Training Spiking Deep Networks
for Neuromorphic Hardware
Centre for Theoretical Neuroscience
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1
Centre for Theoretical Neuroscience
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1
We describe a method to train spiking deep networks that can be run using leaky
integrate-and-ﬁre (LIF) neurons, achieving state-of-the-art results for spiking LIF
networks on ﬁve datasets, including the large ImageNet ILSVRC-2012 bench-
mark. Our method for transforming deep artiﬁcial neural networks into spik-
ing networks is scalable and works with a wide range of neural nonlinearities.
We achieve these results by softening the neural response function, such that its
derivative remains bounded, and by training the network with noise to provide
robustness against the variability introduced by spikes. Our analysis shows that
implementations of these networks on neuromorphic hardware will be many times
more power-efﬁcient than the equivalent non-spiking networks on traditional hard-
Deep artiﬁcial neural networks (ANNs) have recently been very successful at solving image cate-
gorization problems. Early successes with the MNIST database  were subsequently tested on the
more difﬁcult but similarly sized CIFAR-10  and Street-view house numbers  datasets. Re-
cently, many groups have achieved better results on these small datasets (e.g. ), as well as on
larger datasets (e.g. ). This work has culminated with the application of deep convolutional neu-
ral networks to ImageNet , a very large and challenging dataset with 1.2 million images across
There has recently been considerable effort to introduce neural “spiking” into deep ANNs [7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12], such that connected nodes in the network transmit information via instantaneous single
bits (spikes), rather than transmitting real-valued activities. While one goal of this work is to better
understand the brain by trying to reverse engineer it , another goal is to build energy-efﬁcient
neuromorphic systems that use a similar spiking communication method, for image categorization
[10, 11, 12] or other applications .
In this paper, we present a novel method for translating deep ANNs into spiking networks for im-
plementation on neuromorphic hardware. Unlike previous methods, our method is applicable to
a broad range of neural nonlinearities, allowing for implementation on hardware with idiosyncratic
neuron types (e.g. ). We extend our previous results  to additional datasets, and most notably
demonstrate that it scales to the large ImageNet dataset. We also perform an analysis demonstrating
that neuromorphic implementations of these networks will be many times more power-efﬁcient than
the equivalent non-spiking networks running on traditional hardware.
We ﬁrst train a network on static images using traditional deep learning techniques; we call this the
ANN. We then take the parameters (weights and biases) from the ANN and use them to connect
spiking neurons, forming the spiking neural network (SNN). A central challenge is to train the ANN
in such a way that it can be transferred into a spiking network, and such that the classiﬁcation error
of the resulting SNN is minimized.
2.1 Convolutional ANN
We base our network off that of Krizhevsky et al. , which won the ImageNet ILSVRC-2012
competition. A smaller variant of the network achieved 11% error on the CIFAR-10 dataset. The
network makes use of a series of generalized convolutional layers, where one such layer is composed
of a set of convolutional weights, followed by a neural nonlinearity, a pooling layer, and ﬁnally a
local contrast normalization layer. These generalized convolutional layers are followed by either
locally-connected layers, fully-connected layers, or both, all with a neural nonlinearity. In the case
of the original network, the nonlinearity is a rectiﬁed linear (ReLU) function, and pooling layers
perform max-pooling. The details of the network can be found in  and code is available1.
To make the ANN transferable to spiking neurons, a number of modiﬁcations are necessary. First,
we remove the local response normalization layers. This computation would likely require some
sort of lateral connections between neurons, which are difﬁcult to add in the current framework
since the resulting network would not be feedforward and we are using methods focused on training
Second, we changed the pooling layers from max pooling to average pooling. Again, computing max
pooling would likely require lateral connections between neurons, making it difﬁcult to implement
without signiﬁcant changes to the training methodology. Average pooling, on the other hand, is very
easy to compute in spiking neurons, since it is simply a weighted sum.
The other modiﬁcations—using leaky integrate-and-ﬁre neurons and training with noise—are the
main focus of this paper, and are described in detail below.
2.2 Leaky integrate-and-ﬁre neurons
Our network uses a modiﬁed leaky integrate-and-ﬁre (LIF) neuron nonlinearity instead of the recti-
ﬁed linear nonlinearity. Past work has kept the rectiﬁed linear nonlinearity for the ANN and substi-
tuted in the spiking integrate-and-ﬁre (IF) neuron model in the SNN [11, 10], since the static ﬁring
curve of the IF neuron model is a rectiﬁed line. Our motivation for using the LIF neuron model is
that it and it demonstrates that more complex, nonlinear neuron models can be used in such net-
works. Thus, these methods can be extended to the idiosyncratic neuron types employed by some
neuromorphic hardware (e.g. ).
