency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09379 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic to draw a parallel between spiking activity and computations involved (in synaptic operations) in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic showing the quality of node features in different variants of GNNs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic for the base deep learning architecture used in Example-1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Plots for predicted vs true stiffness k for both prediction evaluation cases in the first example. respectively. The same reaffirms the trends observed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Plots for predicted vs true yield strength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Percentage spiking activity observed in various spiking layers when predicting the stiffness [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Percentage spiking activity observed in various spiking layers when predicting the yield strength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Schematic for the base deep learning architecture used in Example-2. The input graph sample shown is a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Plots for predicted vs true λ ef f xx in the second example. predictions are closer to true values, a trend similar to what was observed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Percentage spiking activity observed in various spiking layers when predicting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Schematic for the base deep learning architecture used in Example-3. The input graph sample shown is a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Model predictions compared against the ground truth (Labels) for three samples from the test dataset in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Percentage spiking activity plots for various layers in all 14 blocks of HVS-GNN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Percentage spiking activity for A1 layer in all 14 blocks of HVS-GNN2 architecture. α and β are the weights of the SLF and β = 0 represents the case when the vanilla loss function is used. ϵ represents the observed MSE values when comparing the predictions against the…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The graph neural network model

    Franco Scarselli, Marco Gori, Ah Chung Tsoi, Markus Hagenbuchner, and Gabriele Monfardini. The graph neural network model. IEEE transactions on neural networks, 20(1):61–80, 2008

    2008

  2. [2]

    A review of graph neural networks: concepts, architectures, techniques, challenges, datasets, applications, and future directions.Journal of Big Data, 11(1):18, 2024

    Bharti Khemani, Shruti Patil, Ketan Kotecha, and Sudeep Tanwar. A review of graph neural networks: concepts, architectures, techniques, challenges, datasets, applications, and future directions.Journal of Big Data, 11(1):18, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Graph neural networks: A review of methods and applications

    Jie Zhou, Ganqu Cui, Shengding Hu, Zhengyan Zhang, Cheng Yang, Zhiyuan Liu, Lifeng Wang, Changcheng Li, and Maosong Sun. Graph neural networks: A review of methods and applications. AI open, 1:57–81, 2020

    2020

  4. [4]

    Graph neural networks for communi- cation networks: Context, use cases and opportunities

    Jos ´e Su ´arez-Varela, Paul Almasan, Miquel Ferriol-Galm ´es, Krzysztof Rusek, Fabien Geyer, Xiangle Cheng, Xiang Shi, Shihan Xiao, Franco Scarselli, Albert Cabellos-Aparicio, et al. Graph neural networks for communi- cation networks: Context, use cases and opportunities. IEEE network, 37(3):146–153, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Graph neural networks for wireless communications: From theory to practice

    Yifei Shen, Jun Zhang, SH Song, and Khaled B Letaief. Graph neural networks for wireless communications: From theory to practice. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 22(5):3554–3569, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Graph-based deep learning for communication networks: A survey

    Weiwei Jiang. Graph-based deep learning for communication networks: A survey. Computer Communications, 185:40–54, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Graph neural networks for affective social media: A comprehensive overview

    Michail Karavokyris and Spyros Sioutas. Graph neural networks for affective social media: A comprehensive overview. In CIKM Workshops, 2022. 15 A PREPRINT - D ECEMBER 13, 2024

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    A graph neural network framework for social recommendations

    Wenqi Fan, Yao Ma, Qing Li, Jianping Wang, Guoyong Cai, Jiliang Tang, and Dawei Yin. A graph neural network framework for social recommendations. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , 34(5):2033–2047, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Graph neural networks with continual learning for fake news detection from social media

    Yi Han, Shanika Karunasekera, and Christopher Leckie. Graph neural networks with continual learning for fake news detection from social media. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.03316, 2020

    2007 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Investigating and quantifying the repro- ducibility of graph neural networks in predictive medicine

    Mohammed Amine Gharsallaoui, Furkan Tornaci, and Islem Rekik. Investigating and quantifying the repro- ducibility of graph neural networks in predictive medicine. In Predictive Intelligence in Medicine: 4th Interna- tional Workshop, PRIME 2021, Held in Conjunction with MICCAI ...

    2021

  3. [11]

    Disease prediction via graph neural networks

    Zhenchao Sun, Hongzhi Yin, Hongxu Chen, Tong Chen, Lizhen Cui, and Fan Yang. Disease prediction via graph neural networks. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 25(3):818–826, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Medical-knowledge-based graph neural network for medication combination prediction

    Chao Gao, Shu Yin, Haiqiang Wang, Zhen Wang, Zhanwei Du, and Xuelong Li. Medical-knowledge-based graph neural network for medication combination prediction. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Overview of artificial neural networks

    Jinming Zou, Yi Han, and Sung-Sau So. Overview of artificial neural networks. Artificial neural networks: methods and applications, pages 14–22, 2009

    2009

  6. [14]

    Artificial neural networks: A tutorial

    Anil K Jain, Jianchang Mao, and K Moidin Mohiuddin. Artificial neural networks: A tutorial. Computer, 29(3):31–44, 1996

    1996

  7. [15]

    An overview on edge computing research.IEEE access, 8:85714–85728, 2020

    Keyan Cao, Yefan Liu, Gongjie Meng, and Qimeng Sun. An overview on edge computing research.IEEE access, 8:85714–85728, 2020

    2020

  8. [17]

    Introduction to spiking neural networks: Information processing, learning and applications

    Filip Ponulak and Andrzej Kasinski. Introduction to spiking neural networks: Information processing, learning and applications. Acta neurobiologiae experimentalis, 71(4):409–433, 2011

    2011

  9. [18]

    Spiking neural networks: A survey

    Joao D Nunes, Marcelo Carvalho, Diogo Carneiro, and Jaime S Cardoso. Spiking neural networks: A survey. IEEE Access, 10:60738–60764, 2022

    2022

  10. [19]

    Spiking neural networks and their applica- tions: A review

    Kashu Yamazaki, Viet-Khoa V o-Ho, Darshan Bulsara, and Ngan Le. Spiking neural networks and their applica- tions: A review. Brain Sciences, 12(7):863, 2022

    2022

  11. [20]

    A quantitative description of membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve

    Alan L Hodgkin and Andrew F Huxley. A quantitative description of membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve. The Journal of physiology, 117(4):500, 1952

    1952

  12. [21]

    The leaky integrate-and-fire neuron: A platform for synaptic model exploration on the spinnaker chip

    Alexander D Rast, Francesco Galluppi, Xin Jin, and Steve B Furber. The leaky integrate-and-fire neuron: A platform for synaptic model exploration on the spinnaker chip. In The 2010 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), pages 1–8. IEEE, 2010

    2010

  13. [22]

    Spiking deep networks with lif neurons

    Eric Hunsberger and Chris Eliasmith. Spiking deep networks with lif neurons. arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.08829, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Signn: A spike-induced graph neural network for dynamic graph representation learning

    Dong Chen, Shuai Zheng, Muhao Xu, Zhenfeng Zhu, and Yao Zhao. Signn: A spike-induced graph neural network for dynamic graph representation learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07941, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Continuous spiking graph neural networks

    Nan Yin, Mengzhu Wan, Li Shen, Hitesh Laxmichand Patel, Baopu Li, Bin Gu, and Huan Xiong. Continuous spiking graph neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.01897, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Scaling up dynamic graph representation learning via spiking neural networks

    Jintang Li, Zhouxin Yu, Zulun Zhu, Liang Chen, Qi Yu, Zibin Zheng, Sheng Tian, Ruofan Wu, and Changhua Meng. Scaling up dynamic graph representation learning via spiking neural networks. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 37, pages 8588–8596, 2023

    2023

  17. [26]

    Simple model of spiking neurons

    Eugene M Izhikevich. Simple model of spiking neurons. IEEE Transactions on neural networks, 14(6):1569– 1572, 2003

    2003

  18. [27]

    The geometry of excitability and bursting, 2007

    EM Izhikevich. The geometry of excitability and bursting, 2007

    2007

  19. [28]

    Adaptive exponential integrate-and-fire model as an effective description of neuronal activity

    Romain Brette and Wulfram Gerstner. Adaptive exponential integrate-and-fire model as an effective description of neuronal activity. Journal of neurophysiology, 94(5):3637–3642, 2005

    2005

  20. [29]

    Spiking neural networks for nonlinear regression

    Alexander Henkes, Jason K Eshraghian, and Henning Wessels. Spiking neural networks for nonlinear regression. Royal Society Open Science, 11(5):231606, 2024

    2024

  21. [30]

    Event-based angular velocity regression with spiking networks

    Mathias Gehrig, Sumit Bam Shrestha, Daniel Mouritzen, and Davide Scaramuzza. Event-based angular velocity regression with spiking networks. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 4195–4202. IEEE, 2020. 16 A PREPRINT - D ECEMBER 13, 2024

    2020

  22. [31]

    Spiking neural operators for scientific machine learning

    Adar Kahana, Qian Zhang, Leonard Gleyzer, and George Em Karniadakis. Spiking neural operators for scientific machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.10130, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Artificial to spiking neural networks conversion for scientific machine learning

    Qian Zhang, Chenxi Wu, Adar Kahana, Youngeun Kim, Yuhang Li, George Em Karniadakis, and Priyadarshini Panda. Artificial to spiking neural networks conversion for scientific machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.16372, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Training spiking neural networks using lessons from deep learning

    Jason K Eshraghian, Max Ward, Emre O Neftci, Xinxin Wang, Gregor Lenz, Girish Dwivedi, Mohammed Ben- namoun, Doo Seok Jeong, and Wei D Lu. Training spiking neural networks using lessons from deep learning. Proceedings of the IEEE, 2023

    2023

  25. [34]

    Direct training for spiking neural networks: Faster, larger, better

    Yujie Wu, Lei Deng, Guoqi Li, Jun Zhu, Yuan Xie, and Luping Shi. Direct training for spiking neural networks: Faster, larger, better. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , volume 33, pages 1311– 1318, 2019

    2019

  26. [35]

    Direct training high-performance deep spiking neural networks: A review of theories and methods

    Chenlin Zhou, Han Zhang, Liutao Yu, Yumin Ye, Zhaokun Zhou, Liwei Huang, Zhengyu Ma, Xiaopeng Fan, Huihui Zhou, and Yonghong Tian. Direct training high-performance deep spiking neural networks: A review of theories and methods. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.04289, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Neuroscience inspired scientific machine learning (part-1): Variable spiking neuron for regression, 2023

    Shailesh Garg and Souvik Chakraborty. Neuroscience inspired scientific machine learning (part-1): Variable spiking neuron for regression, 2023

    2023

  28. [37]

    Neuroscience inspired neural operator for partial differential equations

    Shailesh Garg and Souvik Chakraborty. Neuroscience inspired neural operator for partial differential equations. Journal of Computational Physics, 515:113266, 2024

    2024

  29. [38]

    Dendritic sodium spikes are variable triggers of axonal action potentials in hippocampal ca1 pyramidal neurons

    Nace L Golding and Nelson Spruston. Dendritic sodium spikes are variable triggers of axonal action potentials in hippocampal ca1 pyramidal neurons. Neuron, 21(5):1189–1200, 1998

    1998

  30. [39]

    Deuchars, and Jamie Johnston

    Emily Johnson, Marilyn Clark, Merve Oncul, Andreea Pantiru, Claudia MacLean, Jim Deuchars, Susan A. Deuchars, and Jamie Johnston. Graded spikes differentially signal neurotransmitter input in cerebrospinal fluid contacting neurons of the mouse spinal cord. iScience, 26(1):105914, 2023

    2023

  31. [40]

    A survey on neuro- morphic computing: Models and hardware

    Amar Shrestha, Haowen Fang, Zaidao Mei, Daniel Patrick Rider, Qing Wu, and Qinru Qiu. A survey on neuro- morphic computing: Models and hardware. IEEE Circuits and Systems Magazine, 22(2):6–35, 2022

    2022

  32. [41]

    A review of spiking neuromorphic hardware communication systems

    Aaron R Young, Mark E Dean, James S Plank, and Garrett S Rose. A review of spiking neuromorphic hardware communication systems. IEEE Access, 7:135606–135620, 2019

    2019

  33. [42]

    Mapping spiking neural networks to neuro- morphic hardware

    Adarsha Balaji, Anup Das, Yuefeng Wu, Khanh Huynh, Francesco G Dell’Anna, Giacomo Indiveri, Jeffrey L Krichmar, Nikil D Dutt, Siebren Schaafsma, and Francky Catthoor. Mapping spiking neural networks to neuro- morphic hardware. IEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration ...

    2019

  34. [43]

    A low-cost high-speed neuromorphic hardware based on spiking neural network

    Edris Zaman Farsa, Arash Ahmadi, Mohammad Ali Maleki, Morteza Gholami, and Hima Nikafshan Rad. A low-cost high-speed neuromorphic hardware based on spiking neural network. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs, 66(9):1582–1586, 2019

    2019

  35. [44]

    Neuromorphic artificial intelligence systems

    Dmitry Ivanov, Aleksandr Chezhegov, and Denis Larionov. Neuromorphic artificial intelligence systems. Fron- tiers in Neuroscience, 16:959626, 2022

    2022

  36. [45]

    Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks

    Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Graph convolutional networks: a comprehensive review

    Si Zhang, Hanghang Tong, Jiejun Xu, and Ross Maciejewski. Graph convolutional networks: a comprehensive review. Computational Social Networks, 6(1):1–23, 2019

    2019

  38. [47]

    Principal neighbourhood aggregation for graph nets

    Gabriele Corso, Luca Cavalleri, Dominique Beaini, Pietro Li `o, and Petar Veliˇckovi´c. Principal neighbourhood aggregation for graph nets. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:13260–13271, 2020

    2020

  39. [48]

    Inductive representation learning on large graphs

    Will Hamilton, Zhitao Ying, and Jure Leskovec. Inductive representation learning on large graphs. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  40. [49]

    Neftci, Hesham Mostafa, and Friedemann Zenke

    Emre O. Neftci, Hesham Mostafa, and Friedemann Zenke. Surrogate gradient learning in spiking neural net- works: Bringing the power of gradient-based optimization to spiking neural networks. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 36(6):51–63, 2019

    2019

  41. [50]

    Superspike: Supervised learning in multilayer spiking neural networks

    Friedemann Zenke and Surya Ganguli. Superspike: Supervised learning in multilayer spiking neural networks. Neural computation, 30(6):1514–1541, 2018

    2018

  42. [51]

    Hestroffer, Marie-Agathe Charpagne, Marat I

    Jonathan M. Hestroffer, Marie-Agathe Charpagne, Marat I. Latypov, and Irene J. Beyerlein. Graph neural networks for efficient learning of mechanical properties of polycrystals. Computational Materials Science , 217:111894, 2023. 17 A PREPRINT - D ECEMBER 13, 2024

    2023

  43. [52]

    Michael A Groeber and Michael A Jackson. Dream. 3d: a digital representation environment for the analysis of microstructure in 3d. Integrating materials and manufacturing innovation, 3(1):56–72, 2014

    2014

  44. [53]

    Graph neural networks for an accurate and interpretable prediction of the properties of polycrystalline materials

    Minyi Dai, Mehmet F Demirel, Yingyu Liang, and Jia-Mian Hu. Graph neural networks for an accurate and interpretable prediction of the properties of polycrystalline materials. npj Computational Materials , 7(1):103, 2021

    2021

  45. [54]

    Linking atomic structural defects to mesoscale properties in crystalline solids using graph neural networks

    Zhenze Yang and Markus J Buehler. Linking atomic structural defects to mesoscale properties in crystalline solids using graph neural networks. Npj Computational Materials, 8(1):198, 2022

    2022

  46. [55]

    Empirical evaluation of gated recur- rent neural networks on sequence modeling, 2014

    Junyoung Chung, Caglar Gulcehre, KyungHyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. Empirical evaluation of gated recur- rent neural networks on sequence modeling, 2014. A Leaky Integrate and Fire Neurons and artificial neurons The dynamics of an artificial neuron is defined as, y = σ(z), (11)...

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.