PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Temporal Parallelization for GPU Acceleration of Spiking Neural Networks

Jiachun Li, Yanchen Li, Kebin Sun, Ran Cheng

infrastructure & systemsSpiking neural networksHigh-performance computingGPU acceleration
31.10100
Fused
band ≈ ±14 pct pts (from σ = 0.28)
29.40100
Mimo
band ≈ ±19 pct pts (from σ = 0.39)
35.70100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±20 pct pts (from σ = 0.41)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

Abstract

Inspired by neurobiological structures, Spiking Neural Networks (SNNs) are heralded as a significant advancement in deep learning, given their potential for superior computational efficiency. However, this potential often remains untapped on contemporary hardware platforms. Specifically, when deployed on standard GPUs, SNNs tend to require extended computation times, placing them at a disadvantage compared to traditional Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs). Such inefficiencies have somehow diminished enthusiasm for SNN research and presented the tangible challenge to achieving scalability. To address such a challenge, this study introduces a temporal parallelization method specifically tailored for accelerating the propagation dynamics of SNNs on GPUs. Furthermore, we furnish two distinct implementations\footnote{The source code will be made publicly available.} based on the CUDA and JAX frameworks respectively, ensuring adaptability across both single and multi-GPU setups. When benchmarked against several established SNN implementations, the empirical analysis confirmed the efficacy of our proposed method. Notably, with the Leaky Integrate-and-Fire model as a test case, the CUDA-based implementation achieved $5\times$ to $40\times$ acceleration on the A100 GPU.

Author context

Most prolific author: 2 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Battle history — 36 comparisons

Ranked above opponent in 39% of matchups.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 36)