The LIF neuron dynamics are given by the equation
τRC ˙v(t) = −v(t) + J(t)(1)
where v(t)is the membrane voltage, ˙v(t)is its derivative with respect to time, J(t)is the input
current, and τRC is the membrane time constant. When the voltage reaches Vth = 1, the neuron
ﬁres a spike, and the voltage is held at zero for a refractory period of τref . Once the refractory
period is ﬁnished, the neuron obeys Equation 1 until another spike occurs.
Given a constant input current J(t) = j, we can solve Equation 1 for the time it takes the voltage to
rise from zero to one, and thereby ﬁnd the steady-state ﬁring rate
r(j) = τref +τRC log 1 + Vth
where ρ(x) = max(x, 0).
Theoretically, we should be able to train a deep neural network using Equation 2 as the static non-
linearity and make a reasonable approximation of the network in spiking neurons, assuming that
Figure 1: Comparison of LIF and soft LIF response functions. The left panel shows the response
functions themselves. The LIF function has a hard threshold at j=Vth = 1; the soft LIF function
smooths this threshold. The right panel shows the derivatives of the response functions. The hard
LIF function has a discontinuous and unbounded derivative at j= 1; the soft LIF function has a
continuous bounded derivative, making it amenable to use in backpropagation.
the spiking network has a synaptic ﬁlter that sufﬁciently smooths a spike train to give a good ap-
proximation of the ﬁring rate. The LIF steady state ﬁring rate has the particular problem that the
derivative approaches inﬁnity as j→0+, which causes problems when employing backpropagation.
To address this, we added smoothing to the LIF rate equation.
If we replace the hard maximum ρ(x) = max(x, 0) with a softer maximum ρ1(x) = log(1 + ex),
then the LIF neuron loses its hard threshold and the derivative becomes bounded. Further, we can
use the substitution
ρ2(x) = γlog h1 + ex/γ i(3)
to allow us control over the amount of smoothing, where ρ2(x)→max(x, 0) as γ→0. Figure 1
shows the result of this substitution.
2.3 Training with noise
Training neural networks with various types of noise on the inputs is not a new idea. Denoising
autoencoders  have been successfully applied to datasets like MNIST, learning more robust
solutions with lower generalization error than their non-noisy counterparts.
In a biological spiking neural network, synapses between neurons perform some measure of ﬁltering
on the spikes, due to the fact that the post-synaptic current induced by the neurotransmitter release
is distributed over time. We employ a similar mechanism in our networks to attenuate some of
the variability introduced by spikes. The α-function α(t)=(t/τs)e−t/τsis a simple second-order
lowpass ﬁlter, inspired by biology . We chose this as a synaptic ﬁlter for our networks since it
provides better noise reduction than a ﬁrst-order lowpass ﬁlter.
The ﬁltered spike train can be viewed as an estimate of the neuron activity. For example, if the
neuron is ﬁring regularly at 200 Hz, ﬁltering spike train will result in a signal ﬂuctuating around 200
Hz. We can view the neuron output as being 200 Hz, with some additional “noise” around this value.
By training our ANN with some random noise added to the output of each neuron for each training
example, we can simulate the effects of using spikes on the signal received by the post-synaptic
Figure 2 shows how the variability of ﬁltered spike trains depends on input current for the LIF
neuron. Since the impulse response of the α-ﬁlter has an integral of one, the mean of the ﬁltered
spike trains is equal to the analytical rate of Equation 2. However, the statistics of the ﬁltered signal
vary signiﬁcantly across the range of input currents. Just above the ﬁring threshold, the distribution
is skewed towards higher ﬁring rates (i.e. the median is below the mean), since spikes are infrequent
so the ﬁltered signal has time to return to near zero between spikes. At higher input currents, on the
Figure 2: Variability in ﬁltered spike trains versus input current for the LIF neuron (τRC =
0.02, τref = 0.004). The solid line shows the mean of the ﬁltered spike train (which matches
the analytical rate of Equation 2), the ‘x’-points show the median, the solid error bars show the 25th
and 75th percentiles, and the dotted error bars show the minimum and maximum. The spike train
was ﬁltered with an α-ﬁlter with τs= 0.003 s.
other hand, the distribution is skewed towards lower ﬁring rates (i.e. the median is above the mean).
In spite of this, we used a Gaussian distribution to generate the additive noise during training, for
simplicity. We found the average standard deviation to be approximately σ= 10 across all positive
input currents for an α-ﬁlter with τs= 0.005. During training, we add Gaussian noise η∼G(0, σ )
to the ﬁring rate r(j)(Equation 2) when j > 0, and add no noise when j≤0.
2.4 Conversion to a spiking network
Finally, we convert the trained ANN to a SNN. The parameters in the spiking network (i.e. weights
and biases) are all identical to that of the ANN. The convolution operation also remains the same,
since convolution can be rewritten as simple connection weights (synapses) wij between pre-
synaptic neuron iand post-synaptic neuron j. (How the brain might learn connection weight pat-
terns, i.e. ﬁlters, that are repeated at various points in space, is a much more difﬁcult problem that
we will not address here.) Similarly, the average pooling operation can be written as a simple con-
nection weight matrix, and this matrix can be multiplied by the convolutional weight matrix of the
following layer to get direct connection weights between neurons.2
The only component of the network that changes when moving from the ANN to the SNN is the
neurons themselves. The most signiﬁcant change is that we replace the soft LIF rate model (Equa-
tion 2) with the LIF spiking model (Equation 1). We remove the additive Gaussian noise used in
training. We also add post-synaptic ﬁlters to the neurons, which removes a signiﬁcant portion of the
high-frequency variation produced by spikes.
We tested our methods on ﬁve datasets: MNIST , SVHN , CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 ,
and the large ImageNet ILSVRC-2012 dataset . Our best result for each dataset is shown in
Table 1. Using our methods has allowed us to build spiking networks that perform nearly as well as
their non-spiking counterparts using the same number of neurons. All datasets show minimal loss
in accuracy when transforming from the ANN to the SNN. 3
2For computational efﬁciency, we actually compute the convolution and pooling separately.
3The ILSVRC-2012 dataset actually shows a marginal increase in accuracy, though this is likely not statisti-
cally signiﬁcant and could be because the spiking LIF neurons have harder ﬁring thresholds than their soft-LIF
rate counterparts. Also, the CIFAR-100 dataset shows a considerable increase in performance when using soft-
Dataset ReLU ANN LIF ANN LIF SNN
MNIST 0.79% 0.84% 0.88%
SVHN 5.65% 5.79% 6.08%
CIFAR-10 16.48% 16.28% 16.46%
CIFAR-100 50.05% 44.35% 44.87%
ILSVRC-2012 45.4% (20.9%)a48.3% (24.1%)a48.2% (23.8%)a
aResults from the ﬁrst 3072-image test batch.
Table 1: Results for spiking LIF networks (LIF SNN), compared with ReLU ANN and LIF ANN
(both using the same network structure, but with ReLU and LIF rate neurons respectively). The
spiking versions of each network perform almost as well as the rate-based versions. The ILSVRC-
2012 (ImageNet) results show the error for the top result, with the top-5 result in brackets.
Dataset This Paper TN 1-chip TN 8-chip Best Other
MNIST 0.88% (27k) None None 0.88% (22k) 
SVHN 6.08% (27k) 3.64% (1M) 2.83% (8M) None
CIFAR-10 16.46% (50k) 17.50% (1M) 12.50% (8M) 22.57% (28k) 
CIFAR-100 44.87% (50k) 47.27% (1M) 36.95% (8M) None
ILSVRC-2012 48.2%, 23.8% (493k)aNone None None
aResults from the ﬁrst 3072-image test batch.
Table 2: Our error rates compared with recent results on the TrueNorth (TN) neuromorphic
chip , as well as other best results in the literature. Approximate numbers of neurons are shown
in parentheses. The TrueNorth networks use signiﬁcantly more neurons than our networks (about
20×more for the 1-chip network and 160×more for the 8-chip network). The ﬁrst number for
ILSVRC-2012 (ImageNet) indicates the error for the top result, and the second number the more
commonly reported top-5 result.
Table 2 compares our results to the best spiking network results on these datasets in the litera-
ture. The most signiﬁcant recent results are from , who implemented networks for a number of
datasets on both one and eight TrueNorth chips. Their results are impressive, but are difﬁcult to com-
pare with ours since they use between 20 and 160 times more neurons. We surpass a number of their
one-chip results while using an order of magnitude fewer neurons. Furthermore, we demonstrate
that our method scales to the large ILSVRC-2012 dataset, which no other SNN implementation to
date has done. The most signiﬁcant difference between our results and that of  and  is that
we use LIF neurons and can generalize to other neuron types, whereas their methods (and those of
) are speciﬁc to IF neurons.
We examined our methods in more detail on the CIFAR-10 dataset. This dataset is composed of
60000 32×32 pixel labelled images from ten categories. We used the ﬁrst 50000 images for training
and the last 10000 for testing, and augmented the dataset by taking random 24 ×24 patches from the
training images and then testing on the center patches from the testing images. This methodology
is similar to Krizhevsky et al. , except that they also used multiview testing where the classiﬁer
output is the average output of the classiﬁer run on nine random patches from each testing image
(increasing the accuracy by about 2%).
Table 3 shows the effect of each modiﬁcation on the network classiﬁcation error. Rows 1-5 show that
each successive modiﬁcation required to make the network amenable to running in spiking neurons
adds additional error. Despite the fact that training with noise adds additional error to the ANN,
rows 6-8 of the table show that in the spiking network, training with noise pays off, though training
with too much noise is not advantageous. Speciﬁcally, though training with σ= 20 versus σ= 10
decreased the error introduced when switching to spiking neurons, it introduced more error to the
ANN (Network 5), resulting in worse SNN performance (Network 8).
LIF neurons versus ReLUs in the ANN, but this could simply be due to the training hyperparameters chosen,
since these were not optimized in any way.
# Modiﬁcation CIFAR-10 error
0 Original ANN based on Krizhevsky et al.  14.03%
1 Network 0 minus local contrast normalization 14.38%
2 Network 1 minus max pooling 16.70%
3 Network 2 with soft LIF 15.89%
4 Network 3 with training noise (σ= 10) 16.28%
5 Network 3 with training noise (σ= 20) 16.92%
6 Network 3 (σ= 0) in spiking neurons 17.06%
7 Network 4 (σ= 10) in spiking neurons 16.46%
8 Network 5 (σ= 20) in spiking neurons 17.04%
Table 3: Effects of successive modiﬁcations to CIFAR-10 error. We ﬁrst show the original ANN
based on , and then the effects of each subsequent modiﬁcation. Rows 6-8 show the results of
running ANNs 3-5 in spiking neurons, respectively. Row 7 is the best spiking network, using a
moderate amount of training noise.
Running on standard hardware, spiking networks are considerably less efﬁcient than their ANN
counterparts. This is because ANNs are static, requiring only one forward-pass through the network
to compute the output, whereas SNNs are dynamic, requiring the input to be presented for a number
of time steps and thus a number of forward passes. On hardware that can take full advantage of the
sparsity that spikes provide—that is, neuromorphic hardware—SNNs can be more efﬁcient than the
equivalent ANNs, as we show here.
First, we need to compute the computational efﬁciency of the original network, speciﬁcally the num-
ber of ﬂoating-point operations (ﬂops) required to pass one image through the network. There are
two main sources of computation in the image: computing the neurons and computing the connec-
neuron ×neurons +ﬂops
connection ×connections (4)
Since a rectiﬁed linear unit is a simple max function, it requires only one ﬂop to compute
(ﬂops/neuron = 1). Each connection requires two ﬂops, a multiply and an add (ﬂops/connection = 2).
We can determine the number of connections by “unrolling” each convolution, so that the layer is in
the same form as a locally connected layer.
To compute the SNN efﬁciency on a prospective neuromorphic chip, we begin by identifying the
energy cost of a synaptic event (Esynop) and neuron update (Eupdate), relative to standard hardware.
In consultation with neuromorphic experts, and examining current reports of neuromorphic chips
(e.g. ), we assume that each neuron update takes as much energy as 0.25 ﬂops (Eupdate = 0.25),
and each synaptic event takes as much energy as 0.08 ﬂops (Esynop = 0.08). (These numbers could
potentially be much lower for analog chips, e.g. .) Then, the total energy used by an SNN to
classify one image is (in units of the energy required by one ﬂop on standard hardware)
ESN N =Esynop
For our CIFAR-10 network, we ﬁnd that on average, the network has rates of 2,693,315,174 syn-
ops/s and 49,536,000 updates/s. This results in EC IF AR−10 = 45,569,843, when each image is
presented for 200 ms. Dividing by the number of ﬂops per image on standard hardware, we ﬁnd that
the relative efﬁciency of the CIFAR-10 network is 0.76, that is it is somewhat less efﬁcient.
Equation 5 shows that if we are able to lower the amount of time needed to present each image to
the network, we can lower the energy required to classify the image. Alternatively, we can lower
the number of synaptic events per second by lowering the ﬁring rates of the neurons. Lowering
the number of neuron updates would have little effect on the overall energy consumption since the
synaptic events require the majority of the energy.
To lower the presentation time required for each input while maintaining accuracy, we need to
decrease the synapse time constant as well, so that the information is able to propagate through the
Dataset τs[ms] c0[ms] c1[ms] Error Efﬁciency
CIFAR-10 5 120 200 16.46% 0.76×
CIFAR-10 0 10 80 16.63% 1.64×
CIFAR-10 0 10 60 17.47% 2.04×
MNIST 5 120 200 0.88% 5.94×
MNIST 2 40 100 0.92% 11.98×
MNIST 2 50 60 1.14% 14.42×
MNIST 0 20 60 3.67% 14.42×
ILSVRC-2012 3 140 200 23.80% 1.39×
ILSVRC-2012 0 30 80 25.33% 2.88×
ILSVRC-2012 0 30 60 25.36% 3.51×
Table 4: Estimated efﬁciency of our networks on neuromorphic hardware, compared with traditional
hardware. For all datasets, there is a tradeoff between accuracy and efﬁciency, but we ﬁnd many con-
ﬁgurations that are signiﬁcantly more efﬁcient while sacriﬁcing little in terms of accuracy. τsis the
synapse time constant, c0is the start time of the classiﬁcation, c1is the end time of the classiﬁcation
(i.e. the total presentation time for each image).
whole network in the decreased presentation time. Table 4 shows the effect of various alternatives
for the presentation time and synapse time constant on the accuracy and efﬁciency of the networks
for a number of the datasets.
Table 4 shows that for some datasets (e.g. CIFAR-10 and ILSVRC-2012) the synapses can be com-
pletely removed (τs= 0 ms) without sacriﬁcing much accuracy. Interestingly, this is not the case
with the MNIST network, which requires at least some measure of synapses to function accurately.
We suspect that this is because the MNIST network has much lower ﬁring rates than the other net-
works (average of 9.67 Hz for MNIST, 148 Hz for CIFAR-10, 93.3 Hz for ILSVRC-2012). This
difference in average ﬁring rates is also why the MNIST network is signiﬁcantly more efﬁcient than
the other networks.
It is important to tune the classiﬁcation time, both in terms of the total length of time each example
is shown for (c1), and when classiﬁcation begins (c0). The optimal values for these parameters are
very dependent on the network, both in terms of the number of layers, ﬁring rates, and synapse time
constants. Figure 3 shows how the classiﬁcation time affects accuracy for various networks.
Given that the CIFAR-10 network performs almost as well with no synapses as with synapses, one
may question whether noise is required during training at all. We retrained the CIFAR-10 network
with no noise and ran with no synapses, but could not achieve accuracy better than 18.06%. This
suggests that noise is still beneﬁcial during training.
Our results show that it is possible to train accurate deep convolutional networks for image clas-
siﬁcation without adding neurons, while using more complex nonlinear neuron types—speciﬁcally
the LIF neuron—as opposed to the traditional rectiﬁed-linear or sigmoid neurons. We have shown
that networks can be run in spiking neurons, and training with noise decreases the amount of error
introduced when running in spiking versus rate neurons. These networks can be signiﬁcantly more
energy-efﬁcient than traditional ANNs when run on specialized neuromorphic hardware.
The ﬁrst main contribution of this paper is to demonstrate that state-of-the-art spiking deep networks
can be trained with LIF neurons, while maintaining high levels of classiﬁcation accuracy. For exam-
ple, we have described the ﬁrst large-scale SNN able to provide good results on ImageNet. Notably,
all other state-of-the-art methods use integrate-and-ﬁre (IF) neurons [11, 10, 12], which are straight-
forward to ﬁt to the rectiﬁed linear units commonly used in deep convolutional networks. We show
that there is minimal drop in accuracy when converting from ANN to SNN. We also examine how
classiﬁcation time affects accuracy and energy-efﬁciency, and ﬁnd that networks can be made quite
efﬁcient with minimal loss in accuracy.
CIFAR-10 (τs= 5 ms) CIFAR-10 (τs= 0 ms)
MNIST (τs= 2 ms) ILSVRC-2012 (τs= 0 ms)
Figure 3: Effects of classiﬁcation time on accuracy. Individual traces show different starting classi-
ﬁcation times (c0), and the x-axis the end classiﬁcation time (c1).
By smoothing the LIF response function so that its derivative remains bounded, we are able to use
this more complex and nonlinear neuron with a standard convolutional network trained by back-
propagation. Our smoothing method is extensible to other neuron types, allowing for networks to be
trained for neuromorphic hardware with idiosyncratic neuron types (e.g. ). We found that there
was very little error introduced by switching from the soft response function to the hard response
function with LIF neurons for the amount of smoothing that we used. However, for neurons with
harsh discontinuities that require more smoothing, it may be necessary to slowly relax the smoothing
over the course of the training so that, by the end of the training, the smooth response function is
arbitrarily close to the hard response function.
The second main contribution of this paper is to demonstrate that training with noise on neuron
outputs can decrease the error introduced when transitioning to spiking neurons. The error decreased
by 0.6% overall on the CIFAR-10 network, despite the fact that the ANN trained without noise
performs better. This is because noise on the output of the neuron simulates the variability that a
spiking network encounters when ﬁltering a spike train. There is a tradeoff between training with
too little noise, which makes the SNN less accurate, and too much noise, which makes the initially
trained ANN less accurate.
These methods provide new avenues for translating traditional ANNs to spike-based neuromorphic
hardware. We have provided some evidence that such implementations can be signiﬁcantly more
energy-efﬁcient than their ANN counterparts. While our analyses only consider static image classi-
ﬁcation, we expect that the real efﬁciency of SNNs will become apparent when dealing with dynamic
inputs (e.g. video). This is because SNNs are inherently dynamic, and take a number of simulation
steps to process each image. This makes them best suited to processing dynamic sequences, where
adjacent frames in the video sequence are similar to one another, and the network does not have to
take time to constantly “reset” after sudden changes in the input.
Future work includes experimenting with lowering ﬁring rates for greater energy-efﬁciency. This
could be done by changing the neuron refractory period τref to limit the ﬁring below a particular
rate, optimizing for both accuracy and low rates, using adapting neurons, or adding lateral inhibition
in the convolutional layers. Other future work includes implementing max-pooling and local contrast
normalization layers in spiking networks. Networks could also be trained ofﬂine as described here
and then ﬁne-tuned online using an STDP rule [22, 23] to help further reduce errors associated
with converting from rate-based to spike-based networks, while avoiding difﬁculties with training a
network in spiking neurons from scratch.
 Y. Lecun, L. Bottou, Y. Bengio, and P. Haffner, “Gradient-based learning applied to document recogni-
tion,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 86, no. 11, pp. 2278–2324, 1998.
 A. Krizhevsky, “Convolutional deep belief networks on CIFAR-10,” Tech. Rep., 2010.
 P. Sermanet, S. Chintala, and Y. LeCun, “Convolutional neural networks applied to house numbers digit
classiﬁcation,” in International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), 2012.
 C.-Y. Lee, S. Xie, P. W. Gallagher, Z. Zhang, and Z. Tu, “Deeply-supervised nets,” in International
Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS), vol. 38, 2015, pp. 562–570.
 R. Gens and P. Domingos, “Discriminative learning of sum-product networks,” in Advances in Neural
Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 2012, pp. 1–9.
 A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. Hinton, “Imagenet classiﬁcation with deep convolutional neural net-
works,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2012.
 C. Eliasmith, T. C. Stewart, X. Choo, T. Bekolay, T. DeWolf, C. Tang, and D. Rasmussen, “A Large-Scale
Model of the Functioning Brain,” Science, vol. 338, no. 6111, pp. 1202–1205, Nov. 2012.
 E. Neftci, S. Das, B. Pedroni, K. Kreutz-Delgado, and G. Cauwenberghs, “Event-driven contrastive di-
vergence for spiking neuromorphic systems,” Frontiers in Neuroscience, vol. 7, no. 272, 2013.
 P. O’Connor, D. Neil, S.-C. Liu, T. Delbruck, and M. Pfeiffer, “Real-time classiﬁcation and sensor fusion
with a spiking deep belief network,” Frontiers in Neuroscience, vol. 7, Jan. 2013.
 P. U. Diehl, D. Neil, J. Binas, M. Cook, S.-C. Liu, and M. Pfeiffer, “Fast-Classifying, High-Accuracy
Spiking Deep Networks Through Weight and Threshold Balancing,” in IEEE International Joint Confer-
ence on Neural Networks (IJCNN), 2015.
 Y. Cao, Y. Chen, and D. Khosla, “Spiking Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Energy-Efﬁcient
Object Recognition,” International Journal of Computer Vision, vol. 113, no. 1, pp. 54–66, Nov. 2014.
 S. K. Esser, P. A. Merolla, J. V. Arthur, A. S. Cassidy, R. Appuswamy, A. Andreopoulos, D. J. Berg, J. L.
Mckinstry, T. Melano, D. R. Barch, C. di Nolfo, P. Datta, A. Amir, B. Taba, M. D. Flickner, and D. S.
Modha, “Convolutional Networks for Fast, Energy-Efﬁcient Neuromorphic Computing,” arXiv preprint,
vol. 1603, no. 08270, pp. 1–7, 2016.
 P. U. Diehl, G. Zarrella, A. Cassidy, B. U. Pedroni, and E. Neftci, “Conversion of Artiﬁcial Recurrent
Neural Networks to Spiking Neural Networks for Low-power Neuromorphic Hardware,” arXiv preprint,
vol. 1601, no. 04187, 2016.
 B. V. Benjamin, P. Gao, E. McQuinn, S. Choudhary, A. R. Chandrasekaran, J.-M. Bussat, R. Alvarez-
Icaza, J. V. Arthur, P. A. Merolla, and K. Boahen, “Neurogrid: A mixed-analog-digital multichip system
for large-scale neural simulations,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 102, no. 5, pp. 699–716, 2014.
 E. Hunsberger and C. Eliasmith, “Spiking Deep Networks with LIF Neurons,” arXiv:1510.08829 [cs],
pp. 1–9, 2015.
 P. Vincent, H. Larochelle, Y. Bengio, and P.-A. Manzagol, “Extracting and composing robust features with
denoising autoencoders,” in International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2008, pp. 1096–
 Z. F. Mainen and T. J. Sejnowski, “Reliability of spike timing in neocortical neurons.” Science (New York,
N.Y.), vol. 268, no. 5216, pp. 1503–6, Jun. 1995.
 Y. Netzer, T. Wang, A. Coates, A. Bissacco, B. Wu, and A. Y. Ng, “Reading Digits in Natural Images with
Unsupervised Feature Learning,” in NIPS workshop on deep learning and unsupervised feature learning,
2011, pp. 1–9.
 A. Krizhevsky, “Learning Multiple Layers of Features from Tiny Images,” Master’s thesis, University of
 O. Russakovsky, J. Deng, H. Su, J. Krause, S. Satheesh, S. Ma, Z. Huang, A. Karpathy, A. Khosla,
M. Bernstein, A. C. Berg, and L. Fei-Fei, “ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge,” Inter-
national Journal of Computer Vision, vol. 115, no. 3, pp. 211–252, 2015.
 P. A. Merolla, J. V. Arthur, R. Alvarez-Icaza, A. S. Cassidy, J. Sawada, F. Akopyan, B. L. Jackson,
N. Imam, C. Guo, Y. Nakamura, B. Brezzo, I. Vo, S. K. Esser, R. Appuswamy, B. Taba, A. Amir, M. D.
Flickner, W. P. Risk, R. Manohar, and D. S. Modha, “A million spiking-neuron integrated circuit with a
scalable communication network and interface,” Science, vol. 345, no. 6197, pp. 668–673, 2014.
 B. Nessler, M. Pfeiffer, L. Buesing, and W. Maass, “Bayesian computation emerges in generic cortical
microcircuits through spike-timing-dependent plasticity.” PLoS computational biology, vol. 9, no. 4, p.
e1003037, Apr. 2013.
 T. Bekolay, C. Kolbeck, and C. Eliasmith, “Simultaneous unsupervised and supervised learning of cogni-
tive functions in biologically plausible spiking neural networks,” in Proc. 35th Annual Conference of the
Cognitive Science Society, 2013, pp. 169–174.