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

Integration quirks in GIF neuron models #1582

Closed
clinssen opened this issue May 6, 2020 · 1 comment
Closed

Integration quirks in GIF neuron models #1582

clinssen opened this issue May 6, 2020 · 1 comment
Labels
I: No breaking change Previously written code will work as before, no one should note anything changing (aside the fix) S: Normal Handle this with default priority T: Discussion Still searching for the right way to proceed / suggestions welcome

Comments

@clinssen
Copy link
Contributor

clinssen commented May 6, 2020

During a bug hunting session, me and @heplesser noticed that in one of the conductance-based GIF models, the spike-frequency adaptation and spike-triggered currents are updated outside of the inner GSL integration loop. In particular, they are updated before calling GSL; see

for ( size_t i = 0; i < S_.stc_elems_.size(); i++ )

and the GSL call a few lines down from there.

A related issue in the current-based GIF model is that the exponential decay occurs first, and then the membrane potential is updated using the already-decayed value. See

// exponential decaying stc and sfa elements

We should discuss whether this is indeed an issue, or whether it's just a minor implementation detail. Adding sfc and sfa within the inner loop could be done without too much trouble, but it is not clear where the updates (sfa += 1) should happen. As the neurons are not advertised as "precise", possibly these can be left in place.

In NESTML, this problem of mixing precise integration (using propagators) into the numerical integration routine is already addressed by nest/nestml#515.

@terhorstd terhorstd added the T: Discussion Still searching for the right way to proceed / suggestions welcome label May 11, 2020
@terhorstd terhorstd added I: No breaking change Previously written code will work as before, no one should note anything changing (aside the fix) S: Normal Handle this with default priority labels Jun 22, 2020
@clinssen
Copy link
Contributor Author

This issue is a duplicate of #1565.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
I: No breaking change Previously written code will work as before, no one should note anything changing (aside the fix) S: Normal Handle this with default priority T: Discussion Still searching for the right way to proceed / suggestions welcome
Projects
Status: Done
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants