SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2304.04640

NeuroBench: A Framework for Benchmarking Neuromorphic Computing Algorithms and Systems

Jason Yik·Korneel Van den Berghe·Douwe den Blanken·Younes Bouhadjar·Maxime Fabre·Paul Hueber·Weijie Ke·Mina A Khoei·Denis Kleyko·Noah Pacik-Nelson·Alessandro Pierro·Philipp Stratmann·Pao-Sheng Vincent Sun·Guangzhi Tang·Shenqi Wang·Biyan Zhou·Soikat Hasan Ahmed·George Vathakkattil Joseph·Benedetto Leto·Aurora Micheli·Anurag Kumar Mishra·Gregor Lenz·Tao Sun·Zergham Ahmed·Mahmoud Akl·Brian Anderson·Andreas G. Andreou·Chiara Bartolozzi·Arindam Basu·Petrut Bogdan·Sander Bohte·Sonia Buckley·Gert Cauwenberghs·Elisabetta Chicca·Federico Corradi·Guido de Croon·Andreea Danielescu·Anurag Daram·Mike Davies·Yigit Demirag·Jason Eshraghian·Tobias Fischer·Jeremy Forest·Vittorio Fra·Steve Furber·P. Michael Furlong·William Gilpin·Aditya Gilra·Hector A. Gonzalez·Giacomo Indiveri·Siddharth Joshi·Vedant Karia·Lyes Khacef·James C. Knight·Laura Kriener·Rajkumar Kubendran·Dhireesha Kudithipudi·Shih-Chii Liu·Yao-Hong Liu·Haoyuan Ma·Rajit Manohar·Josep Maria Margarit-Taulé·Christian Mayr·Konstantinos Michmizos·Dylan R. Muir·Emre Neftci·Thomas Nowotny·Fabrizio Ottati·Ayca Ozcelikkale·Priyadarshini Panda·Jongkil Park·Melika Payvand·Christian Pehle·Mihai A. Petrovici·Christoph Posch·Alpha Renner·Yulia Sandamirskaya·Clemens JS Schaefer·André van Schaik·Johannes Schemmel·Samuel Schmidgall·Catherine Schuman·Jae-sun Seo·Sadique Sheik·Sumit Bam Shrestha·Manolis Sifalakis·Amos Sironi·Kenneth Stewart·Matthew Stewart·Terrence C. Stewart·Jonathan Timcheck·Nergis Tömen·Gianvito Urgese·Marian Verhelst·Craig M. Vineyard·Bernhard Vogginger·Amirreza Yousefzadeh·Fatima Tuz Zohora·Charlotte Frenkel·Vijay Janapa Reddi

Abstract

Neuromorphic computing shows promise for advancing computing efficiency and capabilities of AI applications using brain-inspired principles. However, the neuromorphic research field currently lacks standardized benchmarks, making it difficult to accurately measure technological advancements, compare performance with conventional methods, and identify promising future research directions. Prior neuromorphic computing benchmark efforts have not seen widespread adoption due to a lack of inclusive, actionable, and iterative benchmark design and guidelines. To address these shortcomings, we present NeuroBench: a benchmark framework for neuromorphic computing algorithms and systems. NeuroBench is a collaboratively-designed effort from an open community of researchers across industry and academia, aiming to provide a representative structure for standardizing the evaluation of neuromorphic approaches. The NeuroBench framework introduces a common set of tools and systematic methodology for inclusive benchmark measurement, delivering an objective reference framework for quantifying neuromorphic approaches in both hardware-independent (algorithm track) and hardware-dependent (system track) settings. In this article, we outline tasks and guidelines for benchmarks across multiple application domains, and present initial performance baselines across neuromorphic and conventional approaches for both benchmark tracks. NeuroBench is intended to continually expand its benchmarks and features to foster and track the progress made by the research community.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Jason Yik, Korneel Van den Berghe, Douwe den Blanken, Younes Bouhadjar, Maxime Fabre, Paul Hueber, Weijie Ke, Mina A Khoei, Denis Kleyko, Noah Pacik-Nelson, Alessandro Pierro, Philipp Stratmann, Pao-Sheng Vincent Sun, Guangzhi Tang, Shenqi Wang, Biyan Zhou, Soikat Hasan Ahmed, George Vathakkattil Joseph, Benedetto Leto, Aurora Micheli, Anurag Kumar Mishra, Gregor Lenz, Tao Sun, Zergham Ahmed, Mahmoud Akl, Brian Anderson, Andreas G. Andreou, Chiara Bartolozzi, Arindam Basu, Petrut Bogdan, Sander Bohte, Sonia Buckley, Gert Cauwenberghs, Elisabetta Chicca, Federico Corradi, Guido de Croon, Andreea Danielescu, Anurag Daram, Mike Davies, Yigit Demirag, Jason Eshraghian, Tobias Fischer, Jeremy Forest, Vittorio Fra, Steve Furber, P. Michael Furlong, William Gilpin, Aditya Gilra, Hector A. Gonzalez, Giacomo Indiveri, Siddharth Joshi, Vedant Karia, Lyes Khacef, James C. Knight, Laura Kriener, Rajkumar Kubendran, Dhireesha Kudithipudi, Shih-Chii Liu, Yao-Hong Liu, Haoyuan Ma, Rajit Manohar, Josep Maria Margarit-Taulé, Christian Mayr, Konstantinos Michmizos, Dylan R. Muir, Emre Neftci, Thomas Nowotny, Fabrizio Ottati, Ayca Ozcelikkale, Priyadarshini Panda, Jongkil Park, Melika Payvand, Christian Pehle, Mihai A. Petrovici, Christoph Posch, Alpha Renner, Yulia Sandamirskaya, Clemens JS Schaefer, André van Schaik, Johannes Schemmel, Samuel Schmidgall, Catherine Schuman, Jae-sun Seo, Sadique Sheik, Sumit Bam Shrestha, Manolis Sifalakis, Amos Sironi, Kenneth Stewart, Matthew Stewart, Terrence C. Stewart, Jonathan Timcheck, Nergis Tömen, Gianvito Urgese, Marian Verhelst, Craig M. Vineyard, Bernhard Vogginger, Amirreza Yousefzadeh, Fatima Tuz Zohora, Charlotte Frenkel, Vijay Janapa Reddi. 2023-04-10. NeuroBench: A Framework for Benchmarking Neuromorphic Computing Algorithms and Systems. https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.04640

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI