mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Activation-Energy Pruning for Spiking Neural Networks: Unsupervised Personalization via Spike-Count Saliency

arXiv 2609.26167 ↗First posted 11 Aug 2026cs.LG cs.NEcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Activation-energy pruning -- removing weights whose product of magnitude and cumulative pre-synaptic spike count falls below a threshold -- was established as an effective unsupervised personalization strategy for conventional deep neural networks~citepBINGHAM2025101242. This paper asks what happens when the same criterion is applied to spiking neural networks (SNNs), where activation energy is not merely a useful heuristic but a literal physical quantity proportional to the metabolic cost of each synapse. The answer is surprising on three counts. First, gradient-based pruning methods that perform competitively on conventional networks (SNIP, GraSP, magnitude pruning) consistently underperform on SNNs, collapsing to near-chance accuracy by σ = 0.2 sparsity across all tested architectures and datasets. We trace this to a systematic incompatibility between surrogate-gradient saliency estimation and the binary spike-train representation, though we cannot rule out that alternative surrogate choices or hyperparameter settings might partially mitigate the effect. Second, activation-energy pruning applied to a neuromorphic benchmark improves over the source model at high sparsity (98.4 ± 0.4% vs. 97.2 ± 0.7% at σ = 0.8 on N-MNIST), a phenomenon with no counterpart in the conventional network setting. We interpret this result as consistent with experience-dependent cortical specialisation: removing connections active only for non-target classes may reduce cross-class interference and produce a cleaner target representation, though we note this is an interpretive analogy rather than a mechanistic demonstration.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 47 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Aug 2026.

Builds on

21 of 47 references.

References · 21

  1. 2014Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognitioncited by 15,267
  2. 2018The Lottery Ticket Hypothesis: Finding Sparse, Trainable Neural Networkscited by 2,250
  3. 2015Learning both Weights and Connections for Efficient Neural Networkscited by 1,998
  4. 2017Improved Regularization of Convolutional Neural Networks with Cutoutcited by 1,623
  5. 2016Pruning Filters for Efficient ConvNetscited by 1,129
  6. 2020Meta-Learning in Neural Networks: A Surveycited by 944
  7. 2018SNIP: Single-shot Network Pruning based on Connection Sensitivitycited by 802
  8. 2020Picking Winning Tickets Before Training by Preserving Gradient Flowcited by 467
  9. 2020Improving robustness against common corruptions by covariate shift adaptationcited by 427
  10. 2018A Survey of Unsupervised Deep Domain Adaptationcited by 361
  11. 2015Converting Static Image Datasets to Spiking Neuromorphic Datasets Using Saccadescited by 308
  12. 2022Spikformer: When Spiking Neural Network Meets Transformercited by 263
9 more
  1. 2020Evaluating Prediction-Time Batch Normalization for Robustness under Covariate Shiftcited by 235
  2. 2022Temporal Efficient Training of Spiking Neural Network via Gradient Re-weightingcited by 192
  3. 2020Pruning Neural Networks at Initialization: Why are We Missing the Mark?cited by 181
  4. 2020Salvaging Federated Learning by Local Adaptationcited by 142
  5. 2021Pruning of Deep Spiking Neural Networks through Gradient Rewiringcited by 41
  6. 2022Exploring Lottery Ticket Hypothesis in Spiking Neural Networkscited by 25
  7. 2023Unleashing the Potential of Spiking Neural Networks by Dynamic Confidencecited by 14
  8. 2026Bonsai: A Framework for Convolutional Neural Network Acceleration Using Criterion-Based Pruningcited by 3
  9. 2026Fine-Pruning: A Biologically Inspired Algorithm for Personalization of Machine Learning Modelscited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.