Timing Recovery and Sequence Detection for Integrate-and-Fire Time Encoding Receivers

Neil Irwin Bernardo

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 24 references

Timing Recovery and Sequence Detection for Integrate-and-Fire Time Encoding Receivers

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives a maximum-likelihood framework that lets an integrate-and-fire time-encoding receiver estimate symbol timing offset and detect data directly from firing times.

desk verdict Useful first pass at IF-TEM timing recovery, but the core 'ML' likelihood is really a pseudo-likelihood because it conditions on random firing times without accounting for their stopping-time nature. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.20953 v1 pith:6ADJZZFR submitted 2026-02-24 eess.SP

Neil Irwin Bernardo This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SP

keywords timeencodingmachineintegrate-and-firetimingrecoverymaximumlikelihoodestimationsequencedetectionzero-forcingdetectorsymboloffsetneuromorphiccommunications

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

This paper takes on a gap in time-encoding receivers: prior designs assume perfect symbol timing, but an unknown timing offset breaks the mapping between transmitted symbols and observed firing times. The author's central claim is that the log-likelihood of the observed firing times can be written as a quadratic function of pilot and data contributions, so symbol timing and transmitted sequence can be estimated jointly by maximum likelihood. Since the joint problem is non-convex and NP-hard, the paper develops a practical two-stage receiver: an ML timing estimator driven by pilot firing times, followed by a zero-forcing sequence detector operating directly on data firing times. If the claim is right, an integrate-and-fire receiver can synchronize and decode without a separate clock, and can do so at lower firing rates than spike-count-based detectors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the per-interval measurement y_k = κΔ − b(t_k − t_{k−1}) taken from each firing interval, along with the matrices P(τ) and G(τ) whose entries are integrals of the pulse shape over that interval for pilot and data symbols. These convert asynchronous threshold crossings into a linear-plus-Gaussian model, with a diagonal weight T whose entries are the reciprocal inter-spike intervals, so shorter intervals carry noisier measurements. The first-order optimality condition Eq. (9) and the zero-forcing estimator Eq. (17) are both built on this representation.

What would settle it

Run an IF-TEM on a known pilot sequence with fixed timing offset and additive white Gaussian noise, record firing times, and compare the empirical residuals y_k − [P s_p]_k − [G s_d]_k against independent Gaussian random variables with variance N0 (t_k − t_{k−1})/2. If the residuals are correlated, non-Gaussian, or their variance does not scale with interval length, the derived log-likelihood is not the true likelihood of the observed firing times.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that each firing interval of the IF-TEM carries a linear measurement of the received waveform: the quantity y_k = κΔ − b(t_k − t_{k−1}) equals the integral of the delayed pulse-shaped signal over that interval plus a Gaussian noise term whose variance is proportional to the interval length. This turns timing recovery and sequence detection into a weighted linear regression, giving a log-likelihood of the form C − ½ ‖T^{1/2}(y − P(τ)s_p − G(τ)s_d)‖². The paper then uses a first-order optimality condition on the timing parameter to build a Newton-based ML timing estimator and uses the estimated offset in a zero-forcing detector on the firing t

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise, introduced in the proof of Proposition 1 in Appendix A, is that each firing interval yields an independent Gaussian observation of the integral of the received signal with variance proportional to that interval's length, even though the firing times themselves are random stopping times of the noisy integrator; conditioning on them would generally change the noise distribution, so the stated log-likelihood is an approximation the paper does not prove.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

An IF-TEM receiver can estimate symbol timing offset from pilot firing times alone, removing the perfect-synchronization assumption in earlier time-encoding receivers.
Using the fine structure of firing times rather than spike counts per symbol period yields better symbol error rate, allowing a low-firing-rate receiver to approach the performance of a higher-firing-rate spike-count receiver.
The derived likelihood provides a unified statistical basis for jointly handling timing and data, extending time-encoding receiver design to unsynchronized settings.
Timing estimation error drops with longer effective pilot sequences and higher SNR, so the receiver can trade pilot overhead against synchronization accuracy.
The zero-forcing detector's pilot-interference subtraction mitigates inter-symbol interference from the pulse shape, enabling decoding with Gaussian pulse shaping at low firing rates.

Reading between the lines

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

The likelihood in Proposition 1 treats firing times as fixed, but since they are noise-driven hitting times of the integrator, the stated Gaussian model is an approximation; a rigorous version would condition on the stopping times or use an unbiased pseudo-likelihood, and performance should be re-checked under that correction.
The same framework could support online or adaptive timing tracking by sliding a short pilot window through the firing stream, since the ML objective uses only local intervals.
Replacing the zero-forcing detector with a decision-feedback or ML sequence detector in Eq. (14) would likely improve symbol error rate further at higher complexity, because ZF discards some temporal information.
Adding slight random jitter to the threshold or integrator constant would test the robustness of the linear-Gaussian model; that extension is directly simulable within the paper's setup.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper fills a real gap: nobody had explicitly addressed symbol timing recovery for IF-TEM communication receivers. The two-stage design—pilot-assisted timing estimation followed by a ZF detector that works on firing-time integrals rather than spike counts—is sensible and clearly motivated. The system model is clean, the notation is careful, and the proposed algorithm is implementable. That is genuine credit where it is due.

Now the soft spots, in proportion. The central statistical claim is Proposition 1 / Eq. (4) and its proof in Appendix A. There, the noise integral Z_k = ∫_{t_{k-1}}^{t_k} Z(t)dt is declared Gaussian with variance N0 T_k/2. That is only valid if the integration interval is fixed or independent of the noise. But t_k is a hitting time determined by the accumulated noisy integral, i.e., a stopping time adapted to Z. The integral of white noise over a stopping-time interval is not Gaussian in general, and its distribution depends on the crossing event. So the 'log-likelihood' in (4) is a Gaussian pseudo-likelihood, not the true likelihood of the observed firing times. The stress-test note gets this right, and the paper never labels the step as an approximation or provides any check (residual Gaussianity, comparison against a true likelihood or a CRB).

Is this fatal? Not necessarily. The estimator can be defended as a weighted least squares / pseudo-ML scheme, and the simulations suggest it behaves reasonably. But the abstract and Eq. (8) overclaim by calling it maximum likelihood, and at low firing rates (b=1.5), where noise strongly shapes the firing times, the misspecification could matter. This needs to be fixed or explicitly reframed.

The numerical section is also thinner than it should be: no trial counts, no error bars, no confidence intervals, and no code or data. The SER comparison to [22] is plausible but not statistically quantified. Minor: the invertibility condition for Gᵀ T_d G in (17) is not discussed.

Who is this for? Researchers working on neuromorphic or event-driven communications, specifically IF-TEM receivers. It deserves a serious referee, but the revision should be major: confront the likelihood issue head-on, add Monte Carlo detail, and either prove or clearly state the pseudo-likelihood status of the estimator. I would send it to peer review rather than desk reject.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper addresses symbol timing recovery and data detection for integrate-and-fire time encoding receivers (IF-TEM). The received waveform is modeled as a pulse-shaped PAM signal with an unknown timing offset and additive white Gaussian noise, then encoded by an IF-TEM into firing times. The paper derives a Gaussian log-likelihood (Proposition 1, Eq. 4) for the firing times, from which it formulates a joint ML problem. To keep computation tractable, the receiver first estimates the timing offset from pilot firing times using Newton's method with multiple initial guesses (Algorithm 1), then detects the data sequence with a zero-forcing detector operating on the firing-time-derived observations (Eq. 17). Simulation results report NMSE for timing estimation and SER comparisons against a spike-count-based ZF receiver from prior work.

Significance. If the statistical framework is valid, the paper fills a real gap: existing TEM-based receivers assume perfect symbol synchronization, while the proposed approach uses the fine structure of firing times for both timing and data recovery. The manuscript is clearly written, includes explicit algorithm pseudo-code, and uses a public simulation toolbox, which aids reproducibility. The two-stage architecture is practical, and the reported SER gains, if confirmed, are useful. However, the central theoretical claim — that Eq. (4) is the true log-likelihood of the observed firing times — is not established, and this undermines the 'ML' labeling and the optimality statements built on it.

major comments (3)

[Appendix A / Proposition 1 (Eq. 4)] The derivation of the Gaussian likelihood treats the firing times t_k as fixed and models Z_k = ∫_{t_{k-1}}^{t_k} Z(t)dt as Gaussian with variance N0 T_k/2. This is valid for a fixed integration interval. In the IF-TEM model (2), however, t_k is a hitting time: it is determined by the event that the accumulated integral of Y+b crosses κΔ. Thus t_k is a stopping time adapted to Z, and the event {t_k = τ} is informative about the noise path on [t_{k-1}, τ]. Consequently Z_k given t is not zero-mean Gaussian, and the joint density of the firing times is not of the form (4). The manuscript does not acknowledge this as an approximation; it calls (4) a log-likelihood. This is a load-bearing issue because the 'ML' timing estimator (13) and the data detectors built on (14)/(17) inherit the misspecification. Please either (i) derive the true likelihood via a change of variables from the continuou
[Proposition 1, notation] The text in Proposition 1 and Appendix A describes f(s_d, τ_ϵ | t, s_p) as the conditional PDF of the parameters given the firing times. A likelihood should be a function of the parameters proportional to the density of the observed data given the parameters, f(t | s_d, τ_ϵ, s_p), not a posterior conditioned on t. This notation obscures the fact that the model conditions on the random firing times, which is the source of the misspecification. I recommend rewriting Eq. (4) as an approximate likelihood of t and avoiding posterior-style notation.
[Section IV / numerical validation] The Gaussianity assumption is never tested. In the low firing-rate mode (b=1.5), inter-spike intervals are long and the hitting-time dependence should be strongest, yet the paper provides no diagnostic. I request (i) a Monte Carlo check of the distribution of the normalized residuals (e.g., QQ plots or a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test) for the parameters used in Fig. 2, and (ii) a comparison of Algorithm 1 with a brute-force numerical evaluation of the true likelihood (or an importance-sampling approximation) to quantify the bias of the pseudo-ML estimator. Without such evidence, the 'accurate timing estimation' claim is only heuristic.

minor comments (3)

[Section IV] The SNR definition is not given. Please specify how the noise is generated and how SNR is computed (e.g., average signal power to N0, or E_s/N0). This is needed to reproduce Fig. 2 and Fig. 3.
[Algorithm 1, line 6] The update condition 'if ML Obj(ˆτ(ML)_ϵ) > ML Obj(ˆτ(ℓ)_candidate)' is ill-defined on the first iteration because ˆτ(ML)_ϵ is initialized to NULL. Initialize with the first candidate or restructure the logic.
[Eq. (15)] The index range in the pilot-interference sum (l = L_p-1-L_f to L_p-1) is correct, but the sentence 'the final term ... accounts for interference' could be clearer: it should say it subtracts the known contribution of the last L_f+1 pilot symbols from the firing-time integrals.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the likelihood, timing estimator, and ZF detector are derived from the stated IF-TEM model, not from fitted inputs or self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The log-likelihood in Eq. (4) follows from the IF-TEM equilibrium condition (2): κΔ = ∫_{t_{k-1}}^{t_k} (Y(t)+b)dt, which gives y_k = κΔ − b(t_k − t_{k−1}) as the sum of signal integrals plus a noise integral. Appendix A explicitly writes this as y = P(τ_ϵ)s_p + G(τ_ϵ)s_d + Z, with Z_k = (1/T_k)∫ Z(t)dt, and then assumes Gaussianity of Z_k. This is a modeling assumption, not a circular definition. The timing estimator (13) and Algorithm 1 minimize a weighted squared residual derived from that likelihood; no parameter is fitted to the NMSE or SER results. The ZF detector (17) is the standard linear solution of the model-based least-squares problem (14), again derived from the same observation equation. The only self-citation, [22], is used as an external baseline and design precursor, and the paper explicitly distinguishes its firing-time-based detector from the spike-count ZF detector in [22]; it is not load-bearing for the derivation. The statistical caveat — that firing times are stopping times and Z_k may not be Gaussian when intervals are noise-dependent — is a possible misspecification of the likelihood, but that is a correctness or robustness concern, not circularity. No equation or parameter reduces by construction to the quantity being predicted.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the IF-TEM receiver model (constant b, Δ, κ), the AWGN channel model, the finite-support pulse assumption, and crucially on an unproved Gaussian pseudo-likelihood that treats spike-interval integrals as independent observations. No parameters are fitted to data; the listed free parameters are simulation settings chosen by hand.

free parameters (4)

Bias b = 1.50 and 4.50
Set by hand to define low/high firing-rate operating modes; not fitted to data, but it determines the operating point and affects all performance curves.
Firing threshold Δ = 1.0
Receiver circuit parameter chosen in simulation; not inferred from data, but required by the model (Eq. 2).
Integrator constant κ = 0.1
Receiver circuit parameter chosen in simulation; not inferred from data, but scales the firing condition.
Newton initial guesses N_guess = 5
Algorithm hyperparameter; no sensitivity analysis, so results could depend on this choice.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The IF-TEM firing condition Δ = (1/κ) ∫_{t_{k-1}}^{t_k} (Y(t)+b) dt holds exactly.
Eq. (2); this is the receiver model, including reset and known initial time t0.
domain assumption The received signal is Y(t) = X(t-τ) + Z(t) with Z white Gaussian, and the bias b is large enough that Y+b < 0 is negligible.
Eq. (1) and Section II; needed for stable firing and bounded intervals (3).
domain assumption The pulse p(t) has support 2Lf+1 symbols and guard intervals eliminate inter-frame interference.
Section II; allows dropping last Lf pilot periods to avoid data ISI.
ad hoc to paper Conditional on firing times t, the y_k are independent Gaussian with variance proportional to T_k.
Appendix A; this is the core unproved statistical assumption — firing times are themselves noise-dependent, so the true likelihood is not this Gaussian density.
domain assumption The symbol timing offset τ is constant over the frame and lies in [-T/2, T/2).
Section II; estimation is only over this interval.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Timing Recovery and Sequence Detection for Integrate-and-Fire Time Encoding Receivers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6ADJZZFR

@misc{pith2026260220953,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Timing Recovery and Sequence Detection for Integrate-and-Fire Time Encoding Receivers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6ADJZZFR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.20953}
}

read the original abstract

Recent advances in neuromorphic signal processing have introduced time encoding machines as a promising alternative to conventional uniform sampling for low-power communication receivers. In this paradigm, analog signals are converted into event timings by an integrate-and-fire circuit, allowing information to be represented through spike times rather than amplitude samples. While event-driven sampling eliminates the need for a fixed-rate clock, receivers equipped with integrate-and-fire time encoding machines, called time encoding receivers, often assume perfect symbol synchronization, leaving the problem of symbol timing recovery unresolved. This paper presents a joint timing recovery and data detection framework for integrate-and-fire time encoding receivers. The log-likelihood function is derived to capture the dependence between firing times, symbol timing offset, and transmitted sequence, leading to a maximum likelihood formulation for joint timing estimation and sequence detection. A practical two-stage receiver is developed, consisting of a timing recovery algorithm followed by a zero-forcing detector. Simulation results demonstrate accurate symbol timing offset estimation and improved symbol error rate performance compared to existing time encoding receivers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.20953 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** NMSE (in dB) vs. SNR (in dB) of the proposed timing recovery for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[22]

Symbol detection using an integrate-and-fire time encoding receiver,

N. I. Bernardo, “Symbol detection using an integrate-and-fire time encoding receiver,” in2025 IEEE Workshop on Signal Processing Systems (SiPS), 2025, pp. 1–5

