Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 67 references

Self-cross Feature based Spiking Neural Networks for Efficient Few-shot Learning

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An SNN pairing intra-image self-correlation with cross-image contrastive attention hits 98.9% on N-Omniglot few-shot learning and nears ANN accuracy on CUB and miniImageNet.

desk verdict Real new SNN few-shot numbers, but the efficiency claim is arithmetic fiction and the tables need a cleanup before this can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07921 v2 pith:DHMKGIBR submitted 2025-05-12 cs.LG cs.AI

Qi Xu , Junyang Zhu , Dongdong Zhou , Hao Chen , Yang Liu , Jiangrong Shen , Qiang Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords spikingneuralnetworksfew-shotlearningself-featureextractioncross-featurecontrastiveInfoNCElosstemporalefficienttrainingN-Omniglotenergyefficiency
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

Few-shot learning — recognizing new classes from a handful of labeled examples — is normally the province of large, energy-hungry deep networks. This paper claims that spiking neural networks, which compute with sparse event-driven spikes, can be made competitive at few-shot classification without giving up their energy advantage. The proposed SSCF framework pairs a spiking backbone with two modules: a self-feature extractor that learns time-channel correlations within each image, and a cross-feature contrastive module that matches query images against support images through 4D correlation attention maps; the two are trained jointly with a temporal-efficient loss and an InfoNCE contrastive loss. On the neuromorphic N-Omniglot dataset the network reaches 98.9% in the 5-way 5-shot setting, a level the authors say no SNN has reported before, and it scores 76.27% and 60.97% (5-way 1-shot) on CUB and miniImageNet, close to ANN few-shot baselines; the paper estimates it uses about 8.30% of an ANN counterpart's energy.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three components. (1) The self-feature extractor (SFE) unfolds a spiking feature map $F_0 \in \mathbb{R}^{T \times C \times H \times W}$ into $U \times V$ neighbor dimensions, computes time-channel self-correlations through a bottleneck of $1\times 1$ and $3\times 3$ convolutions with leaky integrate-and-fire (LIF) activations, and adds the result to the backbone features residually, $F = F_0 + F_1$. (2) The cross-feature contrastive (CFC) module averages over time, compresses channels, forms a 4D cross-correlation tensor $\mathbf{C} \in \mathbb{R}^{H \times W \times H \times W}$ between query and support, refines it with two 4D convolutional layers, and reads out joint attention maps $A_q(x_q) = \frac{\mathrm{softmax}(\mathbf{C}(x_q, x_s)/\gamma)}{HW}$. (3) The training objective combines the temporal efficient training loss $L_{\mathrm{TET}} = -\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} L_{\mathrm{CE}}(F_q, y)$, which supervises every time step, with an InfoNCE loss on cosine similarities between query and support prototypes, blended as $L_{\mathrm{Total}} = \lambda L_{\mathrm{TET}} + (1-\lambda) L_{\mathrm{info}}$. Together they make the spiking representation both sharper within a single image and explicitly discriminative across the support set.

What would settle it

Insert spike counters into the VGGSNN layers during CUB inference at T=2 and record the true average firing rate $f_r$, then recompute $SOPs = f_r \times T \times \mathrm{FLOPs}$ from the counted spikes. A LIF neuron emits at most one spike per time step, so any implied rate above 1 is impossible; the paper's own numbers (SOPs = 1.39G, FLOPs = 0.13G, T = 2) imply $f_r \approx 5.35$, which would mean the energy comparison is built on an implausible value and the 8.30% figure would need to be recomputed from measured rates.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims, on its own terms, that a spiking network equipped with two complementary feature operations can lift few-shot classification near the accuracy of ANN methods. The first operation, self-feature extraction, unfolds each spiking feature map and computes time-channel self-correlations through a bottleneck convolution block with LIF activations, adding them residually to the backbone features. The second, cross-feature contrast, builds a four-dimensional cross-correlation tensor between query and support features, refines it with 4D convolutions, and produces joint attention maps that align each query position with the most relevant support locations. Trained with the sum of a temporal-efficient (TET) loss and an InfoNCE contrastive loss, the full SSCF model reports 98.9% ± 0.3 on N-Omniglot 5-way 5-shot — which the authors state is the first SNN result at this level — 95.3% ± 0.6 in 5-way 1-shot at T=12, and 76.27% ± 0.46 (CUB 5w1s) and 60.97% ± 0.45 (miniImageNet 5w1s), surpassing several ANN baselines and approaching the stronger ones. The ablation attributes most of the gain to the self-feature module, while the InfoNCE term adds resistance to Gaussian noise, so the framework's value lies in pairing sharper within-image representations with explicit cross-class comparison.

Load-bearing premise

The energy-efficiency claim rests entirely on the firing rate plugged into the formula SOPs = $f_r \times T \times \mathrm{FLOPs}$; the paper's reported values imply $f_r \approx 5.35$ spikes per neuron per step, which exceeds the physical maximum of one spike per time step, so if that rate is not measured as implied the 8.30% energy advantage collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Spiking backbones become a realistic substrate for metric-based few-shot learning, reaching accuracy on static benchmarks that previously required ANN architectures.
  • The SFE + CFC pairing sits on top of any spiking backbone's raw features, so the recipe can be transferred to newer or cheaper SNN backbones without redesign.
  • Longer simulation time helps the 1-shot setting more than the 5-shot setting, implying temporal depth effectively acts as extra information when examples are extremely scarce.
  • The contrastive loss component's noise resistance, shown under Gaussian corruption, matters for any deployment where few-shot data come from uncontrolled sensors.
  • If the energy accounting holds, event-driven few-shot classifiers could run on neuromorphic hardware at a fraction of the energy of their ANN equivalents.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the ablation credits most of the accuracy gain to the self-feature module, strengthening intra-image correlation may be a cheaper path to further gains than scaling the spiking backbone — a testable hypothesis on other few-shot datasets.
  • The optimal balance λ between the two losses shifts with dataset structure (smaller on diverse miniImageNet, larger on fine-grained CUB), so a per-dataset or per-episode λ schedule could act as a cheap adaptation knob without retraining.
  • A natural stress test the paper does not run: event-camera video few-shot tasks, where inputs are already spike trains and no static-to-spike conversion is needed; SSCF's margin over ANNs should be largest there.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SSCF, a spiking neural network (SNN) framework for few-shot classification. The architecture combines a VGGSNN backbone with a self-feature extractor (SFE) based on time-channel self-correlation and a cross-feature contrastive (CFC) module that builds 4D cross-correlation tensors and joint attention maps; training uses a weighted combination of TET loss and InfoNCE loss. The authors report state-of-the-art SNN results on N-Omniglot (98.9% for 5-way 5-shot), competitive results on CUB (76.27% for 5-way 1-shot) and miniImageNet (60.97% for 5-way 1-shot), and an energy estimate claiming the SNN consumes only 8.30% of the energy of an ANN counterpart. The central accuracy claims are supported by the main comparison tables, but several reported internal numbers are mutually inconsistent.

