1Though the temporal precision of neural computation has been studied intensively, a data-driven determination 2 of this precision remains a fundamental challenge. Reproducible spike time patterns may be obscured on single 3 trials by uncontrolled temporal variability in behavior and cognition, or may not even be time locked to measurable 4 signatures in either behavior or local field potentials (LFP). To overcome these challenges, we describe a general-5 purpose time warping framework that reveals precise spike-time patterns in an unsupervised manner, even when 6 spiking is decoupled from behavior or is temporally stretched across single trials. We demonstrate this method 7 across diverse systems: cued reaching in nonhuman primates, motor sequence production in rats, and olfaction in 8 mice. This approach flexibly uncovers diverse dynamical firing patterns, including pulsatile responses to behavioral 9 events, LFP-aligned oscillatory spiking, and even unanticipated patterns, like 7 Hz oscillations in rat motor cortex 10 that are not time-locked to measured behaviors or LFP. 11 14 Amarasingham et al. 2015; Brette 2015; Denève and Machens 2016), engendering intense debates in systems 15neuroscience over the last several decades. Empirically determining the degree of temporal precision from data is 16 challenging because multi-neuronal spike trains may contain highly structured temporal patterns that are completely 17 1 masked by temporal variations in behavioral and cognitive variables not under direct experimental control. For 18 example, precise spike patterns may not be temporally locked to naïvely chosen sensory or behavioral events. 19 Indeed, the fidelity of olfactory coding may be underestimated by factors of two to four when spike times are aligned 20 to stimulus delivery instead of inhalation onset (Shusterman et al. 2011; Cury and Uchida 2010; Shusterman et al. 21 2018). 22 Thus, experimental estimates of spike time precision hinge on the choice of an alignment point, which defines the 23 origin of the time axis on each trial. This choice can often be challenging and subjective. Even in relatively simple 24 behavioral tasks, animals can experience a sequence of stimuli, actions, and rewards, each of which occur with 25 varying latencies on different trials. Such tasks thus provide multiple choices for aligning multineuronal spike trains 26 to measurable events marking an origin of time. Moreover, in addition to choosing an origin of time, we must also 27 choose its units. Should spike times be measured in absolute clock time relative to some measured event, or in 28 units of fractional time between two events? Should the units of time change between successive pairs of events? 29 Could any one of these choices unmask spike-timing precision that is otherwise invisible? 30 Past studies have addressed these challenges in a number of ways: grouping trials together with similar durations 31 before averaging spike counts (Murakami et al. 2014; Starkweather et al. 2017; Wang et al. 2018), manually 32...