014 — Eval-Δt transport across encoder modes
Abstract
Second of three Δt-stability notebooks. Asks: “Can a network trained at one run accurately at a different at inference? And which spike-resampling mode preserves the input statistics?”
Reads the checkpoints produced by nb013; no retraining.
Methods
For each of nb013’s trained networks, sweep the evaluation over a per-regime grid (fine train- → broad grid, coarse train- → sparser grid of integer divisors). At each eval-, encode the test inputs three different ways:
- upsample. Zero-pad the reference spike stream to a finer eval-. Eval- train- only.
- downsample. Sum-pool the reference stream to a coarser eval-. Eval- train- only.
- resample. Generate a fresh Poisson stream at the target eval-. Works in both directions.
Measure test accuracy and mean hidden firing rate at each (model, train-, encoder mode, eval-).
Results
Accuracy vs evaluation Δt
Test accuracy vs eval-, one panel per training regime, curves coloured by model and styled by encoder mode. The headline: cuba (with drive scaling) holds accuracy flat across eval- regardless of train-; the snnTorch family sags as eval- departs from train-, and the sag-point follows train-.
Hidden firing rate vs evaluation Δt
Mean hidden firing rate vs eval-. The count-preserving modes (upsample / downsample) keep the input spike count constant across eval- but the cuba scaling compensates whereas the snnTorch models do not.
Discussion
TODO: discussion paragraph — write what the results above mean for the project.