Spik-NeRF: Spiking Neural Networks for Neural Radiance Fields
Authors: Gang Wan
Qinlong Lan
LiZihan
Huimin Wang
Wu Yitian
wang zhen
Wanhua Li
Yufei Guo
Venue: NeurIPS 2025 poster ()
Keywords: Spiking Neural Networks
Spiking NeRF
Neural Radiance Fields
Primary area: neuroscience_and_cognitive_science
TL;DR: Spiking Neural Networks for Neural Radiance Fields

Abstract: Spiking Neural Networks (SNNs), as a biologically inspired neural network architecture, have garnered significant attention due to their exceptional energy efficiency and increasing potential for various applications. In this work, we extend the use of SNNs to neural rendering tasks and introduce Spik-NeRF (Spiking Neural Radiance Fields). 
    We observe that the binary spike activation map of traditional SNNs lacks sufficient information capacity, leading to information loss and a subsequent decline in the performance of spiking neural rendering models. 
    To address this limitation, we propose the use of ternary spike neurons, which enhance the information-carrying capacity in the spiking neural rendering model. With ternary spike neurons, Spik-NeRF achieves performance that is on par with, or nearly identical to, traditional ANN-based rendering models.
    Additionally, we present a re-parameterization technique for inference that allows Spik-NeRF with ternary spike neurons to retain the event-driven, multiplication-free advantages typical of binary spike neurons. 
    Furthermore, to further boost the performance of Spik-NeRF, we employ a distillation method, using an ANN-based NeRF to guide the training of our Spik-NeRF model, which is more compatible with the ternary neurons compared to the standard binary neurons. 
    We evaluate Spik-NeRF on both realistic and synthetic scenes, and the experimental results demonstrate that Spik-NeRF achieves rendering performance comparable to ANN-based NeRF models.

Spik-NeRF: Spiking Neural Networks for Neural Radiance Fields
Gang Wan Qinlong Lan'.*, Zihan Li Huimin Wang Yitian Wu', Zhen Wang', Wanhua Li', Yufei Guo if
'Space Engineering University, ?Peking University 'Intelligent Science & Technology Academy CASIC casper_ pymper_51@163.... com, whulangl@whu hwtp://wwuuuuu....m cn, yfguo@pku. edupppuu.ddd....
Abstract
Spiking Neural Networks (SNNs), as a biologically inspired neural network archi- tecture, have garnered significant attention due to their exceptional energy efficiency and increasing potential for various applications. In this work, we extend the use of SNNs to neural rendering tasks and introduce Spik-NeRF (Spiking Neural Radi- ance Fields with Ternary Spike). We observe that the binary spike activation map of traditional SNNs lacks sufficient information capacity, leading to information loss and a subsequent decline in the performance of spiking neural rendering models. To address this limitation, propose the of ternary spike neurons, which enhance the information-carrying capacity in the spiking neural rendering model. With ternary spike neurons, Spik-NeRF achieves performance that is par with, or nearly identical to, traditional ANN-based rendering models. Additionally, we present re- pe-paaamttrrization technique for inference that allows Spik-NeRF with ternary spike neurons to retain the event-driven, multiplication-fret advantages typical of binary spike neurons. Furthermore, to further boost the performance of Spik-NeRF, we employ distillation method, using an ANN-based NeRF to guide the training of our Spik-NeRF model, which is more compatible with the our ternary neurons compared to the standard binary neurons and other neuron forms. We evaluate Spik-NeRF on both realistic and synthetic scenes, and the experimental results demonstrate that Spik-NeRF achieves rendering performance comparable to ANN-hased NeRF models.
Introduction
known for their energy efficiency compared to Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs), have garnered significant attention due to their event- driven computation mechanism and the energy-saviny advantages of multiplication-fii free operations. SNNs have shown great potential in a wide range of applications. For instance. in [34], SNNs were applied to object detection and demonstrated substantial energy efficiency improvements, outperforming their ANN counterparts by orders of magnitude. In [16), SNNs were used to improve the image de-occlusion task. In (33). SNNs were employed for sequential learning, showing better performance and reduced energy consumption compared to ANNS with similar seale. Similarly, in (26). SNNs were utilized for Human Activity Recognition (HAR), achieving up 94% reduction in energy consumption while maintaining comparable accuracy to ANN-based models. Additionally, [37]. and even autonomous driving 39
Spiking Neural Networks (SNNs) 136
10
35 18
SNNs have been applied to pose tracking 45), 3D recognition
Equua Contributions. Conresponding Author.
39th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NcurIPS 2025).

---

where LaneSNNs demonstrated low power consumption (1 W) in lane detection using event-based cameras.
Given these successes, the ques- tion naturally arises: Can SNNs be adapted to the more complex task of neural rendering, such as rendering neural radiance fields (NeRF)?
Spik-NeRE
Training Phase
5D Input
introduce Spik- NeRF, a spiking neural network ap- proach tailored for neural rendering tasks, the first one directly-trained SNN-based NeRF model building upon the initial NeRF framework [31. However, we found that applying SNNs to neural rendering tasks led to suboptimal performance. This is pri- marily due to the limited information capacity of the binary spike activation maps in SNNs. Unlike the rich activa- tion maps of ANNs. the binary spike maps in SNNs fail to retain enough useful information during the quanti- zation process, resulting in significant information loss and a decrease in per- formance. A more detailed explana- tion provided Sec. 3.3.
In this paper,
2
(0.12) Splies
de-paramnterrzaation
Inference Phase
(s. c) Output
[-..1 Spikke
Figure 1: The overall workflow of the proposed Spik-NeRF, along with the ternary spike neuron and re-parameterization technique.
To address this challenge, we propose the ternary spike neuron for the Spik-NeRF, which extends the traditional binary spike representation ([0, 1}) to a ternary form ((0, 1, 2).. This new approach significantly increases the information capacity of SNNs, as detailed parameterization technique that transforms the ternary spikes ((0, 1, 2)) into the set of ({-1,0, 0, 1}), preserving the multiplication- frree and event-driven advantages of SNNs. The overall workflow of the proposed Spik-NeRF, along with the ternary spike neuron and c-parameterizatiion technique, is illustrated Fig. [
Sec. 3.3. Furthermore, in the inference phase, we introduce a re-
Additionally, to further improve the performance of Spik-NeRF, we propose using an ANN-based NeRF model for distillation. This technique, leveraging the superior capabilities of ANN-based NeRF models, is particularly well-suited for our ternary spike neuron, offering additional performance gains.
In summary, the main contributions of this work are as follows:
We present Spik-NeRF, spiking neural network for rendering neural radiance fields. To our best knowledge, this is the first directly-trained SNN model building on the original NeRF framework [3]]
We demonstrate, with theoretical justification, that binary spike activation maps in SNN- based NeRF are insufficient carrying information, leading to performance degradation. To solve this issue, we propose the ternary spike neuron, which effectively increases the information capacity while retaining the multiplication-fue and event-driven advantages of standard SNNs the inference, aided by our re-parameterization technique.
We introduce distillation method using ANN-based NeRF teacher, which is more suitable for our ternary neuron compared to other spike neurons, to further enhances the performance of Spik-NeRF.
We evaluate Spik-NeRF on both realistic and synthetic scenes. The experimental results demonstrate that Spik-NeRF achieves rendering performance comparable to ANN-based NeRF models.

---

2 Related Work
2.1 Spiking Neural Networks
There are generally three primary methods for training SNNs 13:
(1) spike-timinggdependeee
plasticity (STDP) [1 approaches. (2) ANN-1-SSNN conversion approaches [22 21 29
24).
and (3) direct training methods 3
42
35
25
41 40)
The STDP method biologically inspired 20
and updates synaptic weights using an unsupervised However, this approach is still limited to small-scale
learning algorithm called Hebbian learning 23 datasets.
The ANN-to-SNN conversion method 6
22 21 involves converting a well-trained ANN model an SNN counterpart. This method is advantageous because training an ANN faster than training an SNN. Consequently, the ANN-to-SNN conversion offers quick way to obtain an SNN without using gradient descent. However, the converted SNN essentially mimics the original ANN and lacks learned features, thus not fully exploiting the benefits of SNNs. Additionally, this method typically requires many time steps to achieve high accuracy.
24
Direct training methods, on the other hand, aim to find an alternative function to replace the firing function of spiking neurons during backpropagation. These methods can significantly reduce the number of time steps needed, sometimes even to fewer than five [12 25 [4]. and have attracted considerable attention recently. However, finding an appropriate surrogate function for SNNs with large time steps remains a challenging problem. Our work focuses on addressing this issue.
2.2 Spiking Neural Networks for NeRF
Some research has explored applying SNNs to Neural Radiance Fields, but these studies differ from our approach. For instance, hybrid ANN -SN models were proposed in Spiking NeRF [28] and Spiking Nerfacto [1]. These works employ non non-linear, non-spike functions to post-process the density-related outputs the original ANN-based NeRF models. In contrast, our work focuses on utilizing a fully SNN-based model for neural radiance fields. In Spiking-Nerf [27), an ANN-SNN model is proposed to develop energy-efficient spiking neural rendering using the ANN-to-SNN conversion approach, which, mentioned earlier, requires many time steps. In comparison, work concentrates on developing a direct training SNN method for NeRF. Another relevant study, SpikingNerf [43), presents a spiking neural radiance field model based on the DVGO (38) and TensoRF 4 frameworks. These frameworks enhance the original NeRF model by integrating various innovations. Except for these, this method requires numerous time steps each sampled point the ray is associated with a particular time step and represented in a hybrid manner.
Our approach, however, aims to develop spiking neural radiance field model based on the original NeRF framework (3I) which could pave the way for future advancements in this field. Additionally, we aim to achieve competitive performance with fewer time steps, which is directly related to the energy efficiency of the model.
3 Preliminary and Methodology
In this paper, we primarily apply the SNN to the NeRF framework 31]. which is the first deep learning model that represents scene as neural radiance field and renders novel views from this representation. We then modify it to create Spik-NeRF. First, we provide detailed introduction to NeRF and the widely used SNN neuron model, the Leaky Integrate-and -nnrFFee-and-Fire (LIF) model. Subse- quently, we address the information loss issue when applying SNN to NeRF, Finally, we present the Spik-NeRF model, which based on ternary spike neurons to resolve the aforementioned problem, along with an isomorphic network knowledge distillation method to further enhance performance.
3.1 NeRF
In contrast to conventional explicit 3D reconstruction techniques that employ discrete voxel grids or point clouds, NeRF (31] introduces a novel continuous implicit representation through differentiable volumetric rendering. The core innovation lies in encoding the 3D scene as a 5D neural radiance
3

---

field using multi-layer perceptron (MLP). which maps spatial coordinates (z, E R and viewing directions v (6, Φ) S volume density o RR and view-dependent RGB color (r. 9) E [0, This parametric representation is formalized through two cascaded MI.P components:
Geometry network:
Po:p-(e.0
(1)
Appearance network:
(2)
where and denote network parameters, E RB- represents intermediate feature embeddings, and corresponds the differential opacity at point p. These networks are all composed of several fully connected layers. Each fully connected layer implements the transformation:
ReLUU(Linear(a))
where is the activation from the previous layer.
The rendering process employs classical volume rendering principles 30 with neural adaptation. For camera ray r(g) = + gd with near/far bounds (9n. f we sample K stratified points {g: ) and compute the pixel color via numerical integration:
G: = exp cxp (-E
K C(r) Σ Gao,c where
an = 1 - exp(_oo00)
(4)
à 9i+1 9i
Here G; represents the transmittance probability for ray segment (9n. gel, and a, denotes the alpha- compositing weight for the i-th sample. The hierarchical sampling strategy combines coarse and fine networks iuportance-sampl along rays.
The model optimized through photometric reconstruction over set of rays R using an L2 loss between rendered and observed pixel colors:
L photoo = EeweR 110
(5)
where C. and Õ₁ denote outputs from the coarse and fine networks respectively.
3.2 Vanilla SNN for NeRF (Denoted as Spiking NeRF)
SNNs use the spiking neuron, which is inspired by the brain's natural mechanisms, to transmit information. A spiking neuron will receive input spike trains from the previous layer neuron models along times to update its membrane potential, u. In the paper, we adopt the widely used Ieaky integrate and fire (LIF) neuron model. The LIF neuron model governs membrane potential u(t) evolution through time t:
du
mm dt
(u Ureset) + R. T(t), < Vib
(6)
s/ Ouu'
Vin))
(7)
where (--) denotes the Heaviside step function, is the membrane time constant, and Vnh the firing threshold. For practical implementaiion, we adopt the discrete-time formulation:
v'= = u + (Ws u
+ Ureset
(8)
s' - Vin) -Vn)
(9)
u' = v' @ (1=s*) "resets*
(10)
where W denotes synaptic weights and @ the Hadamard product. Parameters follow biological constraints: 7 Useset = Vth 0.5 (25)
We transform NeRF's MLP layers to spiking domains through temporal unfolding and potential accumulation:
Spiking Geometry Network: F p' + (c'.a') Spiking Appearance Network: G² (e' (e',v") c
(11)
(12)

---

Each spiking MLP layer implements temporal- aware computation:
h = I.F(( + by:)
(13)
where _ denotes spike inputs from layer at timestep The membrane potential uj tracks temporal dependencies across layers.
The spiking radiance field outputs are integrated through:
(14)
T
1
E
(15)
where T is the total timestep of the Spiking NeRF. Then volumetric rendering then follows Eq. with 0, = o; and c; =c, Cs.
3.3 Spik-NeRF
3.3.1
Information Loss in Spiking NeRF
While employing binary spike feature embeddings in Spiking NeRF offers substantial energy effi- ciency, it inherently has a limited representational capacity compared the high-precision feature embeddings utilized in ANN-based NeRF. This limitation ultimately restricts its performance. To better illustrate this issue, we begin by providing a theoretical analysis based on the concept of entropy. Given a set X, its representational capability, denoted as e(X), can be quantified by the maximum entropy of X, as expressed below:
C(X) maxx](X] max
Σ (px(x))ogxx(1)) =EX
(16)
where Px(a (x) represents the probability of observing sample from X. The following proposition can be easily derived:
Proposition: Given set X, we have C(X) max H(X) = max (-ExxxXxe lx px())) When the probability distribution is defined Px(x) Mr where M represents the total number of samples in X, the entropy H((X) reaches its maximum value of log(M). Therefore, it follows that e(X) = log(M).
Next, we calculate the representational capacities of the binary spike feature embeddings in Spiking NeRF and the real-valued feature embeddings in the ANN-based counterpart. Let En BCX represent the binary feature embeddings of Spiking NeRF, and ER E C denote the real- valued feature embeddings of the ANN-based NeRF. A binary spike output can be represented by 1 bit, with two possible samples from s. Therefore, the number of samples in Eg is 2(CxN), and the corresponding representational capacity is:
e(EB) log (2(CxN)) C x N.
(17)
In contrast, real-valued output requires 32 bits, leading to 23 possible samples. Hence, the representational capacity for the real-valued embeddings is:
C(ER) log (222X(xXN))
C.N.
(18)
This comparison clearly demonstrates that the representational capacity of the binary spike feature embeddings substantially limited, which consequently results in degraded performance for Spiking NeRF
3.3.2 Ternary Spike Neuron Mechanism for Spik-NeRF
Our theoretical analysis reveals that enhancing the information capacity of spike neuron activations directly correlates with improved task performance. To capitalize this insight, propose novel

---

ternary spike neuron formulation that forms the foundation of our Spik-NeRF architecture. The membrane dynamics and spike generation mechanism operate through three distinct phases:
1
1f-- (Ws'*
+ Ureset
(19)
2, v¹ Vih + A
s
1, Vhh v v2 Vih + A
(20)
v Vin
v <<> Vih
u
(21)
Uresety
otherwise
where A. represents our adaptive threshold margin (fixed at 1 in implementation). Obviously, this ternary formulation significantly enhances the representational capacity of Spik-NeRF. To quantitatively analyze the representational advantage, we also resort to the information entropy theory. Let Ey TCx N denote as a ternary feature embedding in our Spik-NeRF. The temary spike embeddings Ey consists of 3C*N samples. Hence,
e(Er) = log, 3C C' N -log2 3 R 1.585 x N
(22)
The R 58.5% increase in theoretical information capacity directly translates to enhanced scene representation capabilities, which benefits performance improvement.
3.3.3 Training-Inferenee Decoupling via Spike Reparameterization
While ternary spike neurons enhance representational capacity, their direct implementation introduces computational challenges: the {0, 1, activation space prevents efficient conversion of weight- activation multiplications to additions, a critical advantage in SNN acceleration. To resolve this fundamental efficiency conflict, we propose novel spike re-parameterization technique that preserves both the information richness of ternary signals and the computational benefits of binary networks.
Our solution employs train-infer decoupling strategy with affine transformation of spike representa- tions. During training, we maintain the native {0, 1,2) spike formulation for gradient stability. For inference, we apply linear transformation to the spike tensor:
s st A where ==1
(23)
This shifts the spike space to {-1, 0, }} while preserving ordinal relationships. The membrane potential update equations consequently adapt as follows:
1
Training:
v'=u'-l + (Ws '111 Wreset.)
(24)
Inference: v
W n==1 Ureset
(25)
where Wi = W1 constitutes a pre-computable bias term. Thus in the inference, the linear layer will only consist of addition operations and keep the event-driven advantage.
Note that we can also use the (-1,00 0, 1} activation spike [15] during training. However, we observe that its performance is inferior that of the {0, 1,2) spike. Additionally, the {0, 1,2) spike activation resembles ReLU activation more closely, making it better suited for ANN-SNN distillation compared to the 1, spike activation. With these reasons, chose this form of neuron for our work.
3.3.4 Isomorphic Network Knowledge Distillation
To further increase the performance, we propose an isomorphic distillation framework that transfers knowledge from an ANN-based NeRF (teacher) to our Spik-NeRF (student). We establish direct supervision on both density and color predictions through mean squared error (MSE) distillation. For any 3D point p and viewing direction V,
Lieessiyy = EppP [IAANN(p) - - SNN (p) [
(26)
Loolor -) INC (p,v) - SNN (p, v)
(27)
The final training objective combines photometric reconstruction loss with distillation is
Lioual Lp AuEsiiy AcCcolor
(28)
where Xa and X control the distillation strength for density and color respectively. We set them as 0.5 in the paper.

---

Table I: Per-scene quantitative results from the synthetic dataset
Metrie
Method
Chair
Drums
Ficus
Hotdog
Leego
Materials
Mic
Ship
Avg.
ANN-based NeRF
34.15
25.64
29.15
36.85
31.48
29.34
33.12
29.42
31.15
Spiking-NeRF
12.24
11.14
13.98
14.85
9.81
10.36
9.81
13.22
11.93
PSNR1
Spíking NeRF
31.98
24.51
24.00
34,55
29.33
27.75
31.65
27.85
28.95
Spik-NeRF
33.40
25.21
26.05
35,99
30.82
28.86
32.78
28.75
30.23
ANN-based NeRF
0,979
0.929
0.966
0.979
0.965
0.958
0.978
0.874
0.953
SSIMI
Spiking NeRF
0,963
0,907
0.891
0.969
0.940
0,937
0.969
0.838
0,927
Spik-NeRF
0.973
0.921
0.929
0.976
0.957
0,950
0.975
0.856
0.942
ANN- NeRF
0.014
0.053
0.022
0.015
0.020
0.024
0.023
0.086
0.032
LPIPS)
Spiking NeRF
0.034
0,086
0.119
0.032
0.039
0.047
0.043
0.126
0.066
Spik-NeRF 0.021
0.065
0.063
0.021
0.027
0.033
0.028
0.105
0.045
Table 2: Per-scene quantitative results from the realistic dataset
Metric
Method
Room
Fern
Leaves
Fortress
Orchids
Flower
T-Rex
Horns
Avg.
ANN Spiking-NeRI
ANN-based based NeRF
31.38
26.25
21.98
31.35
21.20
27.51
27.27
28.10
26.88
17.07
15.91
9.68
14.51
9.12
10.35
15.05
13.05
13.09
PSNR1
Spiking NcRF
30.12
25.08
20.75
30.07
20.51
26.19
25.26
26.34
25.54
Spik-NeRF'
30.90
25.70
21.46
30.79
20.94
26.94
26.15
27.16
26.26
ANN based NeRF
0,931
0.836
0.790
0.896
0.734
0.853
0.896
0.877
0.851
SSIM
Spiking NeRF
0,904
0.769
0.691
0.837
0.644
0.782
0,825
0.800
0.781
Spik-NeRF
0.920
0.802
0.744
0.869
0.688
0.820
0.862
0.835
0.817
ANN- based NeRF
0.049
0.101
0.119
0.059
0.122
0.075
0.062
0.078
0.083
LPIPS!
Spiking NeRF
0.098
0.207
0.203
0.130
0.223
0.134
0.135
0.166
0.162
Spik-NeRF
0.066
0.164
0.157
0.092
0.170
0.101
0.095
0.123
0.121
4
Experiment
We assess the rendering performance of Spik-NeRF on both synthetic and real-world datasets [3]] The synthetic dataset includes eight scenes featuring different objects. For each scene, there are 100 views used for training and 200 views for testing, with each view image having a resolution of 400 x 400 pixels. The real-world dataset consists of eight scenes captured with mobile phones. Each scene contains between 20 and 60 images, and the images are resized to 400 x 400 pixels in this paper. Additionally, one-eighth of the images are reserved for testing.
The network architecture follows the design outlined in NeRF [3I] All models are trained using the Adam optimizer for 300,000 iterations with a batch size of 1,024 rays. We initialize the learning rate x 10- which is decayed exponentially as training progresses. For synthetic scenes, the number of sampled points is set to 64 for the coarse network and 128 for the fine network. Similarly, for real-world scenes, 64 and 128 sampled points are used for the coarse and fine networks, respectively. The total number of timesteps for both Spiking NeRF and our Spik-NeRF is set to 2, while for the Spiking-NeRF, it is timesteps. Since our Spik-NeRF with 2 timesteps achieves rendering performance comparable to the ANN-based NeRF model, we did not explore larger timesteps.
4.1 Rendering Performance
We evaluate the rendering performance of Spik-NeRF both quantitatively and qualitatively. Tables || and] present per-scene quantitative results from the synthetic and realistic datasets, respectively.
As mentioned earlier, although previous work has explored the application of SNNs to NeRF, these studies differ from our approach. Spiking-NeREE 277. an ANN-SNN hybrid model, uses the same NeRF (11 framework as ours, and is thus selected for comparison. Additionally, we implemented the original NeRF B1] and spiking NeRF based vanilla binary spike neuron for comparison, referred to as ANN-based NeRF and Spiking NeRF, respectively.
For performance evaluation, we adopt standard metrics: PSNR and SSIM (higher values are better), and LPIPS (4 (lower values are better), as used NeRF [II. Since Spiking-Nerf (27 only reports PSNR, we present SSIM and LPIPS results for ANN-based NeRF, Spiking NeRF, and Spik-NeRF.
7

---

BBBBA
BBBBB
Lego
Drums
Mic
Ship
ANN-based NeRF
Ground Truth
Spiking NeRF
Spik-NeRF
Figure 2: The rendering performance in the synthetic dataset.
On the synthetic dataset, Spiking-Nedl with timesteps achieved an average PSNR of 11.93. In comparison, our directly trained Spiking NeRF achieved significant improvement with an average PSNR of 28.95. More notably, our Spik-NeRF, utilizing ternary spikes, further boosts the average PSNR to 30.23, approaching the performance of the ANN-based NeRF (31.15 PSNR). Furthermore, in every scene, Spik-NeRF consistently outperforms both Spiking-NeRF and Spiking NeRF, highlighting the effectiveness of our approach.

---

gap On the realistic dataset, our method also surpasses Spiking-NeRE and Spiking NeRF. For instance, Spik-NeRF achieves a PSNR of 26.26, outperforming Spiking- Neetn and Spiking NeRF by 13.17 and 0.72 PSNR, respectively. In terms of SSIM and LPIPS, Spik-NeRF achieves scores of 0.817 and 0.121, while Spiking NeRF achieves 0.781 and 0. 0.162, respectively.
Figure 2 illustrates the rendering results from synthetic datasets, including Lego, Drums, Mic, and Ship, for ANN-based NeRF, Spiking NeRF, and Spik-NeRF. It is evident that our method recovers fine details in both geometry and appearance, comparable to the ANN-based NeRF. This includes features such as the Drums' pedal, the Microphone's 's mesh grille, and the Ship's rigging. In contrast, Spiking NeRF produces blurry and distorted renderings, particularly for the Microphone's 's mesh grille.
We also include the rendering results for the realistic dataset in the appendix. As seen in the figures, method consistently represents fine geometry more accurately across rendered views than Spiking NeRF
4.2 Ablation Study for Knowledge Distillation
In this section, we evaluate the performance of our method with the proposed isomorphic network knowledge distillation on complex scenes, such as Room, Orchids, and Drums. The results are presented in Tab.
As illustrated in Tab. applying knowl- edge distillation to Spik-NeRF results in noticeable improvement in performance, bringing its results much closer to those of the ANN-based NeRF. The quantitative analysis reveals two important findings: (1) Knowledge distillation effectively narrows the performance gap between Spik-NeRF and ANN- NeRF, as demonstrated by the improvement in both PSNR and SSIM metrics. (2) Even in challenging scenes that involve specular reflections, such Orchids, our method achieves rendering quality comparable to ANN-based NeRF, suggesting that knowledge distillation is beneficial in maintaining high-quality renderings in complex environments.
Table 3: Per-scene quantitative results for knowledge distillation.
Metric
Method
Room
Orchids
Drums
ANN-based NeRF
31.38
21.20
25.64 64
PSNR1
Spik-NeRF
30.90
20.94
25.21
Spik-NeRF with KD
31.12
21.09
25.40
ANN-based NeRF
0,931
0.734
0.929
SSIM
Spik-NeKF
0,920
0.688
0,921
Spik-NeRF with KD
0.924
0.692
0.924
ANN- based NeRF
0.049
0.122
0.053
LPIPS
Spik-NeRF
0.066
0.170
0.065
Spik-NeRF with KD
0.064
0.165
0.063
These findings also highlight the compatibility of our Spik-NeRF with the ternary spike neuron model and the isomorphic network knowledge distillation, which appears to facilitate the optimization process and enhance performance significantly.
5 Conclusion
We present Spik-NeRF, achieving ANN-comparable rendering quality. Theoretical analysis reveals binary spikes' limited representational capacity for SNN-based NeRF. To address limitations of binary spike neurons based Spiking NeKF, propose the ternary spike neuron for Spik-NeRF, which increase representational capacity by 58.5% using three activation states. We also propose train-infer decoupling via spike reparameterization technique to keep the energy efficiency of SNNs. In addition, we also propose the isomorphic distillation method, which transfers knowledge from ANN-based NeRF to compensate for information loss. Our experiments show that Spik-NeRF achieves PSNR metric within 2.9% of ANN baselines with only 2 timesteps, while retaining energy efficiency through multiplication-fre free operations. Our work bridges the in neural fields, enabling future energy-efficient 3D reconstruction.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2024YDLN0013) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 12202412).

