Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 28 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
Review Request: Caze Stimberg Girard #45
I request a review for the following replication:
Title: Non-additive coupling enables propagation of synchronous spiking activity in purely random networks
Author(s): Romain Cazé, PhD ; Marcel Stimberg, PhD; Benoît Girard, PhD
Apologies, these errors slipped in when we moved from our original repository to the ReScience repository. I added the missing files and fixed all mentions (I hope!) of incorrect directory names.
@rougier @degoldschmidt @pietromarchesi Thank you again for the constructive reviews. In response to your remarks and suggestions we have added additional simulations and analysis, but unfortunately we will need a few more days to fully include these changes in the manuscript and in our response to the reviewers. We will send you the new manuscript/code and the detailed response at the beginning of next week. Apologies for the delay.
We would like to again thank the reviewers for their valuable and constructive
In preparing the revision, we noticed an error in our plotting code. The network
Below we describe, when needed, how we changed the code and the manuscript to
Reviewer 1 (@pietromarchesi)
We corrected the typo in the README file.
We modified the axis labels accordingly.
There was no particular reason for this choice and we have now added the
We modified the discussion accordingly (see L451 in the .tex file).
We clarified this in the text (see L345 in the .tex file). The derivation is
We have added a new paragraph to the text (see L338 in the .tex file) that
Reviewer 2 (@degoldschmidt)
We now further justify our choice in the main text (see L339 in .tex file). We
We have added some more quantitative comparison to the results in the original
We have corrected the typographical issues (spaces, commas, etc.) as suggested
Functions that are to be used with joblib's Parallel/delayed mechanism cannot
V0 is the membrane potential displacement due to a constant input current. It
We rewrote the text according to the reviewer's recommendations (see L311 in the .tex file)
The C panel has now been replicated and we include further details about the
Our simulations now include initial random spikes, although the details of their
These warnings should only appear with numpy 1.14, which was released after the
@mstimberg Thank you for the revised version. I am happy to see that the authors agreed with the suggestions.
The authors sufficiently explain the choice for omitting the analytical solution. It does not add any further to the replication as it was developed in a different paper.
Very nice. I especially like that the authors after identifying that the differences between the semi-analytical and numerical solution, tried to find a corrected set of parameters that result in a better quantitative fit.
Good job, I only have a minor issue with Eq. 2, where the commas should be each placed after the case and after the case clause. Furthermore, there are a few inconsistencies in terms of the use of British vs. American spelling: the authors use 'behaviour' and 'modelled', but also 'synchronized', 'summarized' and 'color'.
This fully answers my question, thank you.
Thank you for all these changes and addition, which are helpful for further justifying the successful replication apart from the discussed differences. Especially, the discussion is now well-structured and logical. Minor point:
"The differences we see are most likely due to our use of
This was indeed the case. My PC probably didn't want to downgrade.
I would like to again thanks the authors for addressing the reviews.
While reading the updated article, I spotted two typos:
I am overall very happy with the state of the submission, and have just one final comment: line 423 (.tex) reads:
I looked back at the original Fig. 3 and I struggle to see the aforementioned thin yellow line. Can you explain where you see that?
@pietromarchesi Many thanks for making us aware of this, it turns out that the thin yellow line only exist in my printed version of the paper and therefore seems to be an artifact... Apologies, we will remove the misleading sentence.
Dear reviewers, we have updated the text, fixed the typos and switched to a consistent use of British spelling. We have also removed the outdated "diff file" from the repository.
@degoldschmidt I'm not 100% sure that I correctly understood your proposed improvement of Eq. 2, please double-check.