Input gradient dense-sparse trade off is the adversarial robustness-generalization trade off in spiking neural network optimization


Abstract

Spiking Neural Networks (SNNs) have attracted growing interest in both computational neuroscience and artificial intelligence, primarily due to their inherent energy efficiency and compact memory footprint. However, achieving adversarial robustness in SNNs—particularly for vision-related tasks—remains a nascent and underexplored challenge. Recent studies have proposed leveraging sparse gradients as a form of regularization to enhance robustness against adversarial perturbations. In this work, we present a surprising finding: under specific architectural configurations, SNNs exhibit natural gradient sparsity and can achieve state-of-the-art adversarial defense performance without the need for any explicit regularization. Further analysis reveals a trade-off between robustness and generalization: while sparse gradients contribute to improved adversarial resilience, they can impair the model's ability to generalize; conversely, denser gradients support better generalization but increase vulnerability to attacks. Our findings offer new insights into the dual role of gradient sparsity in SNN training.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].