2025
[1]

H. C. Tuckwell,Introduction to Theoretical Neurobiology(Cambridge Studies in Mathematical Biology). Cambridge University Press, 1988

1988
[2]

Mi ´skowicz, Ed.,Event-Based Control and Signal Processing

M. Mi ´skowicz, Ed.,Event-Based Control and Signal Processing. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2015

2015
[3]

Gerstner, W

W. Gerstner, W. M. Kistler, R. Naud, and L. Paninski,Neuronal Dy- namics: From Single Neurons to Networks and Models of Cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014

2014
[4]

Time encoding with an integrate-and-fire neuron with a refractory period,

A. A. Lazar, “Time encoding with an integrate-and-fire neuron with a refractory period,”Neurocomputing, vol. 58-60, pp. 53–58, 2004, Computational Neuroscience: Trends in Research 2004

2004
[5]

Sampling based on timing: Time encoding machines on shift-invariant subspaces,

D. Gontier and M. Vetterli, “Sampling based on timing: Time encoding machines on shift-invariant subspaces,”Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 63–78, 2014

2014
[6]

Time encoding and decoding of multidimensional signals with finite rate of innovation,

R. Alexandru and P. L. Dragotti, “Time encoding and decoding of multidimensional signals with finite rate of innovation,” in2021 55th Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers, 2021, pp. 842–846

2021
[7]

Differentiate-and-fire time- encoding of finite-rate-of-innovation signals,

A. J. Kamath and C. S. Seelamantula, “Differentiate-and-fire time- encoding of finite-rate-of-innovation signals,” inICASSP 2022 - 2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2022, pp. 5637–5641

2022

Show all 24 references

[8]

Fri-tem: Time encoding sampling of finite-rate-of-innovation signals,

H. Naaman, S. Mulleti, and Y . C. Eldar, “Fri-tem: Time encoding sampling of finite-rate-of-innovation signals,”IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 70, pp. 2267–2279, 2022

2022
[9]

Time encoding of sparse signals with flexible filters,

D. Florescu and A. Bhandari, “Time encoding of sparse signals with flexible filters,” in2023 International Conference on Sampling Theory and Applications (SampTA), 2023, pp. 1–5

2023
[10]

Multichannel time- encoding of finite-rate-of-innovation signals,

A. J. Kamath and C. Sekhar Seelamantula, “Multichannel time- encoding of finite-rate-of-innovation signals,” inICASSP 2023 - 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2023, pp. 1–5

2023
[11]

Video time encoding ma- chines,

A. A. Lazar and E. A. Pnevmatikakis, “Video time encoding ma- chines,”IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 461–473, 2011

2011
[12]

A time-encoding machine based high-speed analog-to-digital converter,

X. Kong, R. Matic, Z. Xu, V . Kukshya, P. Petre, and J. Jensen, “A time-encoding machine based high-speed analog-to-digital converter,” IEEE Journal on Emerging and Selected Topics in Circuits and Systems, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 552–563, 2012

2012
[13]

Reconstructing natural visual scenes from spike times,

A. A. Lazar and Y . Zhou, “Reconstructing natural visual scenes from spike times,”Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 102, no. 10, pp. 1500– 1519, 2014

2014
[14]

An event- based digital time difference encoder model implementation for neu- romorphic systems,

D. Gutierrez-Galan, T. Schoepe, J. P. Dominguez-Morales, A. Jimenez-Fernandez, E. Chicca, and A. Linares-Barranco, “An event- based digital time difference encoder model implementation for neu- romorphic systems,”IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. ...

1959
[15]

Time-based finite- rate-of-innovation sampling for variable-pulse-width signal,

N. Fu, H. Zhang, S. Yun, Z. Wei, and L. Qiao, “Time-based finite- rate-of-innovation sampling for variable-pulse-width signal,”IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 73, pp. 1–9, 2024

2024
[16]

Naaman, D

H. Naaman, D. Bilik, S. Savariego, M. Namer, and Y . C. Eldar,ECG- TEM: Time-based sub-nyquist sampling for ECG signal reconstruction and hardware prototype, 2024. arXiv: 2405.13904[eess.SP]

2024 arXiv
[17]

Time encoding quantization of bandlimited and finite-rate-of-innovation signals,

H. Naaman, N. Irwin Bernardo, A. Cohen, and Y . C. Eldar, “Time encoding quantization of bandlimited and finite-rate-of-innovation signals,”IEEE Access, vol. 13, pp. 184 745–184 761, 2025

2025
[18]

A lowrate variable-bias integrate-and-fire time encoding machine,

A. Arora and S. Mulleti, “A lowrate variable-bias integrate-and-fire time encoding machine,” inICASSP 2025 - 2025 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2025, pp. 1–5

2025
[19]

Power-efficient sampling: Towards low-power analog-to-digital con- verters,

S. Mulleti, T. Zirtiloglu, A. Tan, R. T. Yazicigil, and Y . C. Eldar, “Power-efficient sampling: Towards low-power analog-to-digital con- verters,”IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 106– 125, 2025

2025
[20]

Toward fully neuromorphic receivers for ultra-power efficient communications,

G. N. Katsaros and K. Nikitopoulos, “Toward fully neuromorphic receivers for ultra-power efficient communications,” in2025 IEEE 26th International Workshop on Signal Processing and Artificial Intelligence for Wireless Communications (SPAWC), 2025, pp. 1–5

2025
[21]

If-tem-based detection for spike communications with rll encoding,

P. Biswas, M. D ¨orpinghaus, and G. Fettweis, “If-tem-based detection for spike communications with rll encoding,”IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 30, pp. 647–651, 2026

2026
[23]

MIMO Detection Methods: How They Work [Lecture Notes],

E. Larsson, “MIMO Detection Methods: How They Work [Lecture Notes],”IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 91–95, 2009

2009
[24]

com / bionet / ted

BioNet Research Group,TED: Temporal Event Data Toolbox for MATLAB, https : / / github. com / bionet / ted . matlab, Accessed: 2025- 05-31, 2020

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [22]

Symbol detection using an integrate-and-fire time encoding receiver,

N. I. Bernardo, “Symbol detection using an integrate-and-fire time encoding receiver,” in2025 IEEE Workshop on Signal Processing Systems (SiPS), 2025, pp. 1–5

2025

[2] [1]

H. C. Tuckwell,Introduction to Theoretical Neurobiology(Cambridge Studies in Mathematical Biology). Cambridge University Press, 1988

1988

[3] [2]

Mi ´skowicz, Ed.,Event-Based Control and Signal Processing

M. Mi ´skowicz, Ed.,Event-Based Control and Signal Processing. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2015

2015

[4] [3]

Gerstner, W

W. Gerstner, W. M. Kistler, R. Naud, and L. Paninski,Neuronal Dy- namics: From Single Neurons to Networks and Models of Cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014

2014

[5] [4]

Time encoding with an integrate-and-fire neuron with a refractory period,

A. A. Lazar, “Time encoding with an integrate-and-fire neuron with a refractory period,”Neurocomputing, vol. 58-60, pp. 53–58, 2004, Computational Neuroscience: Trends in Research 2004

2004

[6] [5]

Sampling based on timing: Time encoding machines on shift-invariant subspaces,

D. Gontier and M. Vetterli, “Sampling based on timing: Time encoding machines on shift-invariant subspaces,”Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 63–78, 2014

2014

[7] [6]

Time encoding and decoding of multidimensional signals with finite rate of innovation,

R. Alexandru and P. L. Dragotti, “Time encoding and decoding of multidimensional signals with finite rate of innovation,” in2021 55th Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers, 2021, pp. 842–846

2021

[8] [7]

Differentiate-and-fire time- encoding of finite-rate-of-innovation signals,

A. J. Kamath and C. S. Seelamantula, “Differentiate-and-fire time- encoding of finite-rate-of-innovation signals,” inICASSP 2022 - 2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2022, pp. 5637–5641

2022