Significance. If the accuracy results hold, this is a meaningful empirical contribution: it demonstrates that an SNN with a relatively simple backbone can reach the level of competitive ANN few-shot learners on static datasets and set a new SNN state of the art on N-Omniglot. The paper also combines standard, well-established components (LIF neurons, TET loss, InfoNCE loss) rather than introducing ad-hoc loss functions that are fitted to the test set, which strengthens the credibility of the accuracy comparison. However, the paper's headline efficiency claim is load-bearing for its title and abstract, and the energy accounting in Section 5.3 is internally inconsistent. The efficiency claim must therefore be corrected or substantially reframed before the paper can be accepted; the accuracy contribution alone is still significant but the presentation needs a major revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.3, Eq. (10)-(12), Table 7] The energy-efficiency calculation is internally inconsistent. Equation (10) defines SOPs = fr * T * FLOPs. With T=2 and FLOPs=0.13G from Table 7, the reported SOPs=1.39G implies fr ≈ 5.35. This is impossible if fr is the average per-timestep firing rate, which is at most 1 under the standard definition used in the cited SOP energy literature; even if fr were interpreted as total spikes per neuron over the full simulation, its maximum would be T=2, so fr=5.35 remains impossible. Independently, Eq. (11) yields E_SNN = 0.9 pJ * 1.39G = 1.251 mJ, not the reported 1.849 mJ. The stated ratio 1.849 mJ / 22.264 mJ = 8.30% is instead consistent with SOPs ≈ 2.05G, which with T=2 and FLOPs=0.13G would require fr ≈ 7.88. The authors should report the actual measured firing rates, correct the SOP and energy numbers, or remove the quantitative efficiency claim pending such verification.
  2. [Section 5.3, Table 5] The ablation table as printed is self-contradictory and does not support the text. Rows 1 and 4 both show the symbol combination "✓ ✓" but report different accuracies (92.13/69.97 vs 94.34/76.27), so the table cannot be read as an ablation hierarchy. The text states that removing the SFE module drops N-Omniglot accuracy from 94.34% to 93.17% and CUB accuracy from 76.27% to 71.84%, but those lower values correspond to row 3, which has SFE present and CFC removed; this is actually a statement about removing the CFC module, not the SFE module. Moreover, the parenthetical deltas in rows 2 and 3 are computed relative to the first row, making the first row behave as the no-module baseline, which is inconsistent with its printed checkmarks. The table and the accompanying interpretation must be reconciled.
  3. [Section 5.3, Table 6 vs Appendix Table 9] The noise-robustness results on CUB conflict between the main text and the appendix. Table 6 reports that at noise level 0.0 the CE baseline obtains 55.135% and InfoNCE obtains 55.302%, while Table 9 reports 74.1% for CE and 77.4% for InfoNCE at the same noise level and dataset. Both tables appear to describe the same 5-way 1-shot CUB setting, so the 20-point discrepancy cannot be explained by task setup as described. The authors need to clarify the exact setting of each table, correct the numbers, and ensure the main-text robustness claim is based on a consistent set of experiments.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4.1] The abstract names the model FSL-SNN while the body names it SSCF; the terminology should be unified throughout.
  2. [Section 5.2, text after Table 1] The text reports 94.2% for the 20-way 5-shot setting, but Table 1 lists 94.9±0.2 at T=12 for SSCF on VGGSNN; this appears to be a typo.
  3. [Section 5.3, text after Table 5] The phrase "less pronouned" should read "less pronounced".
  4. [Appendix Table 8] Table 8 reports CUB accuracy 71.43±0.48 at T=2, while Table 4 reports 76.27 at T=2 for λ=0.7; the relationship between these runs, including the value of λ and other training settings, should be stated explicitly.
  5. [Section 5.3, Eq. (10)] The definition of fr should be stated precisely (average spikes per neuron per timestep, or total spikes per neuron over the whole simulation), since the reported energy numbers depend critically on that definition.
  6. [General] No code release or complete training hyperparameter list (learning rate, number of episodes, τ in InfoNCE, γ in Eq. (5), membrane time constant τ, threshold Vth) is provided; adding these details would substantially improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: benchmark accuracies are external measurements and the losses are standard; the energy table has an arithmetic inconsistency, but no prediction reduces to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

None of the paper's claimed derivations is circular. The headline accuracies (N-Omniglot 98.9%, CUB 76.27%, miniImageNet 60.97%) are measured benchmark results against external baselines such as MAML, Siamese, ProtoNet, and RENet; they are not produced by fitting a parameter to the test set and then renaming the fit a prediction. The LIF dynamics (Eqs. 1-3), TET loss (Eq. 6), InfoNCE loss (Eq. 8), and combined loss (Eq. 9) are standard, fixed-form objectives, and the SFE/CFC contributions are evaluated by component ablation, so the improvement claims are not true by construction. Self-citations occur in the introduction and in the energy-estimation reference, but they support general background claims (SNNs are energy-efficient; SOP energy costs are 0.9 pJ per operation) that are standard in the field and are not used to force the new method's accuracy results. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' own prior papers. The only serious quantitative defect is in Section 5.3: Eq. (10) with T=2 and FLOPs=0.13G implies fr≈5.35 for the reported SOPs=1.39G, which is impossible for a firing rate, and Eq. (11) gives 1.251 mJ, not the reported 1.849 mJ. That is an arithmetic/accounting inconsistency in the energy-efficiency claim, not a circular reduction; it should be corrected but does not make any prediction equivalent to its inputs. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

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

No new physical entities or mechanisms are introduced. The main free parameters are loss weights and temperatures that are tuned or left unspecified. The most fragile input is the energy model, whose arithmetic is internally inconsistent.

free parameters (4)
  • lambda (loss balance weight) = 0.6-0.7 on static datasets; not clearly reported for N-Omniglot
    Tuned per dataset in Table 4; the optimal value differs between CUB and miniImageNet, showing it is data-dependent.
  • tau (InfoNCE temperature) = not reported
    Scalar temperature in Eq. 8, part of InfoNCE; standard choice but the value is not given.
  • gamma (attention temperature) = not reported
    Temperature factor in softmax attention Eq. 5, adapted from Kang et al. 2021; value not specified.
  • T (time steps) = 2, 4, 8, 12
    Time steps are a design choice; performance varies with T, and the paper explores multiple values in Tables 1 and 8.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Leaky Integrate-and-Fire neuron dynamics (Eq. 1-3) with hard reset
    Standard neuron model in SNN literature, assumed without justification here.
  • domain assumption Static images replicated over T time steps carry useful information for SNN processing
    Paper replicates static inputs across time (Section 4.2); this assumes the temporal dimension can substitute for event data.
  • ad hoc to paper Energy model with 0.9pJ per SOP and 4.6pJ per FLOP and SOPs = fr * T * FLOPs
    Assumed in Eq. 10-12; the reported values violate the relation, so the assumption is internally inconsistent.
  • ad hoc to paper Self-correlation and cross-correlation modules from ANN few-shot learning remain effective with LIF activations and spike-based features
    SFE and CFC are ported from RENet (Kang et al. 2021); the paper does not isolate or justify this transfer with dedicated experiments.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Self-cross Feature based Spiking Neural Networks for Efficient Few-shot Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DHMKGIBR

@misc{pith2026250507921,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Self-cross Feature based Spiking Neural Networks for Efficient Few-shot Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DHMKGIBR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07921}
}
read the original abstract

Deep neural networks (DNNs) excel in computer vision tasks, especially, few-shot learning (FSL), which is increasingly important for generalizing from limited examples. However, DNNs are computationally expensive with scalability issues in real world. Spiking Neural Networks (SNNs), with their event-driven nature and low energy consumption, are particularly efficient in processing sparse and dynamic data, though they still encounter difficulties in capturing complex spatiotemporal features and performing accurate cross-class comparisons. To further enhance the performance and efficiency of SNNs in few-shot learning, we propose a few-shot learning framework based on SNNs, which combines a self-feature extractor module and a cross-feature contrastive module to refine feature representation and reduce power consumption. We apply the combination of temporal efficient training loss and InfoNCE loss to optimize the temporal dynamics of spike trains and enhance the discriminative power. Experimental results show that the proposed FSL-SNN significantly improves the classification performance on the neuromorphic dataset N-Omniglot, and also achieves competitive performance to ANNs on static datasets such as CUB and miniImageNet with low power consumption.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07921 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Architecture of the proposed few-shot learning framework based on SNNs. It combines self-feature extractor module and a cross-feature contrastive module to further refine feature representation and greatly reduce power consumption. class c ∈ Ctrain. The contrast-based metric loss Linfo cal￾culates the cosine similarity between the query and the sup￾port prototype embeddings, separates the positive and nega￾tive clas… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. T-SNE visualization on N-Omniglot in different time steps.We can intuitively see the clustering effect in the feature space and the impact of the time step on the feature distribution. At a shorter time step (such as T=4), the feature distribution is more dispersed and the distinction between categories is low. As the time step increases (such as T=12), the feature distribution gradually becomes more compact and the… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visualization of spiking activities at different time steps.In the above picture, we can clearly see the changes in the activity of the spiking. The features at time T=2 are significantly more than those at time T=1. This shows that as the time step increases, more and more features are activated and spikings are emitted, thereby capturing more features. In order to further explore the performance of spiking neural … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION format.date year duplicate empty "emp...

  2. [2]

    and Rose, S

    Atanbori, J. and Rose, S. Mergednet: A simple approach for one-shot learning in siamese networks based on similarity layers. Neurocomputing, 509: 0 1--10, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    EASY: Ensemble Augmented-Shot Y-shaped Learning: State-Of-The-Art Few-Shot Classification with Simple Ingredients

    Bendou, Y., Hu, Y., Lafargue, R., Lioi, G., Pasdeloup, B., Pateux, S., and Gripon, V. Easy: Ensemble augmented-shot y-shaped learning: State-of-the-art few-shot classification with simple ingredients, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.09699

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Optimal ann-snn conversion for high-accuracy and ultra-low-latency spiking neural networks

    Bu, T., Fang, W., Ding, J., Dai, P., Yu, Z., and Huang, T. Optimal ann-snn conversion for high-accuracy and ultra-low-latency spiking neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.04347, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Spiking deep convolutional neural networks for energy-efficient object recognition

    Cao, Y., Chen, Y., and Khosla, D. Spiking deep convolutional neural networks for energy-efficient object recognition. International Journal of Computer Vision, 113: 0 54--66, 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Multi-level semantic feature augmentation for one-shot learning

    Chen, Z., Fu, Y., Zhang, Y., Jiang, Y.-G., Xue, X., and Sigal, L. Multi-level semantic feature augmentation for one-shot learning. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 28 0 (9): 0 4594--4605, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Neural networks and back propagation algorithm

    Cilimkovic, M. Neural networks and back propagation algorithm. Institute of Technology Blanchardstown, Blanchardstown Road North Dublin, 15 0 (1), 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

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

    Deng, S., Li, Y., Zhang, S., and Gu, S. Temporal efficient training of spiking neural network via gradient re-weighting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.11946, 2022

    arXiv 2022

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    Snn-rat: Robustness-enhanced spiking neural network through regularized adversarial training

    Ding, J., Bu, T., Yu, Z., Huang, T., and Liu, J. Snn-rat: Robustness-enhanced spiking neural network through regularized adversarial training. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 0 24780--24793, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    One-shot learning of object categories

    Fei-Fei, L., Fergus, R., and Perona, P. One-shot learning of object categories. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 28 0 (4): 0 594--611, 2006

    2006

  3. [11]

    Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep networks

    Finn, C., Abbeel, P., and Levine, S. Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep networks. In International conference on machine learning, pp.\ 1126--1135. PMLR, 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    Minimal solvers for relative pose estimation of multi-camera systems using affine correspondences

    Guan, B., Zhao, J., Barath, D., and Fraundorfer, F. Minimal solvers for relative pose estimation of multi-camera systems using affine correspondences. International Journal of Computer Vision, 131 0 (1): 0 324--345, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Cbanet: Towards complexity and bitrate adaptive deep image compression using a single network

    Guo, J., Xu, D., and Lu, G. Cbanet: Towards complexity and bitrate adaptive deep image compression using a single network. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 2023 a

    2023

  6. [14]

    Multidimensional pruning and its extension: A unified framework for model compression

    Guo, J., Xu, D., and Ouyang, W. Multidimensional pruning and its extension: A unified framework for model compression. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 2023 b

    2023

  7. [15]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., and Sun, J. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp.\ 770--778, 2016

    2016

  8. [16]

    Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual representation learning

    He, K., Fan, H., Wu, Y., Xie, S., and Girshick, R. Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual representation learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp.\ 9729--9738, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    An efficient knowledge transfer strategy for spiking neural networks from static to event domain

    He, X., Zhao, D., Li, Y., Shen, G., Kong, Q., and Zeng, Y. An efficient knowledge transfer strategy for spiking neural networks from static to event domain. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pp.\ 512--520, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Spiking deep residual networks

    Hu, Y., Tang, H., and Pan, G. Spiking deep residual networks. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 34 0 (8): 0 5200--5205, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Fast-snn: Fast spiking neural network by converting quantized ann

    Hu, Y., Zheng, Q., Jiang, X., and Pan, G. Fast-snn: Fast spiking neural network by converting quantized ann. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 45 0 (12): 0 14546--14562, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    A bio-inspired spiking neural network with few-shot class-incremental learning for gas recognition

    Huo, D., Zhang, J., Dai, X., Zhang, P., Zhang, S., Yang, X., Wang, J., Liu, M., Sun, X., and Chen, H. A bio-inspired spiking neural network with few-shot class-incremental learning for gas recognition. Sensors, 23 0 (5): 0 2433, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Neuromorphic architectures for spiking deep neural networks

    Indiveri, G., Corradi, F., and Qiao, N. Neuromorphic architectures for spiking deep neural networks. In 2015 IEEE International Electron Devices Meeting (IEDM), pp.\ 4--2. IEEE, 2015

    2015

  14. [22]

    Few-shot learning in spiking neural networks by multi-timescale optimization

    Jiang, R., Zhang, J., Yan, R., and Tang, H. Few-shot learning in spiking neural networks by multi-timescale optimization. Neural Computation, 33 0 (9): 0 2439--2472, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Multi-scale metric learning for few-shot learning

    Jiang, W., Huang, K., Geng, J., and Deng, X. Multi-scale metric learning for few-shot learning. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 31 0 (3): 0 1091--1102, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Relational embedding for few-shot classification

    Kang, D., Kwon, H., Min, J., and Cho, M. Relational embedding for few-shot classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp.\ 8822--8833, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Siamese neural networks for one-shot image recognition

    Koch, G., Zemel, R., Salakhutdinov, R., et al. Siamese neural networks for one-shot image recognition. In ICML deep learning workshop, volume 2, pp.\ 1--30. Lille, 2015

    2015

  18. [26]

    G., Hann, A., and Puppe, F

    Krenzer, A., Heil, S., Fitting, D., Matti, S., Zoller, W. G., Hann, A., and Puppe, F. Automated classification of polyps using deep learning architectures and few-shot learning. BMC Medical Imaging, 23 0 (1): 0 59, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., and Hinton, G. E. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems, 25, 2012

    2012

  20. [28]

    N-omniglot, a large-scale neuromorphic dataset for spatio-temporal sparse few-shot learning

    Li, Y., Dong, Y., Zhao, D., and Zeng, Y. N-omniglot, a large-scale neuromorphic dataset for spatio-temporal sparse few-shot learning. Scientific Data, 9 0 (1): 0 746, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Spiking-physformer: camera-based remote photoplethysmography with parallel spike-driven transformer

    Liu, M., Tang, J., Chen, Y., Li, H., Qi, J., Li, S., Wang, K., Gan, J., Wang, Y., and Chen, H. Spiking-physformer: camera-based remote photoplethysmography with parallel spike-driven transformer. Neural Networks, 185: 0 107128, 2025 a

    2025

  22. [30]

    Optical flow-guided 6dof object pose tracking with an event camera

    Liu, Z., Guan, B., Shang, Y., Liang, S., Yu, Z., and Yu, Q. Optical flow-guided 6dof object pose tracking with an event camera. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pp.\ 6501--6509, 2024 a

    2024

  23. [31]

    Line-based 6-dof object pose estimation and tracking with an event camera

    Liu, Z., Guan, B., Shang, Y., Yu, Q., and Kneip, L. Line-based 6-dof object pose estimation and tracking with an event camera. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 2024 b

    2024

  24. [32]

    Stereo event-based, 6-dof pose tracking for uncooperative spacecraft

    Liu, Z., Guan, B., Shang, Y., Bian, Y., Sun, P., and Yu, Q. Stereo event-based, 6-dof pose tracking for uncooperative spacecraft. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2025 b

    2025

  25. [33]

    A closer look at few-shot classification again

    Luo, X., Wu, H., Zhang, J., Gao, L., Xu, J., and Song, J. A closer look at few-shot classification again. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 23103--23123. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Darwin3: a large-scale neuromorphic chip with a novel isa and on-chip learning

    Ma, D., Jin, X., Sun, S., Li, Y., Wu, X., Hu, Y., Yang, F., Tang, H., Zhu, X., Lin, P., et al. Darwin3: a large-scale neuromorphic chip with a novel isa and on-chip learning. National Science Review, 11 0 (5): 0 nwae102, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Networks of spiking neurons: the third generation of neural network models

    Maass, W. Networks of spiking neurons: the third generation of neural network models. Neural networks, 10 0 (9): 0 1659--1671, 1997

    1997

  28. [36]

    Internet of things (iot): A literature review

    Madakam, S., Ramaswamy, R., and Tripathi, S. Internet of things (iot): A literature review. Journal of Computer and Communications, 3 0 (5): 0 164--173, 2015

    2015

  29. [37]

    Mangla, P., Kumari, N., Sinha, A., Singh, M., Krishnamurthy, B., and Balasubramanian, V. N. Charting the right manifold: Manifold mixup for few-shot learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision, pp.\ 2218--2227, 2020

    2020

  30. [38]

    Rapid adaptation with conditionally shifted neurons

    Munkhdalai, T., Yuan, X., Mehri, S., and Trischler, A. Rapid adaptation with conditionally shifted neurons. In International conference on machine learning, pp.\ 3664--3673. PMLR, 2018

    2018

  31. [39]

    Tadam: Task dependent adaptive metric for improved few-shot learning

    Oreshkin, B., Rodr \' guez L \'o pez, P., and Lacoste, A. Tadam: Task dependent adaptive metric for improved few-shot learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018

    2018

  32. [40]

    Convolutional transformer-based few-shot learning for cross-domain hyperspectral image classification

    Peng, Y., Liu, Y., Tu, B., and Zhang, Y. Convolutional transformer-based few-shot learning for cross-domain hyperspectral image classification. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 16: 0 1335--1349, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Transductive episodic-wise adaptive metric for few-shot learning

    Qiao, L., Shi, Y., Li, J., Wang, Y., Huang, T., and Tian, Y. Transductive episodic-wise adaptive metric for few-shot learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pp.\ 3603--3612, 2019

    2019

  34. [42]

    Deep transformer and few-shot learning for hyperspectral image classification

    Ran, Q., Zhou, Y., Hong, D., Bi, M., Ni, L., Li, X., and Ahmad, M. Deep transformer and few-shot learning for hyperspectral image classification. CAAI Transactions on Intelligence Technology, 8 0 (4): 0 1323--1336, 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    and Larochelle, H

    Ravi, S. and Larochelle, H. Optimization as a model for few-shot learning. In International conference on learning representations, 2017

    2017

  36. [44]

    Fast on-device adaptation for spiking neural networks via online-within-online meta-learning

    Rosenfeld, B., Rajendran, B., and Simeone, O. Fast on-device adaptation for spiking neural networks via online-within-online meta-learning. In 2021 IEEE Data Science and Learning Workshop (DSLW), pp.\ 1--6. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  37. [45]

    One-shot learning with spiking neural networks

    Scherr, F., St \"o ckl, C., and Maass, W. One-shot learning with spiking neural networks. BioRxiv, pp.\ 2020--06, 2020

    2020

  38. [46]

    Shamsi, J., Mohammadi, K., and Shokouhi, S. B. A low power circuit of a leaky integrate and fire neuron with global reset. In 2017 Iranian Conference on Electrical Engineering (ICEE), pp.\ 366--369. IEEE, 2017

    2017

  39. [47]

    Efficient spiking neural networks with sparse selective activation for continual learning

    Shen, J., Ni, W., Xu, Q., and Tang, H. Efficient spiking neural networks with sparse selective activation for continual learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pp.\ 611--619, 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    Improving the sparse structure learning of spiking neural networks from the view of compression efficiency

    Shen, J., Xu, Q., Pan, G., and Chen, B. Improving the sparse structure learning of spiking neural networks from the view of compression efficiency. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13572, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Prototypical networks for few-shot learning

    Snell, J., Swersky, K., and Zemel, R. Prototypical networks for few-shot learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  42. [50]

    Optimizing the energy consumption of spiking neural networks for neuromorphic applications

    Sorbaro, M., Liu, Q., Bortone, M., and Sheik, S. Optimizing the energy consumption of spiking neural networks for neuromorphic applications. Frontiers in neuroscience, 14: 0 662, 2020

    2020

  43. [51]

    B., and Neftci, E

    Stewart, K., Orchard, G., Shrestha, S. B., and Neftci, E. On-chip few-shot learning with surrogate gradient descent on a neuromorphic processor. In 2020 2nd IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Circuits and Systems (AICAS), pp.\ 223--227. IEEE, 2020 a

    2020

  44. [52]

    B., and Neftci, E

    Stewart, K., Orchard, G., Shrestha, S. B., and Neftci, E. Online few-shot gesture learning on a neuromorphic processor. IEEE Journal on Emerging and Selected Topics in Circuits and Systems, 10 0 (4): 0 512--521, 2020 b

    2020

  45. [53]

    Stewart, K. M. and Neftci, E. O. Meta-learning spiking neural networks with surrogate gradient descent. Neuromorphic Computing and Engineering, 2 0 (4): 0 044002, 2022

    2022

  46. [54]

    H., and Hospedales, T

    Sung, F., Yang, Y., Zhang, L., Xiang, T., Torr, P. H., and Hospedales, T. M. Learning to compare: Relation network for few-shot learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp.\ 1199--1208, 2018

    2018

  47. [55]

    Going deeper with convolutions

    Szegedy, C., Liu, W., Jia, Y., Sermanet, P., Reed, S., Anguelov, D., Erhan, D., Vanhoucke, V., and Rabinovich, A. Going deeper with convolutions. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp.\ 1--9, 2015

    2015

  48. [56]

    Matching networks for one shot learning

    Vinyals, O., Blundell, C., Lillicrap, T., Wierstra, D., et al. Matching networks for one shot learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 29, 2016

    2016

  49. [57]

    Few-shot learning meets transformer: Unified query-support transformers for few-shot classification

    Wang, X., Wang, X., Jiang, B., and Luo, B. Few-shot learning meets transformer: Unified query-support transformers for few-shot classification. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 33 0 (12): 0 7789--7802, 2023

    2023

  50. [58]

    Symmetric cross entropy for robust learning with noisy labels

    Wang, Y., Ma, X., Chen, Z., Luo, Y., Yi, J., and Bailey, J. Symmetric cross entropy for robust learning with noisy labels. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pp.\ 322--330, 2019

    2019

  51. [59]

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

    Xu, Q., Gao, Y., Shen, J., Li, Y., Ran, X., Tang, H., and Pan, G. Enhancing adaptive history reserving by spiking convolutional block attention module in recurrent neural networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36: 0 58890--58901, 2023

    2023

  52. [60]

    Reversing structural pattern learning with biologically inspired knowledge distillation for spiking neural networks

    Xu, Q., Li, Y., Fang, X., Shen, J., Zhang, Q., and Pan, G. Reversing structural pattern learning with biologically inspired knowledge distillation for spiking neural networks. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pp.\ 3431--3439, 2024 a

    2024

  53. [61]

    K., Pan, G., and Zhang, Q

    Xu, Q., Liu, S., Ran, X., Li, Y., Shen, J., Tang, H., Liu, J. K., Pan, G., and Zhang, Q. Robust sensory information reconstruction and classification with augmented spikes. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 2024 b

    2024

  54. [62]

    Heterogeneous ensemble-based spike-driven few-shot online learning

    Yang, S., Linares-Barranco, B., and Chen, B. Heterogeneous ensemble-based spike-driven few-shot online learning. Frontiers in neuroscience, 16: 0 850932, 2022

    2022

  55. [63]

    Few-shot learning via embedding adaptation with set-to-set functions

    Ye, H.-J., Hu, H., Zhan, D.-C., and Sha, F. Few-shot learning via embedding adaptation with set-to-set functions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp.\ 8808--8817, 2020

    2020

  56. [64]

    Bayesian model-agnostic meta-learning

    Yoon, J., Kim, T., Dia, O., Kim, S., Bengio, Y., and Ahn, S. Bayesian model-agnostic meta-learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018

    2018

  57. [65]

    A two-stage spiking meta-learning method for few-shot classification

    Zhan, Q., Wang, B., Jiang, A., Xie, X., Zhang, M., and Liu, G. A two-stage spiking meta-learning method for few-shot classification. Knowledge-Based Systems, 284: 0 111220, 2024

    2024

  58. [66]

    Deepemd: Few-shot image classification with differentiable earth mover's distance and structured classifiers

    Zhang, C., Cai, Y., Lin, G., and Shen, C. Deepemd: Few-shot image classification with differentiable earth mover's distance and structured classifiers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp.\ 12203--12213, 2020

    2020

  59. [67]

    Deep meta-learning: Learning to learn in the concept space

    Zhou, F., Wu, B., and Li, Z. Deep meta-learning: Learning to learn in the concept space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.03596, 2018

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.