-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 368
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
Rename to tau_vacant
to decay_vacant
#3061
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The documentation of tau_vacant
states
* tau_vacant double - Rate at which vacant synaptic elements will decay.
* Typical is 0.1 which represents a loss of 10% of the vacant synaptic
* elements each time the structural_plasticity_update_interval is
* reached by the simulation time.
It think it definitely a rate, if in the time unit of structural_plasticity_update_interval
. I think we should discuss more thoroughly how to define this quantity properly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would suggest to keep it as a "fraction" or "proportion" and document that the multiplication is done every structural_plasticity_update_interval
. Perhaps "reached by the simulation time" can be rephrased.
Pull request automatically marked stale! |
@ackurth Could you follow up the comments and merge master? |
I close the PR, issue can be addressed when improving on structural plasticity in general. |
In the structural plasticity routine vacant (i.e. at a given time unused) synaptic elements decay with a "rate" (word used in the source code)
tau_vacant
, also referred to as a "time constant" in one case.I would argue the decay constant is neither a rate (units 1 / time unit) nor a time constant (units of time unit) , but a quantity without any unit.
Since
tau_vacant
insinuates a time constant I suggest renaming the decay constant in justdecay_vacant
(in line with the naming for this in this paper referring to it as a decay constant).Also, in one case it is required that the decay constant is greater than 0.
I find this impractical and unnecessary and thus suggest to alter this to greater or equal than 0.