---

References
[1] Bi, G.-q. and Poo, M.-m. Synaptic modifications in cultured hippocampal neurons: dependence spike timing, synaptic strength, and postsynaptic cell type. Journal of neuroscience, 18(24): 10464-10472, 1998.
[2] Bu, T., Ding, J., Yu, Z., and Huang, T. Optimized potential initialization for low-latency spiking neural networks. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36,
pp. 11-20, 2022.
[3] Carnevale, N. T. and Hines, M. L. The NEURON book. Cambridge University Press, 2006.
[4] Chen, A., Xu, Z.,, Geiger, A., Yu, J., and Su, H. Tensorf: Tensorial radiance fields. In European conference on computer vision, pp. 333-350. Springer, 2022.
[5] Cheng, X., Hao, Y.. Xu, J., and Xu, B. Lisnn: Improving spiking neural networks with lateral interactions for robust object recognition. In I/CAI, pp. 1519-1525, 2020.
[6] Deng. S. and Gu, S. Optimal conversion of conventional artificial neural networks to spiking neural networks. arXiv preprint S10I::210330047766 2021.
[7] Diehl, P. U. and Cook, M. Unsupervised learning of digit recognition using spike-timing- dependent plasticity. Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 9:99, 2015.
[8] Ding, J., Yu, Z., Tian, Y., and Huang, T. Optimal ann-snn conversion for fast and accurate inference in deep spiking neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2 /65. 2021.
[9] Fang. W., Yu, Z., Chen, Y., Masquelier, T., Huang, T., and Tian, Y. Incorporating learnable membrane time constant to enhance learning of spiking neural networks. In Proceedings the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 2661-2671, 2021.
[10] Ghosh-Dastidar, S. and Adeli, H. Spiking neural networks. International journal of neural systems, 19(04)2955330 2009.
[11] Gu, Y., Wang, Z., Ye, D., and Xu, R. Sharpening your density fields: Spiking neuron aided fast geometry learning. arXiv preprint urXiv:2412.0988 2024.
[12] Guo, Y., Zhang, L., Chen, Y., Tong, X., Liu, X., Wang, Y., Huang. X., and Ma. Z. Real spike: Learning real-valuce spikes for spiking neural networks. In Computer Vision-ECCO 2022: 17th European Conference, Tel Aviv, Israel, October 23-27, 2022, Proceedings, Part XII, pp. 52-68. Springer, 2022.
[13] Guo, Y., Huang, X., and Ma, Z. Direct learning- beaning-based deep spiking neural networks: a review. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 17: 17:1209795, 2023.
[14] Guo, Y., Zhang, Y., Chen, Y., Peng. W., Liu, X., Zhang, L., Huang, X., and Ma, Z. Membrane potential batch normalization for spiking neural networks. In Proceedingy of the IEEF/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pp. 19420-19430, October 2023.
[15] Guo, Y., Chen, Y., Liu, X., Peng, W., Zhang, Y., Huang, X., and Ma, Z. Ternary spike: Learning ternary spikes for spiking neural networks. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 38, pp. 12244-122533 2024.
[16] Guo, Y., Peng, W., Chen, Y., Zhou. J., and Ma, Z. Improved event-based image de-occlusion. IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 2024.
[17] Guo, Y., Peng, W., Liu, X., Chen, Y., Zhang, Y., Tong, X., Jie, Z., and Ma, Z. Enof-snn: Training accurate spiking neural networks via enhancing the output feature. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 77:51708-51777 2024.
[18] Guo, Y., Zhang, Y., Jie, Z., Liu, X., Tong, X., Chen, Y., Peng, W., and Ma, Z. Reverb- snn: Reversing bit of the weight and activation for spiking neural networks. arXiv preprint 07X7v22506.07720, 2025.
10

---

[19] Han, B., Srinivasan, G., and Roy, K. Rmp-snn: Residual membrane potential neuron for enabling deeper lighaaccurcyy and low-latency spiking neural network. In Proceedings of the IEEF/CVF conference computer vision and pattern recognition, pp. 33558-13567, 2020.
[20] Hao, Y. Huang, X., Dong, M., and Xu, B. A biologically plausible supervised learning method for spiking neural networks using the symmetric stdp rule. Neural Networks, 121:387-395, 2020.
[21] Hao, Z.,, Bu, T., Ding, J., Huang, T., and Yu, Z. Reducing ann-snn conversion error through residual membrane potential. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.02091, 2023.
[22] Hao, Z., Ding, J., Bu, T., Huang, T., and Yu, Z. Bridging the gap between anns and snns by calibrating offset spikes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302. 10685, 2023.
[23] Hebb, D. O. The organization of behavior: A neuropsychological theory. Psychology press, 2005.
[24] Li, Y., Deng, S., Dong, X., Gong, R., and Gu, S. A free lunch from ann: Towards efficient, accurate spiking neural networks calibration. In International Conference on Machine Learning. pp. 6316-6325, PMLR, 2021.
[25] Li, Y., Guo, Y., Zhang. S., Deng. S., Hai, Y., and Gu, S. Differentiable spike: Rethink- ing gradient-descent for training spiking neural networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 14:23426-23439) 2021.
[26] Li, Y., Yin, R., Park, H., Kim, Y., and Panda, P. Wearable-based human activity recognition with spatio-temporal spiking neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.02233, 2022.
[27] Li, Z., Ma, Y., Zhou, J., and Zhou, P. Spiking-nerf: Spiking neural network for energy-efficient neural rendering. ACM Journal Emerging Technologies in Computing Systems, 20(3):1-23, 2025.
[28] Liao, Z., Liu, Y., Zheng, Q., and Pan, G. Spiking nerf: Representing the real-world geometry by discontinuous representation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pp. 13790-13798, 2024.
[29] Liu, F., Zhao, W., Chen, Y., Wang, Z., and Jiang, L. Spikeconverter: An efficient conversion framework zipping the gap between artificial neural networks and spiking neural networks. In Thirty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2022, Thirty-Fourth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2022, The Twelveth Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2022 Virtual Event, February 22 March 2022, pp. 1692-1701. AAAI Press, 2022. URL httpp:://jss.aat aaai. .rgg/ index. phpp
[30] Max, N. Optical models for direct volume rendering. IEEE Transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 1(2):99-108, 2002.
[31] Mildenhall, B., Srinivasan, P. P., Tancik, M.. Barron, J. T., Ramamoorthi, R., and Ng, R. Nerf: Representing scenes neural radiance fields for view synthesis. Communicationns of the ACM, 65(1):99-106, 2021.
[32] Neftci, E. O., Mostafa, H., and Zenke, F. Surrogate gradient learning in spiking neural networks: Bringing the power of gradient-based optimization spiking neural networks. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 36(6):51-63) 2019.
[33] Ponghiran, W. and Roy, K. Spiking neural networks with improved inherent recurrence dynamics for sequential learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2022.
volume 36, pp.
[34] Qu, J., Gao, Z., Zhang, T., Lu, Y., Tang, H., and Qiao, H. Spiking neural network for ultra-low- latency and high-accurate object detection, 2023.
[35] Rathi, N. and Roy, K. Diet-snn: Direct input encoding with leakage and threshold optimization in deep spiking neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.088 03658, 2020.
11

---

[36] Rathi, N., Srinivasan, G., Panda, P., and Roy, K. Enabling deep spiking neural networks with hy- brid conversion and spike timing dependent backpropagation. arXiv preprint XXi::2005.01807, 2020.
[37] Ren, D., Ma, Z., Chen, Y., Peng, W., Liu, X., Zhang, Y., and Guo, Y. Spiking pointnet: Spiking neural networks for point clouds. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06232, 2023.
[38] Sun, C., Sun, M., and Chen, H.-T. Direct voxel grid optimization: Super-fast convergence for radiance fields reconstruction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference computer vision and pattern recognition, pp. 5459-5469, 2022.
[39] Viale, A., Marchisio, A., Martina, M.. Masera, G., and Shafique. M. Lanesnns: Spiking neural networks for lane detection on the loihi neuromorphic processor. In 2022 IEEE/RS/ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 79-86 86. IEEE, 2022.
[40] Wu, J., Chua, Y., Zhang, M., Li, G., Li, H., and Tan, K. C. A tandem learning rule for effective training and rapid inference of deep spiking neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 2021.
[41] Wu, J., Xu, C., Han, X., Zhou, D., Zhang. M., Li. H., and Tan, K. C. Progressive tandem learning for pattern recognition with deep spiking neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 44(11):7824 7840, 2021.
[42] Wu, Y., Deng, L., Li, G., Zhu, J., Xie, Y., and Shi, L. Direct training for spiking neural networks: Faster, larger, better. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pp. 1311-1318, 2019.
[43] Yao, X., Hu, Q.. Liu, T. Mo, Z., Zhu, Z., Zhuge, Z., and Cheng, J. Spikingnerf: Making bio-inspired neural networks see through the real world. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309. 10987, 2023.
[44] Zhang, R., Isola, P., Efros, A. A., Shechtman, E., and Wang, O. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features perceptual metric. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference computer vision and pattern recognition, pp. 586-595,10 2018
[45] Zou, S., Mu, Y., Zuo, X., Wang. S., and Cheng, L.. Event-based human pose tracking by spiking spatiotemporal transformer, 2023.
12

---

A Technical Appendices and Supplementary Material
A.1 Rendering Performance in Realistic Dataset
Figure 3 presents the rendering results from realistic datasets, including Flower, Room, T-rex, and Horns, for ANN-based NeRF, Spiking NeRF, and Spik-NeRF. As shown, our method captures fine details in both geometry and appearance, achieving results comparable to those of the ANN-based NeRF. In contrast, Spiking NeRF produces blurry and distorted renderings in certain areas.
Flower
Room
T-rex
Horns
ANN-based NeRF
Ground Truth
Spiking NeRF
Spik-NeRF
Figure 3: The rendering performance the realistic dataset.
13

---

NeurIPS Paper Checklist
1. Claims
Question: Do the main claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper's contributions and scope?
Answer: [Yes].
Justification: We clearly state the claims made and the contributions made in both the abstract and introduction.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the abstract and introduction do not include the claims made the paper.
The abstract and/or introduction should clearly state the claims made, including the contributions made in the paper and important assumptions and limitations. A No or
NA answer to this question will not be perceived well by the reviewers.
The claims made should match theoretical and experimental results, and reflect how much the results can be expected to generalize to other settings.
is fine to include aspirational goals as motivation as long as is clear that these goals are not attained by the paper.
2. Limitations
Question: Does the paper discuss the limitations the work performed by the authors?
Answer: [NA].
Justification:
We find no limitation which we feel must be specifically highlighted here.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper has no limitation while the answer No means that the paper has limitations, but those are not discussed in the paper.
The authors are encouraged to create a separate "Limitations" section their paper.
The paper should point out any strong assumptions and how robust the results are to violations of these assumptions (e.g.. independence assumptions, noiseless settings, model well-specification, asymptotic approximations only holding locally). The authors should reflect how these assumptions might be violated in practice and what the implications would be.
The authors should reflect on the scope of the claims made, e.g., if the approach was only tested on few datasets or with few runs. In general, empirical results often depend on implicit assumptions, which should be articulated.
The authors should reflect on the factors that influence the performance of the approach. For example, facial recognition algorithm may perform poorly when image resolution is low images are taken in low lighting. Or speech-to-text system might not be used reliably to provide closed captions for online lectures because it fails to handle technical jargon.
The authors should discuss the computational efficiency of the proposed algorithms and how they scale with dataset size.
If applicable, the authors should discuss possible limitations of their approach to address problems of privacy and fairness.
While the authors might fear that complete honesty about limitations might used by reviewers as grounds for rejection, worse outcome might be that reviewers discover limitations that aren't 't acknowledged judgment and recognize that individual actions in favor of transparency play impor- tant role in developing norms that preserve the integrity of the community. Reviewers will be specifically instructed to not penalize honesty concerning limitations.
the paper. The authors should use their best
3. Theory assumptions and proofs
Question: For each theoretical result, does the paper provide the full set of assumptions and complete (and correct) proof?
Answer: [Yes].
14

---

Justification:
We provide the full set of assumptions and complete proofs in the Section 3,3.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include theoretical results.
All the theorems, formulas, and proofs in the paper should be numbered and cross- referenced.
All assumptions should be clearly stated referenced in the statement of any theorems.
The proofs can either appear in the main paper or the supplemental material, but they appear in the supplemental material, the authors are encouraged to provide short proof sketch provide intuition.
Inversely, any informal proof provided in the core of the paper should be complemented by formal proofs provided in appendix or supplemental material.
Theorems and Lemmas that the proof relies upon should be properly referenced.
4. Experimental result reproducibility
Question: Does the paper fully disclose all the information needed to reproduce the main ex- perimental results of the paper to the extent that affects the main claims and/or conclusions of the paper (regardless whether the code and data are provided or not)?
Answer: [Yes].
Justification:
We provide the detail experiment settings in the Section 4.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
If the paper includes experiments, a No answer to this question will not be perceived well by the reviewers: Making the paper reproducible is important, regardless of whether the code and data are provided or not.
If the contribution is dataset and/or model, the authors should describe the steps taken to make their results reproducible or verifiable.
Depending on the contribution, reproducibility can be accomplished in various ways. For example, if the contribution is a novel architecture, describing the architecture fully might suffice, or if the contribution is a specific model and empirical evaluation, it may be necessary to either make possible for others to replicate the model with the same dataset, or provide access to the model. In general. releasing code and data is often one good way accomplish this, but reproducibility can also be provided via detailed instructions for how to replicate the results, access to a hosted model (e.g.. in the case of large language model), releasing of a model checkpoint, or other means that are appropriate to the research performed.
While NeurIPS does not require releasing code, the conference does require all submis- sions to provide some reasonable avenue for reproducibility, which may depend on the nature of the contribution. For example
(a) If the contribution is primarily a new algorithm, the paper should make clear how to reproduce that algorithm. (b) the contribution is primarily a new model architecture, the paper should describe the architccture clearly and fully.
(c) If the contribution is new model (e.g., a large language model), then there should either way to access this model for reproducing the results or way to reproduce the model (e.g., with an open-source dataset instructions for how to construct the dataset).
(d) We recognize that reproducibility may be tricky in some cases, in which case authors are welcome to describe the particular way they provide for reprodueibility. the case of closed-source models, may be that access to the model is limited in some way (e.g., to registered users), but it should be possible for other researchers have some path to reproducing or verifying the results.
5. Open access to data and code
Question: Does the paper provide open access to the data and code, with sufficient instruc- tions to faithfully reproduce the main experimental results, as described in supplemental material?
15

---

Answer: [Yes].
Justification: We provide open access to the data and code with sufficient instructions in the supplemental material.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that paper does not include experiments requiring code.
Please see the NeurlPS code and data submission guidelines (https://nips.cm ec/
for more details.
While encourage the release of code and data, understand that this might not be possible, so "No" is an acceptable answer. Papers cannot be rejected simply for not including code, unless this is central to the contribution (e.g., for open-source benchmark).
The instructions should contain the exact command and environment needed to run to reproduce the results. See the NeurlPS code and data submission guidelines (https for more details.
//nips. //nips.cc/pil cc/public/guu httpg/udddeeeeeebbiiiinneeee
The authors should provide instructions data access and preparation, including how to access the raw data, preprocessed data, intermediate data, and generated data, etc.
The authors should provide scripts to reproduce all experimental results for the new proposed method and baselines. only subset of experiments are reproducible, they should state which ones are omitted from the script and why.
At submission time, preserve anonymity, the authors should release anonymized versions (if applicable).
Providing as much information as possible in supplemental material (appended to the paper) recommended, but including URLs to data and code permitted.
6. Experimental setting/details
Question: Does the paper specify all the training and test details (e.g., data splits, hyper- parameters, how they were chosen, type of optimizer, etc.) necessary to understand the results?
Answer: [Yes].
Justification: All implementations described in the experiments section.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
The experimental setting should be presented in the core of the paper level of detail that is necessary to appreciate the results and make sense of them.
The full details can be provided either with the code, in appendix, as supplemental material.
7. Experiment statistical significance
Question: Does the paper report error bars suitably and correctly defined or other appropriate information about the statistical significance of the experiments?
Answer: [NA].
Justification: Error bars are not reported because it would be too computationally expensive.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
The authors should answer "Yes" if the results are accompanied by error bars, confi- dence intervals, statistical significance tests, least for the experiments that support the main claims of the paper.
The factors of variability that the enror bars are capturing should be clearly stated (for example, train/test split, initialization, random drawing of some parameter, or overall with given experimental conditions).
The method for calculating the error bars should be explained (closed form formula, call to a library function, bootstrap, etc.)
The assumptions made should be given (e.g., Normally distributed errors).
16

---

It should be clear whether the error bar is the standard deviation or the standard error of the mean.
is OK to report 1-sigma error bars, but one should state it. The authors should preferably report a 2-sigma error bar than state that they have 96% CI, if the hypothesis of Normality of errors is not verified.
For asymmetric distributions, the authors should be careful not to show in tables figures symmetric error bars that would yield results that are out range (e.g. negative error rates).
If error bars are reported in tables or plots, The authors should explain the text how they were calculated and reference the corresponding figures tables in the text.
8. Experiments compute resources
For each experiment, does the paper provide sufficient information on the com- puter resources (type of compute workers, memory, time of execution) needed to reproduce the experiments?
Question:
Answer: [Yes].
Justification:
The computation resources description is provided the experiment section.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
The paper should indicate the type of compute workers CPU GPU, internal cluster, or cloud provider, including relevant memory and storage.
The paper should provide the amount of compute required for each of the individual experimental runs as well as estimate the total compute.
The paper should disclose whether the full research project required more compute than the experiments reported in the paper (e.g., preliminary or failed experiments that didn't 't make it into the paper).
9. Code of ethics
Does the research conducted in the paper conform, in every respect, with the NeurIPS Code of Ethics
Question:
Answer: [Yes].
Justification:
The research conducted with the NeurlPS Code of Ethics.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the authors have reviewed the NeurIPS Code of Ethics.
If the authors answer No, they should explain the special circumstances that require deviation from the Code of Ethics.
The authors should make sure to preserve anonymity (e.g., there a special consid- eration due to laws or regulations in their jurisdiction).
10. Broader impacts
Question: Does the paper discuss both potential positive societal impacts and negative societal impacts of the work performed?
Answer: [No].
Justification: There is no societal impact of the work performed.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that there no societal impact of the work performed.
If the authors answer NA or No. they should explain why their work has no socictal impact why the paper does not address societal impact.
Examples of negative societal impacts include potential malicious or unintended uses (e.g., disinformation, generating fake profiles, surveillance), fairness considerations (e.g., deployment of technologies that could make decisions that unfairly impact specific groups), privacy considerations, and security considerations.
17

---

The conference expects that many papers will be foundational research and not tied particular applications, let alone deployments. However, if there is direct path to any negative applications, the authors should point it out. For example, it is legitimate to point out that an improvement in the quality of generative models could be used to generate deepfakes for disinformation. On the other hand, it is not needed to point out that a generic algorithm for optimizing neural networks could enable people to train models that generate Deepfakes faster.
The authors should consider possible harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended and functioning correctly, harms that could arise when the technology being used intended but gives incorrect results, and harms following from (intentional or unintentional) misuse of the technology.
If there negative societal impacts, the authors could also discuss possible mitigation strategies (e.g., gated release of models, providing defenses in addition to attacks, mechanisms for monitoring misuse, mechanisms monitor how system learns from feedback over time, improving the efficiency and accessibility of MI..
11. Safeguards
Does the paper describe safeguards that have been put in place for responsible release of data models that have high risk for misuse (e.g., pretrained language models, image generators, or scraped datasets)?
Question:
Answer: [NA].
Justification:
The paper poses no such risks.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper poses such risks.
Released models that have high risk for misuse or dual-use should be released with necessary safeguards to allow for controlled use of the model, for example by requiring that users adhere usage guidelines or restrictions to access the model or implementing safety filters.
Datasets that have been scraped from the Internet could pose safety risks. The authors should describe how they avoided releasing unsafe images.
We recognize that providing effective safeguards is challenging, and many papers do not require this, but we encourage authors to take this into account and make best faith effort.
12. Lieenses for existing assets
Are the creators or original owners of assets (e.g., code, data, models), used in the paper. properly credited and are the license and terms of use explicitly mentioned and properly respected?
Question:
Answer: [Yes].
Justification: The original paper for datasets used are all cited.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not existing assets.
The authors should cite the original paper that produced the code package or dataset.
The authors should state which version of the asset is used and, if possible, include URL.
The name of the license (c.g., CC-BY 4.0) should be included for each asset.
For scraped data from a particular source (c.g., website), the copyright and terms of service of that source should be provided.
If assets are released, the license, copyright information, and terms of use in the package should be provided. For popular datasets, paperswi thcode. com com/datasets has curated licenses for some datasets. Their licensing guide can help determine the license of dataset.
For existing datasets that are re-packaged, both the original license and the license of the derived asset (if it has changed) should be provided.
18

---

If this information is not available online, the authors are encouraged to reach out to the asset's creators.
13. New assets
Question: Are new assets introduced in the paper well documented and is the documentation provided alongside the assets?
Answer: [NA].
Justification:
We adopt public datasets.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not release new assets.
Researchers should communicate the details of the dataset/code/mmoel as part of their submissions via structured templates. This includes details about training, license, limitations, etc.
The paper should discuss whether and how consent obtained from people whose asset is used.
At submission time, remember to anonymize your assets (if applicable). You can either create an anonymized URL or include an anonymized zip file.
14. Crowdsoureing and research with human subjects
Question: For crowdsourcing experiments and research with human subjects, does the paper include the full text of instructions given to participants and screenshots, if applicable, as well details about compensation (if any)?
Answer: [NA].
Justification:
The paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects.
Including this information in the supplemental material is fine, but if the main contribu- tion of the paper involves human subjects, then as much detail as possible should be included the main paper.
According the NeurIPS Code of Ethics, workers involved in data collection, curation, or other labor should be paid at least the minimum wage in the country of the data collector.
15. Institutional review board (IRB) approvals or equivalent for research with human subjects
Question:
Does the paper describe potential risks incurred by study participants, whether such risks were disclosed to the subjects, and whether Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals (or an equivalent approval/review based on the requirements of your country or institution) were obtained?
Answer: [NA].
Justification:
The paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects.
Depending the country in which research is conducted, IRB approval (or equivalent) may be required for any human subjects research. If you obtained IRB approval, you should clearly state this in the paper.
We recognize that the procedures for this may vary significantly between institutions and locations, and expect authors to adhere to the NeurlPS Code of Ethics and the guidelines for their institution.
For initial submissions, do not include any information that would break anonymity (if applicable), such the institution conducting the review.
16. Declaration of LLM usage
19

---

Question: Does the paper describe the usage of LLMs if it is important, original, or non-standard component of the core methods this research? Note that if the LLM used only for writing, editing, or formatting purposes and does not impact the core methodology. scientific rigorousness, or originality the research, declaration is not required.
Answer: [NA]-
Justification: The core method development in this research does not involve LLMs any important, original, or non-standard components.
Guidelines:
The answer NA
that the method development in this research does involve LLMs as any important, original, or non-standard components.
Please refer to our LLM policy for what should or should be described.
20


