PAFS: Perturbation-Aware Firing Scaffolds for Robust Event-Based SNNs
Authors: Ning Liu, Jun Sun, Hao Guo, Sen Shen, Xiangfei Yang, Jie Yang, Lan Wu, Shangke Lyu, Thomas Bräunl
Organizations: The University of Western Australia, Australia · Nanjing University, China · The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China · Hangzhou City University, China · Westlake University, China
Event-based spiking neural networks (SNNs) encode information through temporal firing dynamics, but the same stateful computation makes their predictions sensitive to event loss, timestamp jitter, and speed variation. These perturbations alter evidence accumulation, yet late-layer firing trajectories can retain error-diagnostic structure that is absent from the final logits alone. We introduce Perturbation-Aware Firing Scaffolds (PAFS), a labeled post-training calibration method that exploits this structure without updating the pretrained backbone. PAFS associates standardized late-layer leaky integrate-and-fire trajectories with the class-probability residuals of an Adapter anchor, then applies singular value decomposition to extract compact residual-aligned channel directions. At inference, firing trajectories from the same backbone pass are projected onto this fixed low-rank scaffold and combined with anchor statistics to predict a residual logit correction. Across four matched dataset-backbone settings spanning three event datasets and two spiking Transformer architectures, PAFS improves corrupted-average and worst-condition accuracy over the corresponding Adapter anchors, with maximum gains of 3.06 and 3.65 percentage points. In the DailyAction-DVS/Spikingformer setting, the added trainable parameters amount to approximately 0.34% of the frozen backbone.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of PAFS. The SNN backbone remains frozen throughout. Stage 1 learns a lightweight Adapter anchor under multiple temporal domains. Stage 2 constructs perturbation-aware firing scaffolds by aligning late-layer LIF trajectories with anchor prediction residuals and extracting dominant error-related firing directions. Stage 3 projects firing responses onto the fixed scaffolds and learns a residual logit correction for the anchor predictor.
Method
Clean
Window Drop
Jitter
Speed
Corr. Avg.
Worst
DailyAction-DVS, Spikformer
LoRA
97.62 ± 0.55
86.51 ± 1.40
91.35 ± 2.10
87.89 ± 3.00
88.58 ± 1.90
86.51 ± 1.40
Plain MLP
97.52 ± 0.60
86.16 ± 1.55
89.62 ± 2.35
87.89 ± 3.20
87.89 ± 2.05
86.16 ± 1.55
Adapter
97.35 ± 0.53
86.62 ± 1.22
90.43 ± 2.50
86.85 ± 3.65
87.97 ± 1.57
86.62 ± 1.22
PAFS (ours)
97.46 ± 0.53
87.20 ± 1.51
90.77 ± 2.80
88.93 ± 3.34
88.97 ± 2.28
87.20 ± 1.51
DailyAction-DVS, Spikingformer
Table 1: Robustness comparison across datasets and spiking Transformer backbones. Results are mean test accuracy (%) ± standard deviation over three matched seeds; Corr. Avg. averages the three temporal corruptions, and Worst denotes the lowest corrupted-condition accuracy.
Dataset
Representation
Clean
Window Drop
Jitter
Speed
Avg.
Corr. Avg.
Worst
CIFAR10-DVS
PAFS (ours)
57.43 ± 1.21
53.53 ± 3.00
49.07 ± 2.40
37.73 ± 2.66
49.44 ± 2.63
46.78 ± 2.63
37.73 ± 2.66
PCA scaffold
56.93 ± 1.08
52.87 ± 2.55
47.42 ± 2.08
36.31 ± 2.18
48.38 ± 1.92
45.53 ± 2.03
36.31 ± 2.18
Random scaffold
56.84 ± 1.17
52.61 ± 2.72
47.18 ± 2.22
36.74 ± 2.36
48.34 ± 2.06
45.51 ± 2.14
36.74 ± 2.36
Logit-only MLP
56.71 ± 1.12
52.76 ± 2.63
47.05 ± 1.96
36.58 ± 2.27
48.28 ± 1.98
45.46 ± 2.07
36.58 ± 2.27
Adapter anchor
57.50 ± 1.32
53.43 ± 2.84
48.80 ± 1.95
37.60 ± 2.43
49.33 ± 2.34
46.61 ± 2.34
37.60 ± 2.43
DailyAction-DVS
PAFS (ours)
99.65 ± 0.27
94.69 ± 2.03
96.54 ± 1.83
94.46 ± 2.96
96.34 ± 2.20
95.23 ± 2.20
94.46 ± 2.96
Table 2: Mechanism controls with Spikingformer under a matched Adapter anchor and correction protocol. All variants differ only in the representation used for correction. Results are mean test accuracy (%) ± standard deviation over three matched seeds.
Figure 2: Generalization across Window Drop, Jitter, and Speed severities on DailyAction-DVS with Spikingformer. Results are averaged over three matched random seeds, with shaded regions showing ±1 standard deviation.
Figure 3: Rank sensitivity of PAFS on DailyAction-DVS with Spikformer. The dashed line marks the validation-selected rank r=4 ; error bars show ±1 standard deviation over three matched seeds.
Figure 4: Layer evidence on DailyAction-DVS with Spikformer and Spikingformer. Attention+MLP denotes the final PAFS configuration; error bars show ±1 standard deviation over three matched seeds.
Control
Matched components
Changed factor
LoRA
Frozen predictor, data protocol, and validation selection
Parameter-efficient weight update
Plain MLP
Frozen predictor and approximately matched Adapter budget
Output-space residual MLP without an Adapter anchor
Logit-only
Adapter anchor, correction budget, optimization, and selection
Uses only ϕ(z) ; no firing features
PCA / Random
Anchor, LIF sources, rank, correction head, and training
Fixed firing-basis construction rule
Scalar rules
Candidate coordinates, retained budget, correction head, and training
Channel-ranking criterion only
Table S1: Matched conditions and isolated factors for the baseline and control comparisons.
Setting
Value
Input representation
T=16 event-count frames
Spatial resolution
128×128
Adapter bottleneck
b=12
Adapter dropout
0.05
Optimizer
AdamW
Learning rate
5×10−4
Table S2: Default PAFS implementation, optimization, and model-selection settings. The calibration request cap applies to unique training samples and may be truncated by training-split availability.
Figure S1: Sensitivity to the training-only calibration request cap on DailyAction-DVS with Spikformer. Requested caps of 128, 256, 512, and 1,024 yield realized pools of 128, 256, 512, and 929 unique samples, respectively. The fixed 0.75 fitting fraction gives scaffold-fitting subsets of 96, 192, 384, and 697 samples. Each point is the mean over three matched seeds, with error bars denoting ±1 standard deviation. Corr. Avg. averages Window Drop, Jitter, and Speed; Worst reports the corruption with the lowest cross-run mean.
Deployment overhead ↓
Measured inference cost ↓
Robustness gain vs. Adapter ↑
Method
Learned params ( K / % frozen)
FP32 storage (KiB)
Added MACs ( M /sample)
Latency (ms/sample)
Energy (mJ/sample)
Δ Corr. Avg. (pp)
Δ Worst (pp)
Adapter
6.924 / 0.270%
27.0
6.291
5.989±0.048
819.1±11.1
0.00
0.00
LoRA
36.864 / 1.435%
144.0
37.749(+31.458)
6.299±0.160(+5.2%)
854.9±12.7(+4.4%)
−1.12
+0.12
Logit-only MLP
8.796 / 0.342%
34.4
6.293(+0.002)
6.318±0.065(+5.5%)
853.3±3.3(+4.2%)
−0.83
+0.24
PAFS (ours)
8.796 / 0.342%
106.4
6.326(+0.035)
6.626±0.011(+10.6%)
880.1±7.4(+7.5%)
+1.84
+3.23
Table S3: Efficiency–robustness trade-off on DailyAction-DVS with Spikingformer. All methods share the same frozen 2.569 M-parameter predictor. Learned parameters and FP32 storage denote method-specific additions; PAFS storage additionally includes 72.0 KiB fixed scaffold and normalization buffers. Added MACs are measured relative to the frozen predictor. Latency and energy are mean ± standard deviation over three matched seeds. Parentheses indicate changes from Adapter. Robustness gains are absolute percentage-point improvements. Here, K=103 , M=106 , and KiB denotes 210 bytes.
Method / scoring rule
Clean
Window Drop
Jitter
Speed
Corr. Avg.
Worst
Adapter
97.35 ± 0.53
86.62 ± 1.22
90.43 ± 2.50
86.85 ± 3.65
87.97 ± 1.57
86.62 ± 1.22
PAFS (Ours)
97.46 ± 0.53
87.20 ± 1.51
90.77 ± 2.80
88.93 ± 3.34
88.97 ± 2.28
87.20 ± 1.51
Random ranking
97.18 ± 0.61
85.74 ± 1.68
89.88 ± 2.17
85.92 ± 3.08
87.18 ± 1.46
85.74 ± 1.68
Activation frequency
97.52 ± 0.48
86.48 ± 1.45
90.61 ± 1.92
86.34 ± 2.84
87.81 ± 1.30
86.34 ± 2.84
Activation variance
97.58 ± 0.46
86.71 ± 1.56
89.92 ± 2.06
86.10 ± 2.73
87.58 ± 1.28
86.10 ± 2.73
Temporal variance
97.31 ± 0.55
87.36 ± 1.41
89.85 ± 1.80
86.20 ± 2.69
87.80 ± 1.21
86.20 ± 2.69
Table S4: Controlled comparison of PAFS and scalar channel-selection rules on DailyAction-DVS with Spikformer under the default rank-4-per-layer protocol. PAFS and all scalar controls use the same retained-feature budget and the same 1,872-parameter correction head. Only the rule used to construct the retained firing representation changes. Results are mean test accuracy (%) ± standard deviation over three matched model seeds. Corr. Avg. averages Window Drop, Jitter, and Speed, while Worst denotes the corruption with the lowest cross-run mean accuracy.
Spiking neural networks process information through discrete, time-dependent neural events, aiming for efficient computation and biologically inspired learning.
Spiking Neural Networks (SNNs) provide energy-efficient computation but their deployment is constrained by dense connectivity and high spiking operation costs. Existing magnitude-based pruning strategies, when naively applied to SNNs, fail to account for temporal accumulation, non-uniform timestep contributions, and membrane stability, often leading to severe performance degradation. This paper proposes Spiking Layer-Adaptive Magnitude-based Pruning (SLAMP), a theory-guided pruning framework that generalizes layer-adaptive magnitude pruning to temporal SNNs by explicitly controlling worst-case output distortion across layers and timesteps. SLAMP formulates sparsity allocation as a temporal distortion-constrained optimization problem, yielding time-aware layer importance scores that reduce to conventional layer-adaptive pruning in single-timestep limit. An efficient two-stage procedure is derived, combining temporal score estimation, global sparsity allocation, and magnitude pruning with retraining for stability recovery. Experiments on CIFAR10, CIFAR100, and the event-based CIFAR10-DVS datasets demonstrate that SLAMP achieves substantial connectivity and spiking operation reductions while preserving accuracy, enabling efficient and deployable SNN inference.
Junqiao Wang, Zhehang Ye, Yuqi Ouyang
Sichuan University-Pittsburgh Institute, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610207, China · College of Computer Science, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610065, China
Spiking neural networks (SNNs) offer an energy-efficient alternative to conventional deep neural networks by exploiting sparse event-driven computation, but their training remains challenging because the non-differentiable spike function requires surrogate gradients whose fixed shape may be suboptimal across layers and training stages. In this work, we introduce SAGE, an uncertainty-modulated surrogate-gradient mechanism for Transformer-based SNNs. SAGE estimates block-level uncertainty from normalized self-attention entropy and uses this signal to adapt the surrogate-gradient slope during training while leaving the inference model unchanged. By modulating only the training-time surrogate parameter, the proposed method preserves the original architecture and deployment cost while improving optimization flexibility. Experiments on CIFAR-10/100 demonstrate that SAGE achieves improved accuracy over fixed-surrogate baselines, with results up to 1-2% consistent gains across multiple simulation time steps. These results highlight the potential of attention-derived uncertainty as a lightweight training signal for adaptive surrogate-gradient learning in transformer-based SNNs.
Kiran Nair, Rodrigue Rizk, KC Santosh
USD Artificial Intelligence Research Lab Department of Computer Science University of South Dakota Vermillion, SD 57069, USA
Event-based optical flow estimation achieves high temporal resolution and dynamic range by exploiting asynchronous events, while self-supervised learning provides an effective solution to the absence of ground-truth labels. Spiking neural networks (SNNs), as brain-inspired models, process information through asynchronous spikes, naturally aligning with optical flow events. However, the temporal irregularity across event streams hinders the compact extraction of spatiotemporal features, while the absence of explicit labels leads to spurious correlations, thereby increasing redundancy within latent representations. In this paper, we propose a novel 'Compactly Compress, Time-varying Focus' training strategy. We present SICAF (Spikes Information Compression And Focus) framework that formulates the learning process as a constrained optimization with temporal modulation. It encourages self-supervised SNNs to extract compact latent representations while preventing over-compression that would discard temporal saliency. To better enable feature selectivity across time steps, we design an estimator with learnable temporal attention, achieving context awareness with cross-time dependencies. Experimental results on several datasets demonstrate that SICAF achieves state-of-the-art performance in self-supervised SNNs, with a 8.14% improvement in AEE on the MVSEC dataset and a 13.49% increase in robustness under white-box adversarial attacks.
Shuangming Yang, Qing He, Shangqi Guo +1
Tianjin University, Tianjin, China · Tsinghua University, Beijing, China · Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China