prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: What is the potential of SNNs in modeling the visual system?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 1: Paper Info

Title: Deep Spiking Neural Networks with High Representation Similarity Model Visual Pathways of Macaque and Mouse
Publish Date: 22 May 2023
Author List: Zhengyu Ma (from Department of Networked Intelligence, Peng Cheng Laboratory), Yu Liutao (from Department of Networked Intelligence, Peng Cheng Laboratory), Huihui Zhou (from Department of Networked Intelligence, Peng Cheng Laboratory), Allen Brain
Author Affiliation: CORNet-S ConvNeXt-Tiny ConvNeXt-Small EfficientNet, AlexNet RegNetY, ResNet34 ConvNeXt-Base CORNetSEW, ResNet8 ResNet101 SEW-ResNet18 ViT-L, GoogLeNet SEW-ResNet34 SEW-ResNet8 Wide

Figure

Figure 1: To conduct neural representation similarity experiments, we apply three similarity metrics to a layer-by-layer comparison between the responses of models and the neural activities of visual cortex 
Figure 2: For three datasets and three similarity metrics, each point indicates the final representation similarity score of a model Each pair of SEW ResNet and ResNet with the same depth are linked by a gray solid line In almost all conditions, SEW ResNet outperforms ResNet by a large margin 
Figure3: For three datasets and three similarity metrics, we plot the trajectories of similarity score with model layer depth The models are divided into two groups: ResNet and SEW ResNet The normalized layer depth ranges from 0 (the first layer) to 1 (the last layer) Because the depths of models are not the same, we first discretize the normalized depth into 50 bins, and then apply the cubic spline interpolation to the scores of each model, yielding the smooth trajectories shown in the plot The fine, semitransparent lines are the trajectories of each model The thick lines are the average trajectories among each group 
Figure 5: For Macaque-Synthetic dataset, trajectories of similarity score with model layer depth are plotted The models are divided into two groups: ViT and CNN&SNN The normalized layer depth ranges from 0 (the first layer) to 1 (the last layer) The calculation and plotting of the trajectories are the same as Figure 3 
Figure6: The basic block of SpikingMobileNet "PW CONV" is the pointwise convolution and "DW CONV" is the depthwise convolution "SN" is the spiking neuron 
Figure 7: Overall model rankings of the similarity scores on Allen Brain mouse dataset The similarity scores of CNNs, SNNs and vision transformers are shown by blue, green and orange bars, respectively 
Figure 9: Overall model rankings of the similarity scores on Macaque-Synthetic dataset 
Figure 10: The Spearman's rank correlation between the overall model rankings of different metrics There is a strong correlation between SVCCA and TSVD-Reg, but RSA has weaker correlations with them 
The correlation between the similarity scores and the model depth r is Spearman's rank correlation coefficient "-" indicates that there is no significant correlation 
Architectures of SNNs "sn" denotes the spiking neuron "g = 32" denotes the grouped convolutions with 32 groups The hyper-parameters of the spike-element-wise block are shown in the brackets with the number of stacked blocks outside 