Reviews:
[{"review_id": "wgetCvA5rE", "reviewer": "Reviewer_dpTn", "summary": "This paper introduces Spik-NeRF, a novel framework that adapts a fully SNN-based model for NeRF training. Through a rigorous theoretical analysis of the vanilla Spiking NeRF, the authors make several key contributions:\n1.\tDesign of ternary spike neurons that significantly enhance the information-carrying capacity compared to standard binary activations.\n2.\tA reparameterization technique allowing ternary activations to be used efficiently in inference while retaining event-driven, multiplication-free advantages. \n3.\tAn isomorphic network knowledge distillation scheme transferring knowledge from ANN-based NeRFs to Spik-NeRF.", "questions": "It is unclear whether the capacity can be further increased. For example, could quaternary spike neurons be used? Is there an upper bound on the number of discrete states that remain compatible with efficient SNN operation?", "limitations": "See above.", "rating": 4, "confidence": 3, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": 2, "clarity": 3, "significance": 2, "originality": 3, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "Strengths:\n1.\tThe presentation of this paper is very clear and easy to understand.\n2.\tThe designs of the ternary spike neurons and the reparameterization technique are well-motivated and appear effective.\n\nWeaknesses:\n1.\tAlthough the authors claim in P3, L122, that the number of timesteps directly impacts the model’s energy efficiency, the experiments do not include any energy analysis. Compared to vanilla NeRF—which is now considered a relatively weak baseline—the approach may indeed consume less energy during inference, but the training overhead could be substantial due to the added complexity of ANN-NeRF distillation.\n2.\tThe experiments do not report training time or inference time. Another concern is whether the proposed methods are compatible with faster NeRF variants such as InstantNGP, Nerfacto, or TensoRF. Focusing exclusively on vanilla NeRF may limit the practical relevance of the work for SNN applications in neural rendering or NVS.", "was_revised": true, "final_justification": "The authors address most of my concerns.", "rebuttal": "Thanks for your efforts in reviewing our paper and your recognition of our clear presentation, well-motivated and simple method, and solid theoretical analysis. The response to your questions is given piece by piece as follows.\n\n---\n\n**W1**: Although the authors claim in P3, L122, that the number of timesteps directly impacts the model’s energy efficiency, the experiments do not include any energy analysis. Compared to vanilla NeRF—which is now considered a relatively weak baseline—the approach may indeed consume less energy during inference, but the training overhead could be substantial due to the added complexity of ANN-NeRF distillation.\n\n**A1**: Thanks for the advice. Here, **we add the energy comparison of NeRF and Spik-NeRF below**. Following the practice in [Enabling Spike-Based Backpropagation for Training Deep Neural Network Architectures] and [Spiking-NeRF: Spiking Neural Network for Energy-Efficient Neural Rendering], we utilize 3.2pJ/MAC and 0.1pJ/AC as the energy consumption baseline. In NeRF, the number of MAC operations required for a single forward propagation process is 0.56M. In Spik-NeRF,  we first calculate the mean sparsity of activation of Spik-NeRF on the whole synthetic dataset using 2 timesteps, and it is 22.72%. Thus, the number of AC operations required for a single forward propagation process is 0.25M. We also add the experiments with more timesteps for Spik-NeRF, When T = 4, the mean sparsity of activation of Spik-NeRF becomes 19.08% and the number of AC operations becomes 0.43M. **It can be seen that the energy consumption of Spik-NeRF is much less than that of NeRF. But as the timestep increases, the energy consumption of Spik-NeRF increases too.**\n\n|   | **MACs** | **Energy**  |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| NeRF  | 0.56M | 1.792uJ |\n|  | **ACs** | **Energy**  |\n| Spik-NeRF(T=2) | 0.25M | 0.025uJ |\n| Spik-NeRF(T=4) | 0.43M | 0.043uJ |\n\n**For the training overhead, we agree that training overhead is a common concern in the SNN field. However, this is a challenge in this field, not only specific to our method.** Due to the inherent requirement of multiple timesteps in SNNs, their training typically incurs heavier burdens compared to ANNs, which is a well-recognized consensus in the community. To illustrate this, we have provided statistics on the training time for 100 iterations among NeRF, Spik-NeRF, and Spik-NeRF distilled from NeRF. These results clearly show that the training time of NeRF is significantly shorter than that of Spik-NeRF. **Even with ANN-NeRF distillation, our method only increases 16% training time compared to the baseline**. For the memory, it exhibits a similar phenomenon.\n\n|  Metric | Method | Chair | Lego | Horns |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| Times | NeRF | 4.973s | 4.971s | 3.378s |\n|  | Spik-NeRF | 23.225s | 23.202s | 17.241s |\n|  | Spik-NeRF distilled from NeRF | 27.701s | 27.672s | 20.661s |\n| Memory | NeRF | 5435MB | 5435MB | 5009MB |\n|  | Spik-NeRF | 22469MB | 22469MB | 17937MB |\n|  | Spik-NeRF distilled from NeRF | 25423MB | 25421MB | 20185MB |\n\nWhile we acknowledge that our approach does have a higher training burden compared to vanilla ANNs, **we would like to emphasize its superiority over existing spiking NeRF methods in terms of training efficiency. Most current spiking NeRF methods require at least 10 timesteps to achieve satisfactory performance. In contrast, our method only needs 2 timesteps.** We have also included the training burden of Spiking NeRF with 10 timesteps for comparison, which clearly demonstrates the substantial advantage of our approach in reducing training overhead. Thus, our method effectively alleviates the training burden commonly associated with SNNs, making it more practical for real-world applications.\n\n|  Metric | Method | Chair | Lego | Horns |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| Times | Spik-NeRF with 2 timesteps | 23.225s | 23.202s | 17.241s |\n|  | Spiking NeRF with 10 timesteps | 116.265s | 115.991s | 86.220s |\n\n---\n\n**W2**: The experiments do not report training time or inference time. Another concern is whether the proposed methods are compatible with faster NeRF variants such as InstantNGP, Nerfacto, or TensoRF. Focusing exclusively on vanilla NeRF may limit the practical relevance of the work for SNN applications in neural rendering or NVS.\n\n**A2**: Thanks for the advice. Here, we add statistics on the training time for 100 iterations and inference time for one image of Chair, Lego, and Horns, among NeRF, Spik-NeRF, and Spik-NeRF distilled from NeRF. We will add this to the final paper version. **It should be noted that the training time and inference time of SNNs are worse than ANNs. This is an inherent problem in the field of SNN.**\n\n|  Metric | Method | Chair | Lego | Horns |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| Training times for 100 iterations | NeRF | 4.973s | 4.971s | 3.378s |\n|  | Spik-NeRF | 23.225s | 23.202s | 17.241s |\n|  | Spik-NeRF distilled from NeRF | 27.701s | 27.672s | 20.661s |\n| Inference time for one image | NeRF | 2.405s | 2.370s | 2.100s |\n|  | Spik-NeRF | 8.215s | 8.375s | 7.335s |\n|  | Spik-NeRF distilled from NeRF | 8.211s | 8.302s | 7.296s |\n\nIn addition, our method is also compatible with faster NeRF variants. We would like to address it from two aspects:\n\nFirst, the core of Spik-NeRF lies in improving the neural network components within NeRF—specifically, optimizing the feedforward neural networks used for predicting properties like density and color. This design philosophy is inherently transferable to other NeRF variants, since all these variants fundamentally rely on neural networks to model and predict scene-related information. Thus, the idea of enhancing neural network components with spiking mechanisms, as in Spik-NeRF, can be naturally extended to these variants.\n\nSecond, to validate this transferability, we have applied Spik-NeRF’s core idea to TensoRF with 2 timesteps for the TensoRF-CP-384 backbone. We did the experiments for Chair and Lego, considering the limited time. **The results demonstrate that our method retains its effectiveness in this setting.**\n\n|  Metric | Method | Chair | Lego |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| PSNR | TensoRF | 33.41 | 31.23 |\n|  | Spik-TensoRF | 32.98 | 30.62 |\n\n---\n\n**Q1**: It is unclear whether the capacity can be further increased. For example, could quaternary spike neurons be used? Is there an upper bound on the number of discrete states that remain compatible with efficient SNN operation?\n\n**A1**: Thanks for the advice. **The capacity can be further increased.** We add the experiment results for quaternary spike neurons here. We did the experiments for Chair and Lego, considering the limited time. It can be seen that the performance of Spik-NeRF with quaternary spike is almost the same as NeRF. **However, to retain the event-driven, multiplication-free advantages typical of SNNs, 3 is the upper bound on the number of discrete states**, since only {-1,0,1} could be chosen for spike to keep multiplication-free advantages.\n\n|  Metric | Method | Chair | Lego |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| PSNR | NeRF | 34.15 | 31.48 |\n|  | Spik-NeRF with ternary spike | 33.40 | 30.82 |\n|  | Spik-NeRF with quaternary spike | 34.08 | 31.35 |\n\nThanks for your advice again. If you have any other questions, please feel free to let us know."}, {"review_id": "1oB0q494Nd", "reviewer": "Reviewer_E4R4", "summary": "This paper introduces Spik-NeRF, the first directly-trained Spiking Neural Network (SNN) approach for Neural Radiance Fields (NeRF). The authors identify the inherent limitation of binary spike activations in representing fine-grained scene information, which results in degraded rendering quality. To address this, they propose three technical contributions: 1) A ternary spike neuron to enhance representational capacity; 2) A re-parameterization scheme to convert ternary activations into a format amenable to efficient inference; 3) A distillation framework using a pre-trained ANN-based NeRF teacher to guide the SNN model. Extensive experiments on synthetic and real datasets demonstrate that Spik-NeRF approaches the rendering quality of ANN-based NeRF with significantly fewer timesteps, offering promise for energy-efficient 3D reconstruction.", "questions": "Why was only T=2 tested? How does Spik-NeRF quantitatively compare against other SNN-NeRF models?", "limitations": "yes", "rating": 5, "confidence": 4, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": 4, "clarity": 3, "significance": 3, "originality": 4, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "Strengths:\n\n1. Novelty and Contribution: This is the first fully SNN-based method directly trained on NeRF, which is a meaningful step in extending SNNs to high-dimensional neural rendering tasks.\n\n2. Technical Insight: The paper provides solid theoretical justification for the use of ternary spike neurons, supported by entropy-based analysis. The proposed re-parameterization ensures energy-efficient inference without compromising the advantages of SNNs.\n\n3. Distillation Strategy: The ANN-SNN distillation strategy is well-motivated and leads to performance improvements, especially in challenging scenes.\n\n4. Clarity and Presentation: The paper is clearly written, well-organized, and easy to follow, with figures and tables that effectively support the claims.\n\nWeaknesses:\n\n1. The model is evaluated only at T=2. Since the energy-performance trade-off is central to SNN research, a more thorough analysis across different timesteps would be valuable.\n\n2. While comparisons with Spiking-NeRF (Li et al., 2025) and ANN-based NeRF are provided, more detailed ablations against other recent SNN-NeRF variants would strengthen the empirical contributions.\n\n3. The paper emphasizes energy efficiency, but no actual energy consumption or MAC operation estimates are reported. Including such results would better quantify the benefits of Spik-NeRF.", "was_revised": true, "final_justification": "Thank you for the detailed clarifications. I am inclined to recommend acceptance.", "rebuttal": "Thanks for your efforts in reviewing our paper and your recognition of our well-motivated and novel method, solid theoretical justification, good results, and clear presentation. The response to your questions is given piece by piece as follows.\n\n---\n\n**W1**: The model is evaluated only at T=2. Since the energy-performance trade-off is central to SNN research, a more thorough analysis across different timesteps would be valuable.\n\n**A1**: Thanks for the advice. We add the experiment results for 4 timesteps here. We did the experiments for Chair, Lego, and Horns, considering the limited time. It can be seen that the performance of Spik-NeRF with 4 timesteps could be improved further and is very close to the NeRF. \n\n|  Metric | Method | Chair | Lego | Horns |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| PSNR | NeRF | 34.15 | 31.48 | 28.10 |\n|  | Spik-NeRF with 2 timesteps | 33.40 | 30.82 |  27.16 |\n|  | Spik-NeRF with 4 timesteps | 33.87 | 30.96 | 27.68 |\n\n---\n\n**W2**: While comparisons with Spiking-NeRF (Li et al., 2025) and ANN-based NeRF are provided, more detailed ablations against other recent SNN-NeRF variants would strengthen the empirical contributions.\n\n**A2**: Thanks for the advice. There are 4 recent related SNN-NeRF variants. However, we feel only [1] is suitable to compare with us. In [1], an ANN-SNN model is proposed to develop energy-efficient spiking neural rendering using the ANN-to-SNN conversion approach, which requires many timesteps. We here report the detailed comparison below on both the synthetic dataset and the realistic dataset. It can be seen that ANN-SNN NeRF is much worse than our method. With only 2 timesteps, our method obtains similar performance to ANN-SNN NeRF, even with 256 timesteps.\n\n| PSNR | Synthetic dataset | Realistic dataset |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| NeRF | 31.15 | 26.88 |\n| ANN-SNN NeRF with 8 timesteps | 11.93 | 13.09 |\n| ANN-SNN NeRF with 128 timesteps | 28.79 | 25.76 |\n| ANN-SNN NeRF with 256 timesteps | 30.41 | 26.31 |\n| Spik-NeRF with 2 timesteps | 30.23 | 26.26 |\n\n**Other studies differ from our approach.