Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Parameter setting for down-scaled MAM #59

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Feb 1, 2024

Conversation

didi-hou
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR sets the "optimal" values for the parameters exposed to users when simulating down-scaled MAM to reproduce spiking activities from full-scale MAM as much as possible. The values are decided from the results of simulation in terms of mainly mean firing rate for both ground state and metastable state.

Besides, the notebook now sets metastable state as default simulating state (cc_weights_factor = 1.9).

@didi-hou didi-hou added bug Something isn't working code improvement Improve the code written labels Jan 30, 2024
@didi-hou didi-hou requested a review from shimoura January 30, 2024 15:49
multiarea_model/data_multiarea/Model.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I made a few corrections and small changes. Take a look in general and see if you agree.

I included the "g" and "rate_ext" variables in the table in case we will keep them as parameters to tune. I suggested a change to the section 1.2 title. See if it fits better this way.

@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@
"* [S0. Configuration](#section_0)\n",
"* [S1. Parameterization](#section_1)\n",
" * [1.1. Parameters to tune](#section_1_1)\n",
" * [1.2. Default parameters](#section_1_2)\n",
" * [1.2. Configuring main and additional parameters](#section_1_2)\n",
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would suggest moving this module to S2 so that tuning parameters for users would stand out. And this 1.2 could be changed to 2.1 and titled Configuring model parameters.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree, it is a good idea. Could you make this change?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, let's make this happen for the next PR when cleaning the code and only focus on the parameter setting and documentation.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@didi-hou didi-hou left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree with all the changes you made to improve the text.

@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@
"* [S0. Configuration](#section_0)\n",
"* [S1. Parameterization](#section_1)\n",
" * [1.1. Parameters to tune](#section_1_1)\n",
" * [1.2. Default parameters](#section_1_2)\n",
" * [1.2. Configuring main and additional parameters](#section_1_2)\n",
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, let's make this happen for the next PR when cleaning the code and only focus on the parameter setting and documentation.

@shimoura shimoura merged commit 382b1a6 into INM-6:master Feb 1, 2024
@didi-hou didi-hou deleted the Down-scaled_MAM_params_tuning branch February 1, 2024 16:10
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working code improvement Improve the code written
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants