Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 62 references

SpikingNav: Robust Embodied Navigation with Spiking Neural Policies

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read SpikingNav claims that replacing both the sensing encoder and the policy core with spiking neural networks raises average corrupted ObjectNav success from 8.45% to 13.71%, keeps clean success at 34.12% versus an ANN baseline's 31.05%, and…

desk verdict A credible spiking-navigation robustness result that needs seed variance and training curves before the headline gap can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05078 v1 pith:5AXUQDG2 submitted 2026-08-05 cs.RO

Jiahong Zhang , Sijun Shen , Dehua Wu , Yifan Lin , Xuechen Xia , Xu Chu , Youhui Zhang , GuoqiLi This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords spikingneuralnetworksembodiednavigationrobustnessvisualcorruptionsobjectpointneuromorphichardwaretemporaldecisionmaking
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

SpikingNav tries to establish that spike-based sensing and spike-based policy dynamics can make an embodied navigator more robust to visual corruptions than a matched ANN navigator, without sacrificing clean-task performance or model compactness. The paper builds a full spiking pipeline, a Spiking Sensing Encoder and a Spiking Policy Network, inside a standard actor-critic reinforcement learning loop. On indoor PointNav and ObjectNav tasks, the spiking agent is competitive with the ANN baseline when observations are clean (ObjectNav success 34.12% versus 31.05%) and clearly better when observations are corrupted (average success 13.71% versus 8.45%), using fewer parameters and about a quarter of the per-step compute. If the results hold, the practical value of spiking networks in embodied systems lies not in raw perception accuracy, but in a disturbance-tolerant temporal decision substrate for closed-loop control.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Spiking Policy Network (SPN), a recurrent core whose membrane state integrates sensory and recurrent currents as $v_t = \lambda u_{t-1} + W_r r_t + W_h u_{t-1}$, fires a binary spike $s_t = H(v_t - \vartheta)$, and resets via $u_t = v_t \odot (1 - s_t)$. This is a native integrate-and-fire recurrence: subthreshold inputs accumulate in the membrane, and a spike both emits an event and clears the fired component, so transient perturbations below the threshold barely move the policy state. The Spiking Sensing Encoder (SSE) feeds the SPN a compact task-conditioned visual feature through a spike-based ResNet-style backbone, a target embedding, and fusion convolutions. The formal anchor is Proposition 1: for $M = \lambda I + W_h$, the accumulated membrane perturbation is bounded by $B_{\tau,j} = \|M\|_\infty^{j-\tau+1}\|\Delta u_{\tau-1}\|_\infty + \sum_{k=\tau}^{j}\|M\|_\infty^{j-k}\|d_k\|_\infty$, and when this budget stays below the minimum spike margin $\bar{m}_j$, the spike pattern is preserved and the actor-logit change is at most $\|W_\pi\|_\infty B_{\tau,j}$.

What would settle it

Retrain the ANN baseline with the same training compute, hyperparameter sweep, and number of seeds as SpikingNav, then re-measure the average corrupted ObjectNav success: if it reaches about 13.71% or higher, the robustness advantage is explained by training effort rather than spiking dynamics. As a mechanism check, set the SPN firing threshold to zero so every input triggers a reset and the spike gate is disabled; if corrupted success does not fall back toward the ANN level, Proposition 1's spike-margin explanation is not what carries the result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that embodied navigation flips the usual robustness ranking of spiking versus artificial networks. In static recognition on a standard image-corruption benchmark, the SNN encoder retains less of its clean accuracy than the ANN encoder (44.82% versus 49.33% retention). Yet in the closed-loop navigation task the full spiking system retains 40.18% of clean ObjectNav success under corruptions while the ANN system retains only 27.21%. The authors attribute this to the combination of the Spiking Sensing Encoder and the Spiking Policy Network: the SSE supplies a stable task-conditioned visual representation, and the SPN integrates sensory evidence into a membrane state whose threshold-triggered spike and reset act as an event-driven gate. Proposition 1 formalizes the mechanism: if the accumulated membrane perturbation over a time interval stays below the local spike margin, the spike pattern is preserved and the actor-logit variation stays bounded by the same accumulated budget scaled by the policy-head norm. The module ablation supports the interpretation: SSE alone raises corrupted ObjectNav success from 8.45% to 9.58%, SPN alone to 10.20%, and the full model to 13.71%.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim collapses if the ANN baseline is undertrained or its per-step compute is measured under a different convention than the spiking model's, because the evidence is a head-to-head comparison against that baseline.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A compact navigator built on spiking dynamics can keep more task success than a matched ANN navigator when cameras blur, crack, darken, or add noise, at about a quarter of the per-step compute.
  • Static-recognition robustness does not predict closed-loop robustness: the SNN backbone is the weaker static classifier under corruption, yet the full spiking agent is the stronger navigator, so embodied benchmarks belong in SNN evaluation.
  • The robustness gain is complementary: swapping in only the spiking encoder raises corrupted ObjectNav success from 8.45% to 9.58%, swapping in only the spiking policy raises it to 10.20%, and both together give 13.71%.
  • Proposition 1 supplies a mechanism-level explanation: when the accumulated perturbation stays below the spike margin, the spike pattern and actor logits stay close to the clean trajectory.
  • The spiking sensing front end executes on a taped-out neuromorphic processor, supporting the feasibility of instantiation on real neuromorphic substrates, with full closed-loop deployment left for future work.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The spike-margin condition suggests a practical monitoring signal: recording the minimum distance from membrane potential to threshold during deployment could flag episodes where the policy is becoming fragile, and could be used to adapt the leak factor or threshold for the current corruption level.
  • Because the mechanism is a task-agnostic integrate-and-fire gate on top of visual features, the same spiking policy design could transfer to other closed-loop visuomotor tasks, such as manipulation or aerial navigation under sensor degradation.
  • A cheap experiment would replace the threshold-triggered reset with a fixed decay (or set the threshold to zero) inside the SPN; if corrupted ObjectNav success stays near 13.71%, the spike gate is not the cause and the gain must come from elsewhere in the spike-based pipeline.
  • The FLOPs comparison does not state how spike sparsity is counted; measuring actual events or energy on a neuromorphic core would show whether the 0.97G per-step figure translates into real deployment savings.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SpikingNav, a spiking neural network framework for embodied navigation in RoboTHOR, consisting of a Spiking Sensing Encoder (SSE) and a Spiking Policy Network (SPN) that replace the ANN perception and policy modules of a baseline navigation agent. The authors evaluate PointNav and ObjectNav under clean and corrupted observations, reporting that SpikingNav matches or exceeds the re-implemented ANN baseline (ANNNav) on clean ObjectNav success rate (34.12% vs 31.05%) and substantially improves average corrupted success rate (13.71% vs 8.45%) while using fewer parameters (12.1M vs 14.0M) and lower per-step FLOPs (0.97G vs 4.21G). A local robustness proposition provides a sufficient condition for spike-pattern preservation under bounded perturbations, and the SSE is deployed on the Thruster-V2 neuromorphic chip. The central claim is that spike-based sensing and recurrent policy dynamics improve closed-loop robustness at lower model cost.

Significance. If the reported results are reliable, this is a meaningful demonstration that SNNs can provide robustness advantages in embodied navigation, a setting that goes beyond static image classification. The paper's strengths include a matched ANN baseline re-implementation, a well-designed module ablation isolating SSE and SPN contributions, a theoretical perturbation bound with a proof sketch, and an initial hardware deployment of the sensing encoder on a real neuromorphic chip. The main limitation is that the headline comparison rests on a single unseeded run with no training curves or variance reporting, which makes the robustness gap difficult to attribute to spiking dynamics rather than training effort. The ImageNet-C comparison in Section V is also presented without a reproducible protocol. These issues are addressable and do not invalidate the approach, but they currently prevent the results from being considered conclusive.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV-B, Tables II and III, Fig. 2] The central robustness claim (clean ObjectNav SR 31.05% vs 34.12%, corrupted average 8.45% vs 13.71%) is based on a single run of each agent with no reported training curves, PPO iteration count, convergence check, early-stopping rule, or seed variance. Since ANNNav is re-implemented by the authors, an undertrained or unlucky ANN baseline could explain a large portion of the gap. Please provide learning curves and repeat all reported navigation experiments with at least three random seeds, reporting means and standard deviations for both ANNNav and SpikingNav, for clean and each corrupted condition, in addition to the averages.
  2. [Section IV-B, Table II] The FLOPs comparison (0.97G vs 4.21G) is stated without defining the counting convention for spiking networks. The SSE and SPN process each navigation step over T=4 internal spiking steps, so the per-step FLOPs for SpikingNav must be specified: are FLOPs counted as MACs multiplied by T, or as spike-driven accumulate operations, or as some other measure? The same input resolution is mentioned but no formula is given. Without a precise definition, the claim of lower per-step computation is not verifiable or reproducible.
  3. [Section V, Table V] The ImageNet-C comparison is presented without any training or evaluation protocol. It is unclear how the navigation backbones are converted into ImageNet classifiers, what classification head is used, whether the backbones are trained on ImageNet or evaluated with the navigation-trained weights, which corruption types and severity levels are used, and how the corruption average is computed. Because this comparison is used to argue that navigation robustness does not inherit single-frame recognition robustness, the missing protocol makes the analysis unverifiable. Please provide full details or remove the comparison.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III-D] The proof sketch of Proposition 1 should be rewritten as an explicit induction on j. As written, it assumes that the reset operation is applied in the same way to both trajectories before establishing that spike patterns are preserved, which is precisely what needs to be proven. The argument can be repaired by induction: the condition at j=τ ensures equal spikes at τ, which gives ||Δu_τ|| ≤ ||Δv_τ||, and then the bound at j+1 follows from the budget recurrence. Making this induction explicit will remove ambiguity.
  2. [Section IV-B, Table II] On PointNav, the SPL difference is large (82.13 vs 72.93) even though SR is close (98.21 vs 96.54). Calling SpikingNav 'competitive' on PointNav is defensible for SR but should be qualified for SPL; the text should discuss whether the spiking policy trades path efficiency for robustness on this task.
  3. [Section IV-C, Fig. 2] The figure does not indicate whether any error bars or variance information are shown, and the 'Avg.' bars should be explicitly defined as the mean over the seven corrupted settings. A caption note clarifying the absence or presence of error bars would help the reader interpret the comparison.
  4. [Section IV-E and Abstract] The abstract states that 'SpikingNav can be instantiated on a real neuromorphic substrate,' but the hardware validation covers only the SSE, not the full closed-loop agent including the SPN. While the Limitations subsection acknowledges this, the wording in the abstract and conclusion should be aligned with the actual deployment scope to avoid overclaiming.
  5. [References, [50]] The SSE backbone is based on 'Burst spiking neural networks' [50], which is cited as an arXiv preprint from 2026. If this work is not yet peer-reviewed, the dependence of the main results on an unpublished backbone should be either clearly flagged or replaced with a published spiking backbone; at minimum, the reader should be told whether the backbone weights are pretrained on ImageNet or trained from scratch as part of the navigation pipeline.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central robustness comparison rests on external benchmarks and a re-implemented ANN baseline, Proposition 1 is a self-contained sufficient condition, and the only self-citations are minor and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical: SpikingNav reports clean and corrupted ObjectNav SR/SPL against a re-implemented RobustNav ANN baseline (ANNNav) on the external RoboTHOR benchmark (Tables I-II, Fig. 2). Nothing in this comparison is fitted to the target result, and the baseline is defined independently of the spiking model. Proposition 1 (Section III-D) is a self-contained conditional bound: it defines a perturbation budget B_{τ,j} (Eq. 23) and a spike margin m̄_j (Eq. 24), then proves that if B < m̄, the spike pattern is preserved; the proof is direct algebra and does not inject empirical content. The paper explicitly does not claim the spiking backbone alone is more robust—indeed Fig. 4 shows the SNN encoder has lower ImageNet-C retention than the ANN encoder (44.82% vs 49.33%)—so the robustness story depends on the closed-loop system, not on a self-cited prior result. The only self-citations are the spike-based ResNet18-style backbone and T=4 from the authors' Burst SNN preprint [50], plus robustness-context references [15,50]; these supply components or background, not the load-bearing conclusion. The absence of training curves, seed variance, and a defined spiking FLOPs convention are correctness/reproducibility concerns rather than circularity. The limitations section's admission that hardware validation covers only the SSE and that Thruster-V2 is unpublished also bears on completeness, not on circular derivation. Score 2 reflects the presence of minor non-load-bearing self-citation only.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The central claim rests on standard ML/RL assumptions plus three hand-chosen spiking dynamics parameters (lambda, theta, T), an unstated FLOPs convention, and an unsubstantiated ImageNet-C evaluation protocol. The T=4 value is inherited from a self-cited unpublished source [50].

free parameters (3)
  • LIF leak factor lambda = not reported
    Membrane decay in Eq. (1)/(9), a core hyperparameter of the SPN that controls temporal memory; the paper states lambda in (0,1) but never gives the value used in experiments, so the central policy dynamics are not fully specified.
  • Firing threshold theta = not reported
    Threshold in Eqs. (2) and (10) determines when spike gates reset the membrane; no value is reported, and robustness gains depend on this threshold through the spike margin in Proposition 1.
  • Internal spiking steps T = 4
    Number of internal spiking steps in the SSE, set following [50] (a self-cited unpublished precursor); it scales FLOPs by T and is not ablated.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption RoboTHOR simulator provides a valid proxy for real embodied navigation
    The central claim is evaluated solely in RoboTHOR; the paper acknowledges in Limitations that this is simulation and that hardware validation covers only the sensing module.
  • domain assumption RobustNav visual corruptions emulate the physical disturbances relevant to cyber-physical navigation
    The robustness claim is defined by these seven corruptions; if they are not representative of real deployment noise, the claim does not generalize.
  • domain assumption Surrogate-gradient training with PPO yields converged policies for both the ANN and SNN pipelines
    The paper adopts surrogate gradients and PPO from AllenAct; no convergence analysis or seed variance is provided.
  • domain assumption The FLOPs comparison counts equivalent operations for SNN and ANN
    Table II compares 0.97G vs 4.21G per-step FLOPs, but the paper never defines how spikes, T=4, and zero activations are counted; without a stated convention the efficiency comparison is not interpretable.
  • ad hoc to paper The navigation visual backbones can be evaluated as ImageNet-C classifiers with an appropriate head, yielding the accuracies in Table V
    Section V reports clean/corrupt recognition accuracy for both backbones but gives no training or evaluation protocol; this is an unstated assumption specific to this paper's analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SpikingNav: Robust Embodied Navigation with Spiking Neural Policies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5AXUQDG2

@misc{pith2026260805078,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SpikingNav: Robust Embodied Navigation with Spiking Neural Policies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5AXUQDG2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05078}
}
read the original abstract

Embodied navigation requires an agent to make sequential decisions from egocentric observations in a physical environment. Existing Artificial Neural Network (ANN)-based navigation models have achieved strong performance, yet they often rely on dense computation and may degrade under visual corruptions. Spiking neural networks (SNNs) provide event-driven computation and intrinsic temporal dynamics, which are promising for compact and robust navigation on resource-constrained platforms. However, whether spike-based sensing and policy dynamics can improve robustness in visually rich embodied navigation remains an open problem. This paper proposes SpikingNav, a spiking framework for robust indoor embodied navigation. It contains a Spiking Sensing Encoder (SSE) and a Spiking Policy Network (SPN). The SSE extracts task-conditioned visual features with a spike-based backbone. The SPN maintains a recurrent policy state through membrane integration, thresholding, and spike-triggered reset. In this way, SpikingNav exploits the dynamic properties and spike activations of SNNs to improve navigation performance and robustness. We evaluate SpikingNav on PointNav and ObjectNav under clean observations and visual corruptions. SpikingNav achieves competitive clean performance and stronger robustness with fewer parameters and lower per-step computation than a matched ANN baseline. For instance, SpikingNav improves ObjectNav success from 31.05% to 34.12%, and raises the average success under visual corruptions from 8.45% to 13.71%, demonstrating the benefits of spike-based sensing and policy dynamics. We further validate the deployability of our spike-based sensing method on the Thruster-V2 neuromorphic chip. This physical hardware validation shows that SpikingNav can be instantiated on a real neuromorphic substrate for cyber-physical systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05078 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of SpikingNav. Given the current RGB observation and a target, the Spiking Sensing Encoder (SSE) first [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Robustness comparison under visual corruptions on PointNav and ObjectNav. The left column presents representative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Deployment process on the Thruster–V21 . The right subfigure shows the layout of the taped-out Thruster–V2 multi￾core neuromorphic processor, which provides the physical hardware basis for the SpikingNav. functional compatibility and programmability, while further hardware-aware sparse execution and event-driven optimiza￾tion of SpikingNav may reduce the deployment cost. V. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION In static vision t… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Habitat: A platform for embodied ai research,

    M. Savva, A. Kadian, O. Maksymets, Y . Zhao, E. Wijmans, B. Jain, J. Straub, J. Liu, V . Koltun, J. Maliket al., “Habitat: A platform for embodied ai research,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2019, pp. 9339–9347

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Embodied navigation with multi-modal information: A survey from tasks to methodology,

    Y . Wu, P. Zhang, M. Gu, J. Zheng, and X. Bai, “Embodied navigation with multi-modal information: A survey from tasks to methodology,” Information Fusion, vol. 112, p. 102532, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Object goal navigation using goal-oriented semantic exploration,

    D. S. Chaplot, D. P. Gandhi, A. Gupta, and R. R. Salakhutdinov, “Object goal navigation using goal-oriented semantic exploration,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, pp. 4247–4258, 2020

    2020

  4. [4]

    Objectnav revisited: On evaluation of embodied agents navigating to objects,

    D. Batra, A. Gokaslan, A. Kembhavi, O. Maksymets, R. Mottaghi, M. Savva, A. Toshev, and E. Wijmans, “Objectnav revisited: On evaluation of embodied agents navigating to objects,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.13171, 2020

    arXiv 2006

  5. [5]

    Navigation world models,

    A. Bar, G. Zhou, D. Tran, T. Darrell, and Y . LeCun, “Navigation world models,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, June 2025, pp. 15 791–15 801

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Embodied navigation foundation model,

    J. Zhang, A. Li, Y . Qi, M. Li, J. Liu, S. Wang, H. Liu, G. Zhou, Y . Wu, X. Liet al., “Embodied navigation foundation model,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.12129, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Drive-nav: Directional reasoning, inspection, and verification for efficient open-vocabulary navigation,

    M. Gao, Z. Zhu, Z. Sun, Z. Ma, L. Yuan, Z. Ma, Z. Gao, J. Zhang, and S. Zou, “Drive-nav: Directional reasoning, inspection, and verification for efficient open-vocabulary navigation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.28691, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    Ro- bustnav: Towards benchmarking robustness in embodied navigation,

    P. Chattopadhyay, J. Hoffman, R. Mottaghi, and A. Kembhavi, “Ro- bustnav: Towards benchmarking robustness in embodied navigation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, October 2021, pp. 15 691–15 700

    work page 2021

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    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, pp. 1659–1671, 1997

    1997

  2. [10]

    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

  3. [11]

    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, p. eadi1480, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

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

    Y . Wu, L. Deng, G. Li, J. Zhu, Y . Xie, and L. Shi, “Direct training for spiking neural networks: Faster, larger, better,” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 33, 2019, pp. 1311– 1318

    2019

  5. [13]

    Deep residual learning in spiking neural networks,

    W. Fang, Z. Yu, Y . Chen, T. Huang, T. Masquelier, and Y . Tian, “Deep residual learning in spiking neural networks,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, pp. 21 056–21 069, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    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, pp. 64 043–64 058, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Enhancing robustness of spiking neural networks through retina-like coding and memory-based neurons,

    J. Zhang, K. Wang, M. Yao, H. Xu, P. Zhou, B. Xu, and G. Li, “Enhancing robustness of spiking neural networks through retina-like coding and memory-based neurons,”Neural Networks, p. 107950, 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    Deep directly- trained spiking neural networks for object detection,

    Q. Su, Y . Chou, Y . Hu, J. Li, S. Mei, Z. Zhang, and G. Li, “Deep directly- trained spiking neural networks for object detection,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 6555–6565

    2023

  9. [17]

    Language-guided multimodal spiking neural networks for event-based action recognition,

    Z. Ren, J. Chen, F. Wu, Q. Zhang, and J. Cheng, “Language-guided multimodal spiking neural networks for event-based action recognition,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 2026

    2026

  10. [18]

    Inherent adversarial robustness of deep spiking neural networks: Effects of discrete input encoding and non-linear activations,

    S. Sharmin, N. Rathi, P. Panda, and K. Roy, “Inherent adversarial robustness of deep spiking neural networks: Effects of discrete input encoding and non-linear activations,” inEuropean Conference on Com- puter Vision, 2020, pp. 399–414

    2020

  11. [19]

    Rsc- snn: Exploring the trade-off between adversarial robustness and accuracy in spiking neural networks via randomized smoothing coding,

    K. Wu, M. Yao, Y . Chou, X. Qiu, R. Yang, B. Xu, and G. Li, “Rsc- snn: Exploring the trade-off between adversarial robustness and accuracy in spiking neural networks via randomized smoothing coding,” in Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 2024, ...

    2024

  12. [20]

    Spiking reinforcement learning with memory ability for mapless navigation,

    B. Yang, M. Yuan, C. Zhang, C. Hong, G. Pan, and H. Tang, “Spiking reinforcement learning with memory ability for mapless navigation,” in2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2023, pp. 1–8. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL CYBER-PHYSICAL SYST...

    2023

  13. [21]

    Brain- inspired spatial continuous state encoding for efficient spiking-based navigation,

    Q. Chai, J. Wang, R. Jiang, B. Yang, R. Yan, and H. Tang, “Brain- inspired spatial continuous state encoding for efficient spiking-based navigation,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2025, pp. 13 413–13 419

    2025

  14. [22]

    Hsrl: A hierarchical control system based on spiking deep reinforcement learning for robot navigation,

    B. Yang, S. Zhou, C. Lin, Q. Chai, R. Yan, D. Ma, G. Pan, and H. Tang, “Hsrl: A hierarchical control system based on spiking deep reinforcement learning for robot navigation,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2025, pp. 13 384–13 390

    2025

  15. [23]

    Robothor: An open simulation-to-real embodied ai platform,

    M. Deitke, W. Han, A. Herrasti, A. Kembhavi, E. Kolve, R. Mot- taghi, J. Salvador, D. Schwenk, E. VanderBilt, M. Wallingfordet al., “Robothor: An open simulation-to-real embodied ai platform,” inPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognitio...

    2020

  16. [24]

    Slayer: Spike layer error reassignment in time,

    S. B. Shrestha and G. Orchard, “Slayer: Spike layer error reassignment in time,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 31, 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    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,” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 35, 2021, pp. 11 062– 11 070

    2021

  18. [26]

    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

  19. [27]

    Advancing spiking neural networks toward deep residual learning,

    Y . Hu, L. Deng, Y . Wu, M. Yao, and G. Li, “Advancing spiking neural networks toward deep residual learning,”IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 2353–2367, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Scaling spike-driven transformer with efficient spike firing approximation training,

    M. Yao, X. Qiu, T. Hu, J. Hu, Y . Chou, K. Tian, J. Liao, L. Leng, B. Xu, and G. Li, “Scaling spike-driven transformer with efficient spike firing approximation training,”IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    Noise-robust deep spiking neural networks with temporal information,

    J. Park, B. Heo, and M. Kim, “Noise-robust deep spiking neural networks with temporal information,” inProceedings of the Design Automation Conference, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Inherent adversarial robustness of deep spiking neural networks: Effects of discrete input encoding and non- linear activations,

    N. Rathi, K. Roy, and P. Panda, “Inherent adversarial robustness of deep spiking neural networks: Effects of discrete input encoding and non- linear activations,” inEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Rate coding or direct coding: Which one is better for accurate, robust, and energy-efficient spiking neural networks?

    Y . Kim and P. Panda, “Rate coding or direct coding: Which one is better for accurate, robust, and energy-efficient spiking neural networks?” inIEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Certified adversarial robustness for rate encoded spiking neural networks,

    B. Mukhoty, H. AlQuabeh, G. De Masi, H. Xiong, and B. Gu, “Certified adversarial robustness for rate encoded spiking neural networks,” in International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Integer-valued training and spike-driven inference spiking neural network for high-performance and energy-efficient object detection,

    X. Luo, M. Yao, Y . Chou, B. Xu, and G. Li, “Integer-valued training and spike-driven inference spiking neural network for high-performance and energy-efficient object detection,” inEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, 2024, pp. 253–272

    2024

  26. [34]

    Fast and robust learning in spiking feed-forward neural networks based on intrinsic plasticity mechanism,

    A. Zhang, H. Zhou, X. Li, and W. Zhu, “Fast and robust learning in spiking feed-forward neural networks based on intrinsic plasticity mechanism,”Neurocomputing, vol. 365, pp. 102–112, 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    Sparse temporal encoding of visual features for robust object recognition by spiking neurons,

    Y . Zheng, S. Li, R. Yan, H. Tang, and K. C. Tan, “Sparse temporal encoding of visual features for robust object recognition by spiking neurons,”IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 29, no. 12, pp. 5823–5833, 2018

    2018

  28. [36]

    Stage-wise robust distillation for spiking neural network training,

    S. Shen, J. Zhang, Z. Chen, X. Xia, Y . Hu, and W. Fu, “Stage-wise robust distillation for spiking neural network training,” inICASSP 2026- 2026 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 2026, pp. 2421–2425

    2026

  29. [37]

    Dd-ppo: Learning near-perfect pointgoal navigators from 2.5 billion frames,

    E. Wijmans, A. Kadian, A. Morcos, S. Lee, I. Essa, D. Parikh, M. Savva, and D. Batra, “Dd-ppo: Learning near-perfect pointgoal navigators from 2.5 billion frames,” inInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2020

    2020

  30. [38]

    Allenact: A framework for embodied ai research,

    L. Weihs, J. Salvador, K. Kotar, U. Jain, K.-H. Zeng, R. Mottaghi, and A. Kembhavi, “Allenact: A framework for embodied ai research,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.12760, 2020

    2008 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Vision-and-language navigation via latent semantic alignment learning,

    S. Wu, X. Fu, F. Wu, and Z.-J. Zha, “Vision-and-language navigation via latent semantic alignment learning,”IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, vol. 26, pp. 8406–8418, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    Mossvln: Memory- observation synergistic system for continuous vision-language naviga- tion,

    T. Yu, Y . Wu, Q. Cui, Q. Huang, and J. Yu, “Mossvln: Memory- observation synergistic system for continuous vision-language naviga- tion,”IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 2025

    2025

  33. [41]

    Pirlnav: Pretraining with imitation and rl finetuning for objectnav,

    R. Ramrakhya, D. Batra, E. Wijmans, and A. Das, “Pirlnav: Pretraining with imitation and rl finetuning for objectnav,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 17 896–17 906

    2023

  34. [42]

    Hm3d-ovon: A dataset and benchmark for open-vocabulary object goal navigation,

    N. Yokoyama, R. Ramrakhya, A. Das, D. Batra, and S. Ha, “Hm3d-ovon: A dataset and benchmark for open-vocabulary object goal navigation,” in2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2024, pp. 5543–5550

    2024

  35. [43]

    Memory-augmented continuous-time neural policy for vision-guided embodied navigation,

    Z. Chen, J. Zhang, S. Shen, W. Fu, and L. Cao, “Memory-augmented continuous-time neural policy for vision-guided embodied navigation,” inProceedings of the 7th ACM International Conference on Multimedia in Asia, ser. MMAsia ’25 Workshops. New York, NY , USA: Association for Co...

    2025

  36. [44]

    Beyond transformers: Linear attention policy for open- vocabulary object goal navigation,

    J. Zhang, Y . Lin, Y . Zhang, S. Shen, K. Wang, Y . Pan, H. Pei, W. Wang, and G. Li, “Beyond transformers: Linear attention policy for open- vocabulary object goal navigation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.18794, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Reinforcement learning with spiking neural networks for robotic applications: A sur- vey,

    K. M. Oikonomou, I. Kansizoglou, and A. Gasteratos, “Reinforcement learning with spiking neural networks for robotic applications: A sur- vey,”Authorea Preprints, 2025

    2025

  38. [46]

    Casrl: Collision avoidance with spiking reinforcement learning among dynamic, decision-making agents,

    C. Zhang, K.-W. Yip, B. Yang, Z. Zhang, M. Yuan, R. Yan, and H. Tang, “Casrl: Collision avoidance with spiking reinforcement learning among dynamic, decision-making agents,” in2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2024, pp. 8031–8038

    2024

  39. [47]

    Spiking variational policy gradient for brain inspired reinforcement learning,

    Z. Yang, S. Guo, Y . Fang, Z. Yu, and J. K. Liu, “Spiking variational policy gradient for brain inspired reinforcement learning,”IEEE Trans- actions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 1975–1990, 2025

    1975

  40. [48]

    Using reinforcement learning to attenuate for stochasticity in robot navigation controllers,

    J. Gillespie, I. Ra ˜n´o, N. Siddique, J. Santos, and M. Khamassi, “Using reinforcement learning to attenuate for stochasticity in robot navigation controllers,” in2019 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelli- gence, 2019, pp. 705–713

    2019

  41. [49]

    A rapid adapting and continual learning spiking neural network path planning algorithm for mobile robots,

    H. Espino, R. Bain, and J. L. Krichmar, “A rapid adapting and continual learning spiking neural network path planning algorithm for mobile robots,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 9542– 9549, 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    Burst spiking neural networks,

    J. Zhang, S. Shen, M. Yao, H. Xu, M. Huang, Y . Tian, B. Xu, and G. Li, “Burst spiking neural networks,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.11914, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Simple but effective: CLIP embeddings for embodied AI,

    A. Khandelwal, L. Weihs, R. Mottaghi, and A. Kembhavi, “Simple but effective: CLIP embeddings for embodied AI,” in2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 14 809– 14 818

  44. [52]

    Sg-nav: Online 3d scene graph prompting for llm-based zero-shot object navigation,

    H. Yin, X. Xu, Z. Wu, J. Zhou, and J. Lu, “Sg-nav: Online 3d scene graph prompting for llm-based zero-shot object navigation,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 37, pp. 5285–5307, 2024

    2024

  45. [53]

    Zero-shot object navigation with vision-language models reasoning,

    C. Wen, Y . Huang, H. Huang, Y . Huang, S. Yuan, Y . Hao, H. Lin, Y .- S. Liu, and Y . Fang, “Zero-shot object navigation with vision-language models reasoning,” inInternational Conference on Pattern Recognition. Springer, 2025, pp. 389–404

    2025

  46. [54]

    Ro- bustNav: Towards benchmarking robustness in embodied navigation,

    P. Chattopadhyay, J. Hoffman, R. Mottaghi, and A. Kembhavi, “Ro- bustNav: Towards benchmarking robustness in embodied navigation,” in2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 15 671–15 680

  47. [55]

    ENTL: Embodied navigation trajectory learner,

    K. Kotar, A. Walsman, and R. Mottaghi, “ENTL: Embodied navigation trajectory learner,” in2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 10 829–10 838

  48. [56]

    Rearrangement: A challenge for embodied ai,

    D. Batra, A. X. Chang, S. Chernova, A. J. Davison, J. Deng, V . Koltun, S. Levine, J. Malik, I. Mordatch, R. Mottaghiet al., “Rearrangement: A challenge for embodied ai,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.01975, 2020

    2011 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Dream to control: Learning behaviors by latent imagination,

    D. Hafner, T. Lillicrap, J. Ba, and M. Norouzi, “Dream to control: Learning behaviors by latent imagination,” inInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2021

    2021

  50. [58]

    Unsupervised discovery of object radi- ance fields,

    H.-X. Yu, L. Guibas, and J. Wu, “Unsupervised discovery of object radi- ance fields,” inInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2021

    2021

  51. [59]

    Gaban: A generic and flexibly programmable vector neuro-processor on fpga,

    J. Chen, L. Yang, and Y . Zhang, “Gaban: A generic and flexibly programmable vector neuro-processor on fpga,” inProceedings of the 59th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference, 2022, pp. 931–936

    2022

  52. [60]

    Buffets: An efficient and composable storage idiom for explicit decoupled data orchestration,

    M. Pellauer, Y . S. Shao, J. Clemons, N. Crago, K. Hegde, R. Venkatesan, S. W. Keckler, C. W. Fletcher, and J. Emer, “Buffets: An efficient and composable storage idiom for explicit decoupled data orchestration,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Conference on ...

    2019

  53. [61]

    Ima- genet: A large-scale hierarchical image database,

    J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher, L.-J. Li, K. Li, and F.-F. Li, “Ima- genet: A large-scale hierarchical image database,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2009, pp. 248–255

    2009

  54. [62]

    Benchmarking neural network ro- bustness to common corruptions and perturbations,

    D. Hendrycks and T. Dietterich, “Benchmarking neural network ro- bustness to common corruptions and perturbations,” inInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2019

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.