** For instance, hybrid ANN-SNN models were proposed in [2] and [3]. These works employ non-linear, non-spike functions to post-process the density-related outputs of the original ANN-based NeRF models. At the same time, these work did not report their PSNR. Thus, we can not compare our work with theirs. Another relevant study [4] presents a spiking neural radiance field model based on the DVGO and TensoRF frameworks, which are much different from our work. Additionally, it uses different datasets from our work. Thus, it is not suitable to compare our work with theirs either.\n\n[1] Spiking-NeRF: Spiking neural network for energy-efficient neural rendering\n\n[2] Spiking nerf: Representing the real-world geometry by a discontinuous representation\n\n[3] Sharpening Your Density Fields: Spiking Neuron Aided Fast Geometry Learning\n\n[4] SpikingNeRF: Making Bio-inspired Neural Networks See through the Real World \n\n---\n\n**W3**: The paper emphasizes energy efficiency, but no actual energy consumption or MAC operation estimates are reported. Including such results would better quantify the benefits of Spik-NeRF.\n\n**A3**: Thanks for the advice.  Here, we add the energy comparison of NeRF and Spik-NeRF below. Following the practice in [Enabling Spike-Based Backpropagation for Training Deep Neural Network Architectures] and [Spiking-NeRF: Spiking Neural Network for Energy-Efficient Neural Rendering], we utilize 3.2pJ/MAC and 0.1pJ/AC as the energy consumption baseline. In NeRF, the number of MAC operations required for a single forward propagation process is 0.56M. In Spik-NeRF,  we first calculate the mean sparsity of activation of Spik-NeRF on the whole synthetic dataset using 2 timesteps, and it is 22.72%. Thus, the number of AC operations required for a single forward propagation process is 0.25M. It can be seen that the energy consumption of Spik-NeRF is much less than that of NeRF. \n\n|   | MACs | Energy  |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| NeRF  | 0.56M | 1.792uJ |\n|  | ACs | Energy  |\n| Spik-NeRF(T=2) | 0.25M | 0.025uJ |\n\n---\n\n**Q1**: Why was only T=2 tested? How does Spik-NeRF quantitatively compare against other SNN-NeRF models?\n\n**A1**: Thanks for the question. Please see our response to **W1 and W2.**\n\nThanks for your advice again. If you have any other questions, please feel free to let us know."}, {"review_id": "9dtBPmKpPB", "reviewer": "Reviewer_3BN5", "summary": "This paper explores the application of SNNs to the neural rendering task, specifically through the introduction of Spik-NeRF (Spiking Neural Radiance Fields with Ternary Spike). Traditional SNNs, which rely on binary spike activations, suffer from limited information capacity, leading to performance degradation in neural rendering models. To overcome this, the authors propose using ternary spike neurons, which significantly enhance the information-carrying capacity of the model. The result is a rendering performance in Spik-NeRF that is comparable to, or nearly identical with, traditional ANN-based NeRF models. Additionally, the authors introduce a re-parameterization technique to preserve the event-driven, multiplication-free advantages typical of binary spike neurons. Experimental results on both realistic and synthetic scenes show that Spik-NeRF achieves rendering performance comparable to ANN-based NeRF models.", "questions": "1. Could the authors extend their experimental evaluation to include other timestep values (e.g., 4) to assess how the ternary spike neurons perform across various temporal resolutions?", "limitations": "See above.", "rating": 5, "confidence": 4, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": 3, "clarity": 3, "significance": 3, "originality": 3, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "Strengths:\n1. This is one of the few works to apply SNNs to the NeRF task, potentially inspiring future research on low-power NeRF systems, which is a promising direction for energy-efficient rendering solutions.\n2. The paper introduces an effective solution to the problem of information loss in traditional binary spike SNNs by utilizing ternary spike neurons. This enhancement increases the information-carrying capacity, significantly boosting performance in spiking neural rendering models.\n3. The paper is well-written and clearly organized, making complex ideas accessible to a broader audience. The explanations of the methods and results are easy to follow.\n\nWeaknesses:\n1. The experiments conducted in the paper are only for a few timesteps. It would be good to test the proposed method with a broader range of timesteps to understand its performance across different configurations.\n2. It does not compare its results to other works that have applied SNNs to NeRF. A comparison with existing studies in this area would help contextualize the significance and impact of this contribution.", "was_revised": true, "final_justification": "The authors have addressed  my concerns.  I am inclined to recommend acceptance.", "rebuttal": "Thanks for your efforts in reviewing our paper and your recognition of our novel method and clear presentation. The response to your questions is given piece by piece as follows.\n\n---\n\n**W1**: The experiments conducted in the paper are only for a few timesteps. It would be good to test the proposed method with a broader range of timesteps to understand its performance across different configurations.\n\n**A1**: Thanks for the advice. We add the experiment results for 4 timesteps here. We did the experiments for Chair, Lego, and Horns, considering the limited time. It can be seen that the performance of Spik-NeRF with 4 timesteps could be improved further and is very close to the NeRF. \n\n|  Metric | Method | Chair | Lego | Horns |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| PSNR | NeRF | 34.15 | 31.48 | 28.10 |\n|  | Spik-NeRF with 2 timesteps | 33.40 | 30.82 |  27.16 |\n|  | Spik-NeRF with 4 timesteps | 33.87 | 30.96 | 27.68 |\n\n---\n\n**W2**: It does not compare its results to other works that have applied SNNs to NeRF. A comparison with existing studies in this area would help contextualize the significance and impact of this contribution.\n\n**A2**: Thanks for the advice. There are 4 recent related SNN-NeRF variants. However, we feel only [1] is suitable to compare with us. In [1], an ANN-SNN model is proposed to develop energy-efficient spiking neural rendering using the ANN-to-SNN conversion approach, which requires many timesteps. We here report the detailed comparison below on both the synthetic dataset and the realistic dataset. It can be seen that ANN-SNN NeRF is much worse than our method. With only 2 timesteps, our method obtains similar performance to ANN-SNN NeRF, even with 256 timesteps.\n\n| PSNR | Synthetic dataset | Realistic dataset |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| NeRF | 31.15 | 26.88 |\n| ANN-SNN NeRF with 8 timesteps | 11.93 | 13.09 |\n| ANN-SNN NeRF with 128 timesteps | 28.79 | 25.76 |\n| ANN-SNN NeRF with 256 timesteps | 30.41 | 26.31 |\n| Spik-NeRF with 2 timesteps | 30.23 | 26.26 |\n\nOther studies differ from our approach. For instance, hybrid ANN-SNN models were proposed in [2] and [3]. These works employ non-linear, non-spike functions to post-process the density-related outputs of the original ANN-based NeRF models. At the same time, these work did not report their PSNR. Thus, we can not compare our work with theirs. Another relevant study [4] presents a spiking neural radiance field model based on the DVGO and TensoRF frameworks, which are much different from our work. Additionally, it uses different datasets from our work. Thus, it is not suitable to compare our work with theirs either.\n\n[1] Spiking-NeRF: Spiking neural network for energy-efficient neural rendering\n\n[2] Spiking nerf: Representing the real-world geometry by a discontinuous representation\n\n[3] Sharpening Your Density Fields: Spiking Neuron Aided Fast Geometry Learning\n\n[4] SpikingNeRF: Making Bio-inspired Neural Networks See through the Real World \n\n---\n\n**Q1**: Could the authors extend their experimental evaluation to include other timestep values (e.g., 4) to assess how the ternary spike neurons perform across various temporal resolutions?\n\n**A1**: Thanks for the question. Please see our response to **W1.**\n\nThanks for your advice again. If you have any other questions, please feel free to let us know."}, {"review_id": "zxUfbkqKdh", "reviewer": "Reviewer_iN4N", "summary": "This paper explores the application of SNNs on the challenging rendering neural radiance fields (NeRF) tasks, and proposes the first directly trained SNN-based NeRF model called Spike-NeRF. To overcome the accuracy loss due to binary spikes, Spike-NeRF introduces ternary spiking neurons to enhance the model's information-carrying capacity. A reparameterization technique is further used to preserve efficient computation during inference. The authors additionally propose a distillation method to improve the performance of Spik-NeRF. Extensive experiments confirm the effectiveness and performance advantages of Spik-NeRF.", "questions": "1. Could the authors extend their experiments to include additional timesteps to better assess the temporal generalization of the proposed approach?\n\n2. What is the rationale for training the proposed model for 300,000 iterations, especially given that the baseline NeRF model was trained for only 200,000? Could this discrepancy have influenced the reported performance gains?", "limitations": "yes", "rating": 5, "confidence": 5, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": 3, "clarity": 3, "significance": 3, "originality": 3, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "Strengths:\n\n1. The paper addresses the critical challenge of information loss in SNNs by introducing novel ternary spike neurons, which use activation values of 0/1/2 during training and −1/0/1 during inference by reparameterization. This design enhances the expressive capacity of SNNs while preserving their computational efficiency and event-driven nature.\n\n2. The paper is well-written, with clear explanations of the methods, results, and conclusions. \n\n3. The authors provide code and examples, which is a great help for reproducibility and a deeper understanding of the proposed methods.\n\nWeaknesses:\n\n1. All experiments were reported at a timestep of T=2. Since SNN behaviour often varies substantially with temporal resolution, it would be beneficial to evaluate the model using additional timesteps.\n\n2. The comparison between models appears to be unfair. While the baseline NeRF model was trained for 200,000 iterations, the proposed model was trained for 300,000 iterations. This discrepancy in training duration could influence performance and may partially account for the observed improvements, rather than reflecting the superiority of the proposed method.", "was_revised": true, "final_justification": "The authors’ rebuttal has addressed my concerns about the generalization of Spike-NeRF to longer time steps and extended training iterations. In light of these clarifications, I am increasing my score and recommend acceptance.", "rebuttal": "Thanks for your efforts in reviewing our paper and your recognition of our novel method, clear presentation, and open source. The response to your questions is given piece by piece as follows.\n\n---\n\n**W1**: All experiments were reported at a timestep of T=2. Since SNN behaviour often varies substantially with temporal resolution, it would be beneficial to evaluate the model using additional timesteps.\n\n**A1**: Thanks for the advice. We add the experiment results for 4 timesteps here. We did the experiments for Chair, Lego, and Horns, considering the limited time. It can be seen that the performance of Spik-NeRF with 4 timesteps could be improved further and is very close to the NeRF. \n\n|  Metric | Method | Chair | Lego | Horns |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| PSNR | NeRF | 34.15 | 31.48 | 28.10 |\n|  | Spik-NeRF with 2 timesteps | 33.40 | 30.82 |  27.16 |\n|  | Spik-NeRF with 4 timesteps | 33.87 | 30.96 | 27.68 |\n\n---\n\n**W2**: The comparison between models appears to be unfair. While the baseline NeRF model was trained for 200,000 iterations, the proposed model was trained for 300,000 iterations. This discrepancy in training duration could influence performance and may partially account for the observed improvements, rather than reflecting the superiority of the proposed method.\n\n**A2**: Thanks for the advice. Since SNN is more difficult to train, we use more training iterations as is commonly done in this field. Here, we also train the NeRF with 300,000 iterations for Chair, Lego, and Horns, considering the limited time. It can be seen that the performance remains almost the same as the iteration increases for the ANN-based NeRF. For a fair comparison, we choose their converged performance, and thus different iterations for ANN and SNN, respectively.\n\n|  Metric | Method | Chair | Lego | Horns |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| PSNR | NeRF with 200,000 iterations | 34.15 | 31.48 | 28.10 |\n|  | NeRF with 300,000 iterations | 34.19 | 31.50 | 28.10 |\n|  | Spik-NeRF  | 33.40 | 30.82 |  27.16 |\n\n---\n\n**Q1**: Could the authors extend their experiments to include additional timesteps to better assess the temporal generalization of the proposed approach?\n\n**A1**: Thanks for the question. Please see our response to **W1.**\n\n---\n\n**Q2**: What is the rationale for training the proposed model for 300,000 iterations, especially given that the baseline NeRF model was trained for only 200,000? Could this discrepancy have influenced the reported performance gains?\n\n**A2**: Thanks for the question. Please see our response to **W2.**\n\nThanks for your advice again. If you have any other questions, please feel free to let us know."}]

Author rebuttal:

Meta-review: This paper received uniformly positive reviews. The work presents promising results on energy-efficient spiking neural networks (SNNs) for neural rendering applications. In particular, the use of ternary spike neurons is a notable strength, and the reviewers also appreciated the clarity and quality of the paper’s presentation. 

Overall, this is a good paper whose technical contribution and clear presentation make it valuable to the community, and I support its acceptance.
Decision: Accept (poster)