abstract

Deep artificial neural networks (ANNs) play a major role in modeling the visual pathways of primate and rodent  However, they highly simplify the computational properties of neurons compared to their biological counterparts  Instead, Spiking Neural Networks (SNNs) are more biologically plausible models since spiking neurons encode information with time sequences of spikes, just like biological neurons do 
However, there is a lack of studies on visual pathways with deep SNNs models  In this study, we model the visual cortex with deep SNNs for the first time, and also with a wide range of state-of-the-art deep CNNs and ViTs for comparison  Using three similarity metrics, we conduct neural representation similarity experiments on three neural datasets collected from two species under three types of stimuli 
Based on extensive similarity analyses, we further investigate the functional hierarchy and mechanisms across species  Almost all similarity scores of SNNs are higher than their counterparts of CNNs with an average of 6 6%  Depths of the layers with the highest similarity scores exhibit little differences across mouse cortical regions, but vary significantly across macaque regions, suggesting that the visual processing structure of mice is more regionally homogeneous than that of macaques 
Besides, the multi-branch structures observed in some top mouse brain-like neural networks provide computational evidence of parallel processing streams in mice, and the different performance in fitting macaque neural representations under different stimuli exhibits the functional specialization of information processing in macaques 
Taken together, our study demonstrates that SNNs could serve as promising candidates to better model and explain the functional hierarchy and mechanisms of the visual system  Originally, the prototype of deep neural networks is inspired by the biological vision system   To date, deep neural networks not only occupy an unassailable position in the field of computer vision , but also become better models of the biological visual cortex compared to traditional models in the neuroscience community (Khaligh-Razavi and Kriegeskorte 2014;  
They have been successful at predicting the neural responses in primate visual cortex, matching the hierarchy of ventral visual stream (Güc ¸lü and van Gerven 2015; , and even controlling neural activity   Moreover, as training paradigms of mice and techniques for collecting neural activity (de Vries et al  2020) have been greatly improved, there is a strong interest in exploring mouse visual cortex 
Deep neural networks also play an important role in revealing the functional mechanisms and structures of mouse visual cortex   Compared to biological networks, Artificial Neural Networks discard the complexity of neurons   Spiking Neural Networks, incorporating the concept of time and spikes, are more biologically plausible models  
To be more specific, because of their capabilities of encoding information with spikes, capturing the dynamics of biological neurons, and extracting spatio-temporal features, deep SNNs are highly possible to yield brain-like representations )  However, deep SNNs have not been employed to model visual cortex due to the immaturity of training algorithms 
Recently, a state-ofthe-art directly trained deep SNN , makes it possible to use deep SNNs as visual cortex models  Contributions  In this work, we conduct large-scale neural representation similarity experiments on SNNs and other high-performing deep neural networks to study the brain's visual processing mechanisms, with three datasets and three similarity metrics (Figure ) 
Specifically, to the best of our knowledge, we are the first to use deep SNNs to fit complex biological neural representations and explore the biological visual cortex  We summarize our main contributions in four points as follows  • We find that SNNs outperform their counterparts of CNNs with the same depth and almost the same architectures in almost all experiments 
In addition, even with very different depths and architectures, SNNs can achieve top performance in most conditions  • By making a more direct comparison between macaques and mice for the first time, we reveal the differences in the visual pathways across the two species in terms of the homogeneity of visual regions and the increases of receptive field sizes across cortical visual pathways, which is consistent with previous physiological work 
• The multi-branch structures in neural networks benefit neural representation similarity to mouse visual cortex, providing computational evidence that parallel information processing streams are widespread between cortical regions in the mouse visual system  • Comparing the results of two macaque neural datasets under different stimuli, we reveal that the macaque vision system may have functional specialization for processing human faces and other natural scenes 
Altogether, as the first work to apply deep SNNs to fit neural representations, we shed light on visual processing mechanisms in both macaques and mice, demonstrating the potential of SNNs as a novel and powerful tool for research on the visual system  Our codes and appendix are available at https://github com/Grasshlw/SNN-Neural-Similarity 
There are plenty of computational models of macaque and mouse visual systems for exploring the visual processing mechanisms recently  We summarize some of the outstanding work in the following  The network models of macaque visual system  In the early days, studies basically used simple feedforward neural networks as the models of the macaque visual system (Khaligh-Razavi and Kriegeskorte 2014;  
Recently, some bio-inspired or more complex models achieved better performance in fitting the neural representations of macaque visual cortex   proposed a brainlike shallow CNN with recurrent connections to better match the macaque ventral visual stream  By mimicking the primary stage of the primate visual system, VOneNets ) performed more robustly in image recognition while better simulating macaque V1 
Moreover, the representations learned by unsupervised neural networks ) also effectively matched the neural activity of macaque ventral visual stream  Although the above work developed many bio-inspired structures, the networks are still traditional ANNs in nature  Our work introduces deep SNNs for the first time to explore the visual processing mechanisms of macaque visual system 
The network models of mouse visual system  Largescale mouse neural dataset provided an experimental basis for model studies of mouse visual system (de Vries et al  2020;   conducted comparisons between the representations of mouse visual cortex and the VGG16 trained on the Im-ageNet dataset  In , they developed a single neural network to model both the dorsal and ventral pathways with showing the functional specializations 
What's more, a large survey of advanced deep networks ) revealed some hierarchy and functional properties of mice  Similar to the studies of macaque visual system, deep SNNs have never been used to model the mouse visual system  In this work, we not only use SNNs as one of the candidates to fit the representations of mouse visual cortex, but also conduct direct comparisons between macaques and mice to further investigate the functional hierarchy and mechanisms of the two species 
Our work is conducted with three neural datasets  These datasets are recorded from two species under three types of stimuli  More specifically, there are neural responses of mouse visual cortex to natural scene stimuli, and responses of macaque visual cortex to face image and synthetic image stimuli  Allen Brain mouse dataset 
It is part of the Allen Brain Observatory Visual Coding dataset ) col-lected using Neuropixel probes from 6 regions simultaneously in mouse visual cortex  Compared to two-photon calcium imaging, Neuropixel probes simultaneously record the spikes across many cortical regions with high temporal resolution 
In these experiments, mice are presented with 118 250-ms natural scene stimuli in random orders for 50 times  Hundreds to thousands of neurons are recorded for each brain region  To get the stable neurons, we first concatenate the neural responses (average number of spikes in 10-ms bins across time) under 118 images for each neuron, and then preserve the neurons whose split-half reliability across 50 trials reaches at least 0 8 
Macaque-Face dataset  This dataset ) is composed of neural responses of 159 neurons in the macaque anterior medial (AM) face patch under 2,100 real face stimuli, recorded with Tungsten electrodes  For this dataset, we compute the average number of spikes in a time window of 50-350ms after stimulus onset and exclude eleven neurons with noisy responses by assessing the neurons' noise ceiling 
The details of the preprocessing procedure are the same as   Macaque-Synthetic dataset  This dataset is also about macaque neural responses which are recorded by electrodes under 3,200 synthetic image stimuli, and used for neural prediction in the initial version of Brain-Score   The image stimuli are generated by adding a 2D projection of a 3D object model to a natural background 
The objects consist of eight categories, each with eight subclasses  The position, pose, and size of each object are randomly selected  88 neurons of V4 and 168 neurons of IT are recorded  The neural responses are preprocessed to the form of average firing rate and can be downloaded from Brain-Score  Since the core visual function of macaque and mouse visual cortex is to recognize objects, the basic premise of model selection is that the model has good performance on object recognition tasks (e g 
classification on ImageNet)  Based on this premise, we employ 12 SNNs, 43 CNNs, and 26 vision transformers, all of which are pretrained on the Ima-geNet dataset and perform well in the classification task  As for SNNs, we use SEW ResNet as the base model, which is the deepest and SOTA directly trained SNN  
Furthermore, by combining the residual block used in SEW ResNet and the hierarchy of the visual cortex, we build several new SNNs and train them on the ImageNet using SpikingJelly ) (see Appendix A for model structures and the details of model training)  As for CNNs and vision transformers, we use 44 models from the Torchvision model zoo , 22 models from the Timm model zoo ) and 3 models from the brain-like CNNs, CORnet family ) 
In the feature extraction procedures of all models, we feed the same set of images used in biological experiments to the pretrained models and obtain features from all chosen layers  Different from CNNs and vision transformers, the features of SNNs are spikes in multiple time steps  To obtain the representation similarity between biological visual cortex and computational models, we apply three similarity metrics to computing similarity scores: representational similarity analysis (RSA) , regression-based encoding method and singular vector canonical correlation analysis (SVCCA)  
RSA has already been widely used to analyze neural representations of a model and a brain to different stimuli at the population level, while the regression-based encoding method directly fits the model features to neural activity data  SVCCA is originally proposed to compare features of deep neural networks, and then Buice 2019) used it to compare representation matrices from mouse visual cortex and DNNs, which demonstrated its effectiveness 
With the same model and same cortical region, we use these metrics for a layer-by-layer comparison to compute the similarity scores  The maximum similarity score across layers for a given cortical region is considered to be the level of representation similarity between the model and the cortical region 
Finally, in a given dataset, we take the average score of all cortical regions as the final similarity score for each model, which gives the overall model rankings  The implementation of each similarity metric is as follows  RSA  For two response matrices R ∈ R n×m from each layer of models and each cortical region, where n is the number of units/neurons and m is the number of stimuli, we calculate the representational similarity between the responses to each pair of image stimuli using the Pearson correlation coefficient r, yielding two representational dissimilarity matrices (RDM ∈ R m×m , where each element is the correlation distance 1 − r) 
Then, the Spearman rank correlation coefficient between the flattened upper triangles of these two matrices is the metric score  Regression-Based Encoding Method  Firstly, we run truncated singular value decomposition (TSVD) to reduce the feature dimension of model layers to 40  Secondly, the features after dimensionality reduction are fitted to the representations of each neuron by ridge regression 
Finally, we compute the Pearson correlation coefficient between the predicted and ground-truth representations of each neuron and take the mean of all correlation coefficients as the metric score  More specifically, we apply leave-one-out crossvalidation to obtain predicted representations of each neuron 
For simplicity, we name this method 'TSVD-Reg'  SVCCA  For both the responses of model layers and cortical regions, we use TSVD to reduce the dimension of unit/neuron to 40, yielding two reduced representation matrices  Then we apply canonical correlation analysis (CCA) to these two matrices to obtain a vector of correlation coefficients (the length of the vector is 40) 
The metric score is the mean of the vector  Because of the invariance of CCA to affine transformations , in this procedure, we only need to ensure that the stimulus dimension is consistent and aligned, even if the unit/neuron dimension is different  Dimensionality reduction plays an important role in this method to make the number of model features comparable to the number of neurons in cortical regions, since the former usually far exceeds the latter 
In addition, dimensionality reduction helps to determine which features are important to the original data, while CCA suffers in important feature detection  Using just CCA performs badly, which has been proven by   To check how similar the models are to the visual cortex's mechanisms in visual processing, we rank the final similarity scores of all models and conduct comparisons among three types of models (CNNs, SNNs, and vision transformers) 
Specially, we focus on comparing SNN (SEW ResNet) and CNN (ResNet) with the same depth and almost the same architectures (Figure )  The final similarity score of a model is the average similarity score across all cortical regions  (The overall rankings can be found in Appendix B and the comparisons among three types of models are shown in Appendix C )
Allen brain mouse dataset  No single model achieves the highest final similarity scores with all three metrics  For a fair comparison, we apply the paired t-test to SEW ResNet and ResNet with the same depth  For all three metrics, SEW ResNet performs better than ResNet by a large margin (t = 5 857, p = 0 004; t = 7 666, p = 0 002; t = 7 592, p = 0 002) 1   1 The results of the three similarity metrics are separated by semicolons, in the order of SVCCA, TSVD-Reg, and RSA 
Other Macaque-Face dataset  For both SVCCA and TSVD-Reg, Wide-SEW-ResNet14 and Wide-SEW-ResNet8 achieve the first and second highest final similarity scores respectively  But for RSA, TNT-S and Inception-ResNet-V2 take their place and outperform other models by a large margin  As for SEW ResNet and ResNet, the former performs significantly better than the latter for both SVCCA and TSVD-Reg (t = 8 195, p = 0 001; t = 7 528, p = 0 002) 
However, the difference is not significant for RSA (t = 1 117, p = 0 327)  Specifically, the similarity score of SEW ResNet152 is only slightly higher than that of ResNet152, and at the depth of 50 and 101, SEW ResNet's scores are lower than ResNet's  Macaque-Synthetic dataset  Similar to the results of Allen Brain dataset, no model performs best for all three metrics 
SEW ResNet performs moderately better than ResNet (t = 3 354, p = 0 028; t = 3 824, p = 0 019; t = 2 343, p = 0 079)  The only contrary is that SEW ResNet18 performs worse than ResNet18 for RSA  Further, to check the details of comparison between the SNNs and their CNN counterparts, we analyze the trajectories of similarity score across model layers (Figure ) 
As for ResNet and SEW ResNet with the same depth, the trends of their similarities across model layers are almost the same, but the former's trajectory is generally below the latter's  In other words, the similarity scores of SEW ResNet are higher than those of ResNet at almost all layers  Taken together, the results suggest that when the overall results that appear below also correspond to the three metrics in this order, unless the correspondence is stated in the text 
architectures and depth are the same, SNNs with spiking neurons perform consistently better than their counterparts of CNNs with an average increase of 6 6%  Besides, SEW ResNet14 also outperforms the brain-like recurrent CNN, CORnet-S, with the same number of layers (see more details in Appendix B)  Two properties of SNNs might contribute to the higher similarity scores 
On the one hand, IF neurons are the basic neurons of spiking neural networks  The IF neuron uses several differential equations to roughly approximate the membrane potential dynamics of biological neurons, which provides a more biologically plausible spike mechanism for the network  On the other hand, the spiking neural network is able to capture the temporal features by incorporating both time and binary signals, just like the biological visual system during information processing 
To figure out the distinctions in the functional hierarchy between macaques and mice, for each cortical region, we obtain the normalized depth of the layer that achieves the highest similarity score in each model  Then, we divide models (excluding vision transformers) into two groups based on their depths and conduct investigations on these two groups separately 
A nonparametric ANOVA is applied to each group for testing whether layer depths change significantly across cortical regions  For mouse visual cortex (Figure (a)), taking the deep model group as an example, ANOVA shows overall significant changes in depth across cortical regions for TSVD-Reg and RSA (Friedman's χ 2 = 49 169,
p = 2 0 × 10 −9 ; χ 2 = 19 455, p = 0 002)  But there is no significant change for SVCCA (χ 2 = 8 689, p = 0 122)  According to these results, the differences in depth across regions are indeterminacy and irregular  Meanwhile, the trends of layer depth between some regions contradict the hierarchy observed in physiological experiments of mice (those between VISp and VISrl for TSVD-Reg and between VISal and VISpm for RSA) 
However, for macaque visual cortex (Figure (b)), there are significant differences (t = −5 451, p = 6 5 × 10 −6 ; t = −8 312, p = 2 8 × 10 −9 ; t = −3 782, p = 6 9 × 10 −4 , also taking the deep model group as an example) between V4 and IT, and the trend is consistent with the information processing hierarchy in primate visual cortex 
The comparative analyses of the best layer depths of the shallow and deep model groups also exhibit the differences between macaques and mice  For mouse visual cortex, the best layer depths of shallow models are significantly higher than those of deep models  Compared to deep models, most shallow models achieve the top similarity scores in intermediate and even later layers 
Differently, for macaque visual cortex, the depth of models has little effect on the depth of the most similar layer  What's more, we find that the most similar layer of mouse visual cortex always occurs after the 28 × 28 feature map is downsampled to 14 × 14, which leads to the layer depths' difference between shallow and deep models 
Nevertheless, the best layer of macaque IT appears in the last part of networks, where the feature map has been downsampled more times  In summary, our results might reveal two distinctions in the functional hierarchy between macaques and mice  First, there is a distinct functional hierarchical structure of macaque ventral visual pathway, while there might be no clear sequential functional hierarchy in mouse visual cortex 
One explanation is that the mouse visual cortex is organized into a parallel structure and the function of mouse cortical regions are more generalized and homogeneous than those of macaques  Another possibility would be that even though the sequential relations exist among mouse cortical regions as proposed in anatomical and physiological work, they are too weak for the current deep neural networks to capture 
Additionally, mice perform more complex visual tasks than expected with a limited brain capacity   Consequently, the neural responses of mouse visual cortex may contain more information not related to object recognition that neural networks focus on  Secondly, it is well known that the units in the neural networks get larger receptive fields after downsampling, and through the analyses of differences between two groups of models based on depth, we find the feature map of the best layer for mouse is downsampled fewer times than that for macaque 
Based on these results, we provide computational evidence that the increased ratio of the receptive field size in cortical regions across the mouse visual pathway is smaller than those across the macaque visual pathways, which echoes some physio- Macaque-Face dataset --- Table : The correlation between the similarity scores and the number of parameters 
r is Spearman's rank correlation coefficient  "-" indicates that there is no significant correlation  To explore the processing mechanisms in the visual cortex of macaques and mice, we investigate the model properties from the whole to the details  As shown in Table and 2, we first measure the correlation between the similarity scores and the sizes (i e  the number of trainable parameters and the depth) of network models 
For Allen Brain mouse dataset, there are significant negative correlations between the similarity scores and the number of parameters for three metrics while there is no correlation with the depth  Conversely, for the two macaque neural datasets, the similarity scores are highly correlated with the depth of networks, but not with the number of parameters 
Specifically, there is a positive correlation for Macaque-Face dataset while a negative correlation for Macaque-Synthetic dataset  (We also apply the linear regression to analyze the correlation between the similarity scores and the model size  The results are consistent with Spearman's rank correlation and are shown in Appendix E) 
Based on these results, we further investigate more detailed properties of neural networks to explain the processing mechanisms in the visual cortex  For the mouse dataset, on the one hand, the best layer depths show non-significant changes across the mouse cortical regions as mentioned in the previous section 
On the other hand, the similarity scores of the mouse dataset are only correlated with the number of model parameters but not with the depth of models  It calls into the question whether any detailed structures in the neural networks help to reduce the number of parameters and improve its similarity to mouse visual cortex 
Therefore, we explore the commonalities between models that have the top 20% representation similarities (see Appendix D) for Allen Brain dataset  As expected, the top models contain similar structures, such as fire module, inception module, and depthwise separable convolution  All these structures essentially process information through multiple branches/channels and then integrate the features from each branch 
The models with this type of structure outperform other models (t = 2 411, p = 0 024; t = 3 030, p = 0 007; t = 1 174, p = 0 247)  Moreover, we apply the depthwise separable convolution to SNNs, which yields a positive effect  The representation similarity of Spiking-MobileNet is higher than SEW-ResNet50 with a similar depth (+0 8%; +3 9%; +12 1%) 
In fact, some studies using multiple pathways simulate the functions of mouse visual cortex to some extent   Our results further suggest that not only the mouse visual cortex might be an organization of parallel structures, but also there are extensive parallel information processing streams between each pair of cortical regions  
For the two macaque datasets with different stimuli, not only are the model rankings significantly different, but also the correlations between the similarity scores and the model depth are totally opposite  These results corroborate the following two processing mechanisms in macaques: the ventral visual stream of primate visual cortex possesses canonical coding principles at different stages; the brain exhibits a high degree of functional specialization, such as the visual recognition of faces and other objects, which is reflected in the different neural responses of the corresponding region (although the face patch AM is a sub-network of IT, they differ in the neural representations) 
Besides, as shown in Figure , The calculation and plotting of the trajectories are the same as Figure   the similarity scores of vision transformers reach the maximum in the early layers and then decrease  Differently, the scores of CNNs and SNNs keep trending upwards, reaching the maximum in almost the last layer 
On the other hand, Appendix C shows that vision transformers perform well in Macaque-Face dataset but poorly in Macaque-Synthetic dataset  Considering the features extraction mechanism of vision transformers, it divides the image into several patches and encodes each patch as well as their internal relation by self-attention 
This mechanism is effective for face images that are full of useful information  However, the synthetic image consists of a central target object and a naturalistic background  When vision transformers are fed with this type of stimuli, premature integration of global information can lead to model representations containing noise from the unrelated background 
What's more, when we take all models with the top 20% representation similarities as a whole for analyses, as described in the above paragraph, the properties that enable networks to achieve higher neural similarity are not yet clear  Taken together, the computational mechanism of the better models may reveal core processing divergence to different types of stimuli in the visual cortex 
In this work, we take large-scale neural representation similarity experiments as a basis, aided by analyses of the similarities across models and the visual cortical regions  Compared to other work, we introduce SNNs in the similarity analyses with biological neural responses for the first time, showing that SNNs achieve higher similarity scores than CNNs that have the same depth and almost the same architectures 
As analyzed in Section 3 1, two properties of SNNs might serve as the explanations for their high similarity scores  The subsequent analyses of the models' simulation performance and structures indicate significant differences in functional hierarchies between macaque and mouse visual cortex  As for macaques, we observed a clear sequential hi-erarchy 
However, as for mouse visual cortex, some work ) exhibits that the trend of the model feature complexity roughly matches the processing hierarchy, but other work suggests that the cortex ) is organized into a parallel structure  Our results are more supportive of the latter  Furthermore, we provide computational evidence not only that the increased ratio of the receptive field size in cortical regions across the mouse visual pathway is smaller than those across the macaque visual pathway, but also that there may be multiple pathways with parallel processing streams between mouse cortical regions 
Our results also clearly reveal that the processing mechanisms of macaque visual cortex differ to various stimuli  These findings provide us with new insights into the visual processing mechanisms of macaque and mouse, which are the two species that dominate the research of biological vision systems and differ considerably from each other 
Compared to CNNs, the study of task-driven deep SNNs is just in its initial state  Although we demonstrate that SNNs outperform their counterparts of CNNs, SNNs exhibit similar properties as CNNs in the further analyses  In this work, we only build several new SNNs by taking the hints from the biological visual hierarchy, while many well-established structures and learning algorithms in CNNs have not been applied to SNNs yet 
In addition, the neural datasets used in our experiments are all collected under static image stimuli, lacking rich dynamic information to some certain, which may not fully exploit the properties of SNNs  Given that SNNs perform well in the current experiments, we hope to explore more potential of SNNs in future work 
In conclusion, as more biologically plausible neural networks, SNNs may serve as a shortcut to explore the biological visual cortex  With studies on various aspects of SNNs, such as model architectures, learning algorithms, processing mechanisms, and neural coding methods, it's highly promising to better explain the sophisticated, complex, and diverse vision systems in the future 

Implementation Details of SNNs Spiking Neuron Model

For all SNNs, we use the Integrate-and-Fire (IF) model as the spiking neuron model, which acts as the activation layer in neural networks  As mentioned in , V t , X t and S t denote the state (membrane voltage), input (current) and output (spike) of the spiking neuron model respectively at time-step t, and the dynamics of the IF model can be described as follows:
(1) (2) (3) While V t is the membrane voltage after the trigger of a spike, H t is also the membrane voltage, but after charging and before a spike firing  Θ(x) is the unit step function, so S t equals 1 when H t is greater than or equal to the threshold voltage V thresh and 0 otherwise  Meanwhile, when a spike fires, V t is reset to V reset  
Here, we set V thresh = 1 and V reset = 0  In addition, because Θ(x) is non-differentiable at 0, the surrogate gradient method is applied to approximate the derivative function during back-propagation  Here, we use the inverse tangent function as the surrogate gradient function and the derivative function is
(5) In our experiments on SNNs, we not only use SEW ResNet proposed by ), but also build several new SNNs  On the one hand, we improve the spike-elementwise block in SEW ResNet with new architectures referring to studies on ResNet , as shown in Table   On the other hand, as the multi-branch structures in CNNs increase neural representation similarity to mouse visual cortex, we use depthwise separable convolutions and follow the overall architecture of MobileNetV2 to build the SpikingMobileNet, the basic block of which is shown in Figure  
Our implementation is based on SpikingJelly , an open-source framework of deep SNN  We use the ImageNet dataset to pre-train the new SNNs  Following the settings for training SEW ResNet , we train the models for 320 epochs on 8 GPUs (NVIDIA V100), using SGD with a mini-batch size of 32  The momentum is 0 9 and the weight decay is 0  The initial learning rate is 0 1 and we decay it with a cosine annealing, where the maximum number of iterations is the same as the number of epochs 
For all SNNs, we set the simulation duration T = 4 

Overall model rankings

The results of model rankings are shown in Figure , 8 and 9  We also apply the Spearman's rank correlation to the overall model rankings of different metrics, which is shown in Figure  

Score Comparisons among Model Groups

We conduct comparisons of similarity scores among CNNs, SNNs, and vision transformers  The results are shown in Figure  

Overall CNN rankings

The results of CNN rankings are shown in Figure , 13 and 14 

Correlations between the Model Sizes and the Similarity Scores

The results of linear regression to model sizes and the similarity scores are shown in Figure , 16 and 17 

The ImageNet Accuracy and the Similarity Scores

The results are shown in Figure  



ground_truth: SNNs have the potential to better model and explain the functional hierarchy and mechanisms of the visual system.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: Where is the club's headquarters located?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 2: Football Club Urartu (, translated Futbolayin Akumb Urartu), commonly known as Urartu, is an Armenian professional football team based in the capital Yerevan that currently plays in the Armenian Premier League  The club won the Armenian Cup three times, in 1992, 2007 and 2016  In 2013–2014, they won the Armenian Premier League for the first time in their history 

In early 2016, the Russia-based Armenian businessman Dzhevan Cheloyants became a co-owner of the club after purchasing the major part of the club shares  The club was known as FC Banants until 1 August 2019, when it was officially renamed FC Urartu 

History

Kotayk
Urartu FC were founded as FC Banants by Sarkis Israelyan on 21 January 1992 in the village of Kotayk, representing the Kotayk Province  He named the club after his native village of Banants (currently known as Bayan)  Between 1992 and 1995, the club was commonly referred to as Banants Kotayk  During the 1992 season, the club won the first Armenian Cup  At the end of the 1995 transitional season, Banants suffered a financial crisis  The club owners decided that it was better to merge the club with FC Kotayk of Abovyan, rather than disband it  In 2001, Banants demerged from FC Kotayk, and was moved from Abovyan to the capital Yerevan 

Yerevan

FC Banants was relocated to Yerevan in 2001  At the beginning of 2003, Banants merged with FC Spartak Yerevan, but was able to limit the name of the new merger to FC Banants  Spartak became Banants's youth academy and later changed the name to Banants-2  Because of the merger, Banants acquired many players from Spartak Yerevan, including Samvel Melkonyan  After the merger, Banants took a more serious approach and have finished highly in the league table ever since  The club managed to lift the Armenian Cup in 2007 
Experience is making way for youth for the 2008 and 2009 seasons  The departures of most of the experienced players have left the club's future to the youth  Along with two Ukrainian players, Ugandan international, Noah Kasule, has been signed 

The club headquarters are located on Jivani Street 2 of the Malatia-Sebastia District, Yerevan 

Domestic

European

Stadium

The construction of the Banants Stadium was launched in 2006 in the Malatia-Sebastia District of Yerevan, with the assistance of the FIFA goal programme  It was officially opened in 2008 with a capacity of 3,600 seats  Further developments were implemented later in 2011, when the playing pitch was modernized and the capacity of the stadium was increased up to 4,860 seats (2,760 at the northern stand, 1,500 at the southern stand and 600 at the western stand) 

Training centre/academy
Banants Training Centre is the club's academy base located in the Malatia-Sebastia District of Yerevan  In addition to the main stadium, the centre houses 3 full-size training pitches, mini football pitches as well as an indoor facility  The current technical director of the academy is the former Russian footballer Ilshat Faizulin 

Fans
The most active group of fans is the South West Ultras fan club, mainly composed of residents from several neighbourhoods within the Malatia-Sebastia District of Yerevan, since the club is a de facto representer of the district  Members of the fan club benefit from events organized by the club and many facilities of the Banants training centre, such as the mini football pitch, the club store and other entertainments 

Achievements
 Armenian Premier League
 Winner (1): 2013–14 
 Runner-up (5): 2003, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2018 

 Armenian Cup
 Winner (3): 1992, 2007, 2016 
 Runner-up (6): 2003, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2021–22

 Armenian Supercup
 Winner (1): 2014 
 Runner-up (5): 2004, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2016 

Current squad

Out on loan

Personnel

Technical staff

Management

Urartu-2

FC Banants' reserve squad play as FC Banants-2 in the Armenian First League  They play their home games at the training field with artificial turf of the Urartu Training Centre 

Managerial history
 Varuzhan Sukiasyan (1992–94)
 Poghos Galstyan (July 1, 1996 – June 30, 1998)
 Oganes Zanazanyan (2001–05)
 Ashot Barseghyan (2005–06)
 Nikolay Kiselyov (2006–07)
 Jan Poštulka (2007)
 Nikolay Kostov (July 1, 2007 – April 8, 2008)
 Nedelcho Matushev (April 8, 2008 – June 30, 2008)
 Kim Splidsboel (2008)
 Armen Gyulbudaghyants (Jan 1, 2009 – Dec 1, 2009)
 Ashot Barseghyan (interim) (2009)
 Stevica Kuzmanovski (Jan 1, 2010 – Dec 31, 2010)
 Rafael Nazaryan (Jan 1, 2011 – Jan 15, 2012)
 Volodymyr Pyatenko (Jan 17, 2013 – June 30, 2013)
 Zsolt Hornyák (July 1, 2013 – May 30, 2015)
 Aram Voskanyan (July 1, 2015 – Oct 11, 2015)
 Tito Ramallo (Oct 12, 2015 – Oct 3, 2016)
 Artur Voskanyan (Oct 3, 2016 – Aug 11, 2018)
 Ilshat Faizulin (Aug 12, 2018 –Nov 24, 2019)
 Aleksandr Grigoryan (Nov 25, 2019 –Mar 10, 2021)
 Robert Arzumanyan (10 March 2021–24 June 2022)
 Dmitri Gunko (27 June 2022–)



ground_truth: The club's headquarters are located on Jivani Street 2 of the Malatia-Sebastia District, Yerevan.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: 对于PD3.0协议，FS312BH支持的最高诱骗电压是多少？

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 3: '无锡速芯微电子有限公司是一家集芯片 研发，销售和服务于一体的国家高新技 术企业，为客户提供高性能，高集成 度，极致体验的全协议快充芯片。 无锡速芯微电子有限公司 FastSOC Microelectronics Co ,Ltd  销售联系方式： 联系人：顾先生 手机：1800 185 3071 邮箱：gpp@fastsoc com 网址：www fastsoc com 地址：无锡市新吴区菱湖大道200号中国物联网国际创新园E-503室 顾工微信号 速芯微公众号 免责声明：本文所述方法、方案均供客户参考，用于提示或者展示芯片应用的一种或者多种方式，不作为最终产品的实际方案。文中所描述的功能和性能指标在实 验室环境下测试得到，部分可以提供第三方测试报告，但是不保证客户产品上能获得相同的数据。本文信息只作为芯片使用的指导，不授权用户使用本公司或者其 他公司的知识产权。本文信息只作为芯片使用的指导，不承担因为客户自身应用不当而造成的任何损失。 **文中信息仅供参考，详情请联系我司获取最新资料” 无锡速芯微电子有限公司 FastSOC Microelectronics Co ,Ltd  产品手册 2023年 
新品快览 FS312A：PD3 0 诱骗- FS312A支持PD2 0/PD3 0最高诱骗电压：20V - FS312AE支持PD2 0/PD3 0 最高诱骗电压：20V支持Emarker模拟功能 - 封装：SOT23-5 VBUS CC1 CC2 DM DP 用电电路 4 7K 0 47uF R C C 1 V D D F U N C C C 2F S 3 1 2 B D M D P EP GND 应用图 FS8628：A+C快充协议CC2 CC1 VBUS CC2 CC1 FS312A FUNC GND VDD 4 7K GND R 用电电路 1uF GND 应用图 多口极简方案 FS8611SP*2+CCM-8611SP-A+7533B-T 双C智能降功率方案 FS8611S USB-C AC-DC 双变压器 7533B-T CCM-8611SP-A FS8611S USB-C 采用2颗FS8611SP搭配CCM-8611SP-A （MCU），7533B-T配合工作 - 支持多种协议 - 支持I2C控制 - 任意单 C 的为 35W - 双 插 降 功 率 ， 三 档 功 率 智 能 配 置：27 4W+7 4W；17 4W+17 4W； 27 4W - BOM极简，成本低 FS312B：PD3 1 诱骗FS8611K*2+CCM-8611K-A+7550B-T 双C方案 - FS312BL支持PD2 0/PD3 0/PD3 1/第三方协议最高诱骗电压：20V - FS312BLE支持PD2 0/PD3 0/PD3 1/第三方协议最高诱骗电压：20V支持Emarker模拟功能 - FS312BH支持PD2 0/PD3 0/PD3 1/第三方协议最高诱骗电压：48V - FS312BHE支持PD2 0/PD3 0/PD3 1/第三方协议最高诱骗电压：48V 支持Emarker模拟功能 - 封装：DFN2x2-6L - 兼容兼容BC1 2、Apple2 4A、 QC2 0 Class A、QC3 0 Class A/B、 FCP、SCP、AFC、低压直充等 - 兼容Type-C PD2 0、Type-C PD3 0、 Type-C PD3 0 PPS、QC4 0协议 - 支持两路DP/DM - 支持CV/CC（分段CC）功能 - 支持定制PDO - 支持A+C双口工作，电压自动回5V - 支持FB/OPTO反馈 - 封装：QFN3x3-20L VPWR FB PowerSystem 100K GND R1 GND 19 VIN 17 FB FUNC1 FUNC2 20 15 18 13 PLUGIND VFB FS8628 QFN3x3-20L AGATE 47K 7 5K 47K 7 5K 1 16 8 7 3 4 5 6 10 9 11 CGATE CVBUS CC2 CC1 CDP CDM AVBUS DM DP ISP ISN 12 应用图 2 V3P3 100Ω 1u EP GND GND CVBUS TYPE- C CC2 CC1 CDP CDM CGND TYPE-A AVBUS DM DP 10n 200 AGND 5mΩ GND FS8611K USB-C AC-DC DC-DC 7550B-T CCM-8611K-A FS8611K USB-C 采用2颗FS8611K搭配CCM-8611K-A （MCU）工作，7550B-T配合工作 - 支持PD2 0/PD3 0/QC2 0/AFC/FCP - 支持PDO定制 - 任意单 C 的为 35W(可定制) - 双插18W（可定制15W/20W） - BOM极简，成本低 FS212C+ACM-212C-A+7550B-T 双C方案 FS212C USB-C AC-DC DC-DC 7550B-T ACM-212C-A FS8623B-A+C方案 AC-DC DC-DC FS8623B USB-A USB-C USB-A 采 用 1 颗 F S 2 1 2 C 搭 配 ACM-212C-A 工 作，7550B-T配合工作 - 支持PD2 0/PD3 0 - 支持PDO定制 - 任意单 C 的为20W - 双插7 5W回5V - BOM极简，成本低 采用一颗FS8623B实现A+C方案 - 兼容兼容Apple2 4A/低压直充 QC2 0 Class A/QC3 0 Class A/B/ FCP/SCP等 - 兼 容Type -C PD2 0 / PD3 0 / PD3 0PPS/QC4 0协议 - 支持PDO定制 - 双插回5V 
多口方案选型 产品选型 受电端芯片选型 速芯微现有多种多口的方案选择：A+C，C+C，C+C+A，C+C+C，C+C+A+A等方案。对于 A+C的方案，可使用1颗芯片实现，也可用多颗芯片来实现。 速芯微现有多种受电端诱骗芯片，客户可根据应用需求进行选择。 受电端诱骗芯片应用领域 筋膜枪 无线充 线材 无人机 产品型号 PD2 0 PD3 0 PD3 1 第三方协议 诱骗电压(V) 控制方式 内置Emarker 定制 封装 FS312A √ √ 5/9/12/15/20 电阻阻值 可变电压策略 SOT23-5 FS312AE √ √ 5/9/12/15/20 电阻阻值 √ (公头专用) 可变电压策略 SOT23-5 FS312BL √ √ √ √ 5/9/12/15/20 电阻阻值 可变电压策略 DFN2x2-6 FS312BLE √ √ √ √ 5/9/12/15/20 电阻阻值 √ (公头专用) 可变电压策略 DFN2x2-6 FS312BH √ √ √ √ 5/20/28/36/48 电阻阻值 可变电压策略 DFN2x2-6 FS312BHE √ √ √ √ 5/20/28/36/48 电阻阻值 √ (公头专用) 可变电压策略 DFN2x2-6 FS312LC √ √ √ 5/9/12 电阻阻值 可变第三方 协议 SSOP10 FS312HC √ √ √ 5/9/12/15/20 电阻阻值 可变第三方 协议 SSOP10 FS2711Q √ √ √ 任意设置 I2C √ QFN3x3-16 FS2711P √ √ √ 任意设置 I2C √ QFN3x3-16 FS2711PA √ √ 全协议 任意设置 I2C √ SSOP10 FS2711SW √ √ 全协议 SSOP10 FS512 √ √ 全协议 任意设置 I2C √ SSOP10 方案 类型 产品型号 单C 单A 双插 A+C方案 FS8623 20W（PPS）（可定制） A口全协议18w 5V共享3A FS8623B 20W（PPS）(可定制) A口全协议18w 5V共享3A FS8628 20W（PPS）(可定制) A口全协议18w 5V共享3A FS8611RPC+FS116DB 65W（PPS）(可定制) A口全协议18w A口：5V/2 4A C口：45W FS8628RC+FS116DB 35W(可定制) A口全协议18w A口：5V（BC1 2，Apple 2 4） C口：20W 方案类型 产品型号 单C1 单C2 C1/C2 C+C方案 FS8611RPB*2 30W(可定制) 30W(可定制) C1/C2：5V/3A(或5V/2 4A) FS8611GH*2 35W（可定制） 35W（可定制） C1/C2:18W（可定制） FS8628P*2 35W（可定制） 35W（可定制） C1/C2：17 4W可定制） FS8611KL*2 20W（可定制） 20W（可定制） C1/C2：5V/1 5 A FS8611PC*2 35W 35W C1/C2：18W FS8611BH*2 65W（可定制） 65W（可定制） C1：45W（可定制）C2：20W（可定制） FS8628RPC+FS8611RB 45W（可定制）） 36W （可定制）） C1：30W（可定制）C2：5V/1 5A（可定制） 方案类型 产品型号 单C1 单C2 单A C1+C2 C1/C2+A C1+C2+A C+C+A FS8611S*2+FS116DB 65W（可定制） 65W（ 可定制）） A口全协议18w 智能分配功率 45W+18W C1/C2：智能分配功率 A：18W（或5V1 5A） FS8612C+FS8628P 100W（可定制） 35W （可定制）） 20W C1：65W C2：20W C1+A：65W+20W C2+A：7 5W+7 5W C1：65W C2：7 5W A：7 5W 其他 
Source-TYPE C协议芯片选型 Source-TYPE A协议芯片选型 速芯微现有多种TYPE-C的快充协议芯片，支持多种协议，支持客户定制，多样化，满 足客户对TYPE C的各种快充需求。 速芯微现有多种TYPE A快充协议芯片，支持全协议，支持定制，满足客户对A口协议的各种需 求。速芯微的TYPE-A快充协议芯片的协议丰富，FS112系列拥有多种的型号；FS116D 系列带插入指示，可搭配TYPE-C快充协议芯片，实现A+C，A+C+C，A+A+C+C等多口方 案，协议丰富，其中FS116A一般用于插入指示使用 Source-TYPE A协议芯片引脚封装图 D+ VSS FB 1 2 3 FS112 6 5 4 D- VDD FUNC GATE VIN FUNC FB LED/PLUG_IN 1 2 3 4 5 FS116D 10 DM 9 8 7 6 DP CSP CSN VSS速芯微的各TYPE-C快充协议芯片之间可搭配使用，实现多口方案，更多详情请咨 询我司工作人员。 多口降功率专用快充协议芯片：FS8611RB，FS8611RC，FS8611RPB，FS8611RPC， FS8612CP。 带I2C快充协议芯片：FS8611S，FS8611SP 产品型号 BC1 2 Apple 2 4 QC2 0 QC3 0 AFC FCP SCP HISCP 大电流直充 封装 FS112 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ SOT23-6 FS112H √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ SOT23-6 FS113 √ v √ √ √ √ √ √ √ SOT23-6 FS116DP √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ SSOP10 FS116DB √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ SSOP10 FS116E √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ SSOP10 FS116A √ √ SSOP10 其他 可定制 PD2 0 PD3 0 PD3 0 PPS 第三方协议 反馈方式 MOS CV/CC 定制 封装 FS212C √ √ FB √ SOT23-6 FS212CM √ √ FB PMOS(可省) √ SOT23-6 FS212D √ √ √ FB √ SOT23-6 FS212DH √ √ √ FB √ SOT23-6 FS212DP √ √ √ FB PMOS √ SOT23-6 FS212DG √ √ √ FB PMOS √ SOT23-6 FS8611G √ √ FB PMOS(可省) √ SOP-8 FS8611K √ √ QC2 0/AFC/FCP FB PMOS(可省) √ SOP8 FS8611J √ √ √ 全协议 FB PMOS(可省) √ SOP8 FS8611B √ √ √ 全协议 FB PMOS(可省) √ SSOP10 FS8611RB √ √ 全协议 FB PMOS √ SSOP10 FS8611RC √ √ 全协议 FB PMOS √ SSOP10 FS8611S √ √ √ 全协议 FB PMOS √ SSOP10 FS8611PP √ √ √ 全协议 FB PMOS √ SSOP10 FS8611BP √ √ √ 全协议 FB PMOS(可省) √ SSOP10 FS8611RPB √ √ √ 全协议 FB PMOS √ SSOP10 FS8611RPC √ √ √ 全协议 FB PMOS √ SSOP10 FS8611SP √ √ √ 全协议 FB PMOS(可省) SSOP10 FS8612 √ √ √ 全协议 OPTO PMOS √ √ SSOP16 FS8612B √ √ √ 全协议 FB PMOS √ √ SSOP16 FS8612BP √ √ √ 全协议 FB PMOS √ √ SSOP16 FS8612C √ √ √ 全协议 FB/OPTO PMOS √ √ QFN4x4-16 FS8612CP √ √ √ 全协议 FB/OPTO PMOS √ √ QFN4x4-16 
'



ground_truth: 48V.