Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 96 references

Minimizing information loss reduces spiking neuronal networks to differential equations

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read With one assumption about synaptic memory, homogeneous spiking neuron networks reduce to an ODE system that reproduces their firing rates, synchrony, and bifurcations.

desk verdict A serious reduction attempt whose headline validation is undermined by the fact that the derived ODE system is never simulated directly; the efficient scheme used instead does not converge to those ODEs. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14801 v1 pith:GCXIDT6W submitted 2024-11-22 q-bio.NC math.DS

Jie Chang , Zhuoran Li , Zhongyi Wang , Louis Tao , Zhuo-Cheng Xiao This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.NCmath.DS MSC 92B2092C20
keywords spikingneuralnetworksMarkovmodelscoarse-grainingleakyintegrate-and-fireoscillationsfinite-sizeeffectsbifurcationanalysismetastability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that a homogeneous spiking neuron network can be reduced to a low-dimensional system of ordinary differential equations under a single stated assumption: that each neuron's synaptic input pool decorrelates quickly from its own history. Under that assumption, neurons in the same voltage state become interchangeable, so the network is summarized by counts of neurons per voltage bin together with the mean and variance of the pending-kick pools that carry synaptic input. The resulting discrete-state ODEs (dsODEs) are then shown to reproduce firing rates, transient and partial synchrony, gamma-band oscillations, beat patterns, metastable switching between attractors, and bifurcation structure across broad parameter sweeps of the original spiking network. A sympathetic reader would care because the framework is a candidate parameter-to-dynamics map: single-neuron physiology, coupling weights, projection probabilities, and external drive become coefficients of an ODE system. That would put regimes previously accessible only by simulation, including finite-size fluctuations, fluctuation-driven activity, and strongly recurrent coupling, within reach of dynamical systems tools.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the coarse-grained Markov model, whose state is the vector of neuron counts in each voltage bin plus the mean and variance of the four recurrent pending-kick pools. The fast self-decorrelation assumption makes same-state neurons interchangeable, and averaging over the fast pools closes the system. Gaussian approximations to the Poisson fluxes convert the master equation into stochastic differential equations, and a heterogeneous-multiscale bin-coarsening step with a piecewise-linear voltage density turns those SDEs into the deterministic dsODEs; firing rates are the expected total flux through the threshold. The efficient numerical scheme used in the simulations approximates the voltage distribution inside each bin as uniform and applies Gaussian convolution at each timestep.

What would settle it

Run a homogeneous E-I LIF network with slow synaptic time constants (for example, $\tau_E = \tau_I = 100$ ms) and low firing rates (below 1 Hz), and compare dsODE predictions for mean firing rate and attractor geometry against direct spiking simulations; if the dsODE fails to track the simulated dynamics while the fast-synapse case succeeds, the fast self-decorrelation assumption is the point of failure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the dsODE system, derived from the coarse-grained Markov model, is a faithful surrogate for finite-size homogeneous leaky-integrate-and-fire networks. The paper shows that the system captures high-frequency partial synchrony and metastability of finite-neuron networks, and that beyond firing rates it quantitatively captures the geometry of attractors and bifurcation structures of SNNs. The derivation sidesteps the singularity and irreversibility of spikes by treating spike emission and reset as ordinary state transitions in a Markov chain. The price is a loss of spatial resolution in membrane potential; the compensation is a closed ODE system whose variables are neuron counts per voltage bin and recurrent-drive moments, with firing rates computed as expected flux across threshold.

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction rests on the premise that each neuron's synaptic input pool forgets its own history quickly enough that all neurons in the same voltage state behave identically in distribution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On one E-population, dsODE errors in average firing rate stay near 3 percent; on E-I networks below 6 percent; on the two-E-plus-I network below 5 percent.
  • Bifurcation maps across eight parameter directions show the same beat-index branches and bifurcation locations as LIF simulations, and adding noise back to form the dsSDE recovers noise-induced extra branches.
  • Multistability appears as coexisting attractors: a limit cycle and a fixed point for the synchronous/homogeneous bistable regime, and a saddle-induced switch for biased competition between two E populations.
  • Metastable switching times are predicted in the tested cases, for example 15.4 ms versus 19.3 ms and 100.4 ms versus 132.2 ms for the E1/E2 competition.
  • Finite-size effects survive: with coupling scaled by $400/N$, dsODEs track firing rates and synchrony for $N > 400$, and the dsSDE improves predictions at $N = 40$-$60$.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, the same construction could be applied to other homogeneous spiking models by replacing the LIF transition rules with the corresponding conductance-based or adaptive-neuron rules, at the cost of more state variables per bin.
  • The Markov-chain formulation suggests that spectral data of the transition matrix, not explored here, could yield estimates of oscillation frequencies and metastable switching rates without forward simulation.
  • The claim that information loss is minimized is qualitative; one could make it quantitative by measuring the mutual information between the coarse-grained state and the full spiking trajectory as bin size and pool timescales vary.
  • A practical adaptive scheme could monitor the empirical correlation between the pending-kick pools and voltage and refine voltage bins only where the fast-decorrelation assumption is strained.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Markov-chain approximation to leaky integrate-and-fire (LIF) spiking networks, discretizes membrane voltages and synaptic conductances into 'pending kick' pools, and then coarse-grains the Markov model under a fast self-decorrelation assumption (Assumption 1, Section 2.3). From this coarse-grained model the authors derive a system of ordinary differential equations, termed dsODEs, for the number of neurons in each voltage bin and the means and variances of the synaptic drive variables (Eqs. 15–18). The central claim is that this parameter-inherited dsODE system quantitatively captures firing rates, transient dynamics, partial synchrony, metastability, and bifurcation structure of finite-size LIF networks. The paper tests this claim on one-population, E-I, and two-competing-E-population architectures, and compares dsODE predictions with rate models, Fokker–Planck equations, and refractory density methods.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a genuinely parameter-free reduction from spiking network dynamics to ODEs, with no fitting of ODE constants to LIF outputs, and it addresses finite-size effects that many mean-field theories neglect. The work also offers a clear conceptual chain: LIF network → Markov model → coarse-grained Markov model → dsODE, with code made available. These are substantive strengths. However, as detailed below, the validation of the central claim is currently incomplete because the headline simulations do not actually solve the derived dsODE system.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2.2 and Appendix A5] All Section 4 headline results (Figures 3–8, including the bifurcation maps and the finite-size study) are produced by the 'efficient numerical implementation' described in Section 3.2.2 and Appendix A3, not by simulating the dsODE system defined by Eqs. 15–18. As the paper itself states, this efficient scheme does not converge to an ODE as δt→0 because the recurrent flux becomes infinitely large at state boundaries. Appendix A5 fixes M=20 and δt=0.1 ms, and the only justification for identifying the efficient scheme with the dsODE is the assertion that it 'closely approximates' the dsODE at this timestep. No comparison between the efficient scheme and the actual dsODE is shown. This is a load-bearing gap: if the efficient heuristic differs substantially from the true dsODE dynamics, then the advertised reduction to an ODE is not validated by the presented simulations, even though the heuristic may match LIF networks. I request a direct comparison of the actual dsODE (using the Algorithm 1 implementation of Appendix A1/A2) with the efficient scheme and with LIF simulations for at least the standard E-I and two-population test cases, or a rigorous argument that the two schemes coincide in the parameter regime tested.
  2. [Section 2.2] The Markov model is the foundation of the entire derivation, but its convergence to the LIF model as M→∞ is supported only by the statement 'This is supported by our numerical experiments with both single neurons and networks (data not shown)'. Since this convergence is the first link in the reduction chain, and since the paper explicitly does not provide the data, the claim is not verifiable from the manuscript. Please include the numerical comparison of voltage traces, interspike interval statistics, or firing rates between the Markov model and the LIF model at increasing M, or state precisely in what weak sense convergence is expected and provide a targeted test.
  3. [Equation (6) and Section 2.3.2] The downward-jump transition terms in Eq. 6 (the third and fourth lines, with rates proportional to DQE) are introduced with the statement 'We argue that the downward jumps are to mimic the homogenization of Eq. 1'. This is an ad hoc modeling element that is not derived from Assumption 1 or from the pending-kick process described in Section 2.2. Because these terms contribute to the flux that later becomes the diffusion term in the dsODE flux expressions (Eqs. 16c, 16d), their inclusion directly affects the central dynamics, including the firing threshold behavior and the shape of limit cycles. Please provide a derivation of these terms from the underlying Markov process, or at minimum a sensitivity analysis showing that the reported results do not depend critically on the specific form or magnitude of the downward-jump terms.
  4. [Sections 3.1 and 3.2] The derivation stacks several approximations beyond the stated 'only assumption': the Gaussian approximation of Poisson/Binomial fluxes (Section 3.1), the replacement of the detailed voltage configuration by a piecewise linear density nQ(v) whose closure P(v|v̄m) is chosen rather than derived (Section 3.2.1), and the uniform-bin approximation in the efficient numerical scheme (Appendix A3). These are legitimate modeling choices, but the abstract's claim that 'our only assumption for the Markov approximation is the fast self-decorrelation of synaptic conductances' is therefore overstated. I recommend either weakening that claim or providing a systematic error analysis showing that each subsequent approximation has a controlled effect on the quantities reported in Section 4.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2, second paragraph] The line defining the reduced state variable uses 'M = M/L' where the left-hand side appears to be the reduced number of bins; this notation is confusing and should be clarified (e.g., write M′ = M/L).
  2. [Section 3.2.2, first sentence] There is a typo: 'the the dsSDE system' should be 'the dsSDE system'.
  3. [Table 1] In the 'Neuronal physiology' column, the row for 'τ I' is labeled 'E-synapse timescale'; this should read 'I-synapse timescale'.
  4. [Eq. 15b] The refractory decay term is written as '−N RQ/τ R' but the refractory period is τ_ref, not τ R; please check the notation and ensure τ_ref is used consistently in the refractory equation.
  5. [Appendix A3] The definition of the uniform interval uses 'L' both as the bin index and as the bin width in the equations; for readability, use a different symbol for the bin width (for example α).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dsODE reduction inherits its parameters directly from the LIF model and is tested against external LIF simulations, with only non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain — LIF network, discretized Markov model, coarse-grained Markov model under the fast self-decorrelation assumption, and dsODE — does not contain a step in which a fitted or self-referential quantity is renamed as a prediction. The dsODE parameters (S_QR, p_QR, tau_R, tau_ref, lambda_Q, leak and reversal potentials) are the same Table 1 values used for the LIF network simulations; no regression or calibration to LIF outputs is performed. The comparison targets (firing rates, phase-space attractors, beat-index bifurcation maps, dwell times) are measured from LIF simulations and predicted from the reduced system, with reported errors rather than forced agreement. The downward jumps in Eq. 6 are a stated modeling ansatz, but their coefficients come from the pending-kick variance terms, not from fitting to LIF statistics, so the later agreement is not circular. The self-citation to the authors' prior work [66] supplies the beat-index visualization and the initial report of some gamma/beta phenomena; it is descriptive and methodological, not a mathematical premise that forces the dsODE construction. The paper's own admission that the Appendix A3 efficient scheme does not converge to the dsODE as dt -> 0 is a genuine validation gap: Section 4 tests a numerical surrogate rather than the derived ODE itself, and the Markov-to-LIF convergence claim is supported only by 'data not shown'. These are correctness and evidence issues, however, not circularity: the A3 scheme is not fitted to LIF data, and no dsODE constant is chosen from LIF statistics. No step in the derivation reduces by construction to its own input, so no circular step can be exhibited under the required standard.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The dsODE derivation rests on five hand-chosen quantities (state count, timestep, ad hoc flux term, refractory distribution, and voltage closure), one domain assumption (fast decorrelation), and an unproven convergence claim. The pending-kick pools are a new representational device rather than an empirical entity. The central claim is not circular because no output quantity is fitted, but several modeling choices are tuned to make the approximation work.

free parameters (5)
  • Number of voltage states M = 20
    Fixed to M = 20 for all Section 4 results. The approximation is expected to improve with larger M, but no convergence study is shown in the main text.
  • Timestep delta_t of the efficient numerical scheme = 0.1 ms
    The efficient implementation (Appendix A3) does not converge to the derived ODE as delta_t goes to zero; results depend on this choice of timestep.
  • Downward-jump flux in recurrent transitions (Eq. 6) = D / (2 tau^2)
    Introduced ad hoc 'to mimic the homogenization of Eq. 1'. The coefficient 1/2 is not derived from microscopic spike statistics.
  • Refractory-period waiting-time distribution = Exponential with mean tau_ref
    The paper uses solution 1, making the refractory period memoryless and changing the voltage trace after reset compared with the LIF model.
  • Voltage-configuration closure P(v | mean voltage) = Piecewise linear turning points or uniform within bins
    Infinitely many closures are possible; the choice is pragmatic and not derived from the model. The uniform scheme is used for all efficient numerical results.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Fast self-decorrelation of synaptic input pools (Assumption 1)
    Required for neurons in the same voltage state to be interchangeable. The authors state it fails for slow synapses, low firing rates, and biased heterogeneous architectures (Sect. 2.3.1, Discussion).
  • domain assumption Annealed architecture: postsynaptic targets assigned on-the-fly with probabilities p_QR
    This symmetrizes connectivity and is standard in prior theory, but differs from the quenched architecture of cortical circuits.
  • domain assumption Convergence of the discrete Markov model to LIF as M approaches infinity
    Stated in Sect. 2.2 as expected and supported by 'data not shown'; no proof is provided.
  • standard math Gaussian approximation of Poisson and binomial fluxes
    Used to convert master equations to SDEs; valid when neuron counts in each state are large (n > 10), which motivates dimension reduction.
  • standard math Markov-chain averaging replaces input-pool distributions by means and variances
    Invoked via Pavliotis averaging, requiring sufficient timescale separation, which is exactly what Assumption 1 is meant to guarantee.
invented entities (1)
  • Pending-kick pools H_i^R representing synaptic conductances
    purpose: Rephrase continuous synaptic conductances as counts of discrete kicks with exponential waiting times, making the dynamics Markovian and discretizable.
    This is a computational bookkeeping device, not a physical claim. It has no falsifiable handle outside the paper, and its validity rests on the approximation quality against the original LIF model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Minimizing information loss reduces spiking neuronal networks to differential equations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GCXIDT6W

@misc{pith2026241114801,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Minimizing information loss reduces spiking neuronal networks to differential equations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GCXIDT6W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14801}
}
read the original abstract

Spiking neuronal networks (SNNs) are widely used in computational neuroscience, from biologically realistic modeling of local cortical networks to phenomenological modeling of the whole brain. Despite their prevalence, a systematic mathematical theory for finite-sized SNNs remains elusive, even for idealized homogeneous networks. The primary challenges are twofold: 1) the rich, parameter-sensitive SNN dynamics, and 2) the singularity and irreversibility of spikes. These challenges pose significant difficulties when relating SNNs to systems of differential equations, leading previous studies to impose additional assumptions or to focus on individual dynamic regimes. In this study, we introduce a Markov approximation of homogeneous SNN dynamics to minimize information loss when translating SNNs into ordinary differential equations. Our only assumption for the Markov approximation is the fast self-decorrelation of synaptic conductances. The system of ordinary differential equations derived from the Markov model effectively captures high-frequency partial synchrony and the metastability of finite-neuron networks produced by interacting excitatory and inhibitory populations. Besides accurately predicting dynamical statistics, such as firing rates, our theory also quantitatively captures the geometry of attractors and bifurcation structures of SNNs. Thus, our work provides a comprehensive mathematical framework that can systematically map parameters of single-neuron physiology, network coupling, and external stimuli to homogeneous SNN dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14801 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic diagrams for model reductions and spiking network studied in this paper. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Raster plots presenting examples of LIF network dynamics. Neuron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The dsODE model predicts dynamics produced by single LIF E-populations. The four panels corre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The dsODE model predicts synchronicity within spiking networks. A pair of coupled E/I-populations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The dsODE model predicts the beats of oscillatory dynamics and the coexistence of multiple attrac [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The dsODE model predicts the competition between multiple E-populations. Two competing E [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparing the bifurcation maps of spiking networks and dsODEs. The colormap represents the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Adding noise to dsODE helps recover the finite-neuron effect. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The dsODE model yields better predictions to firing rates than Fokker-Planck methods and refractory [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Probabilistic decision making by slow reverberation in cortical circuits

    Xiao-Jing Wang. “Probabilistic decision making by slow reverberation in cortical circuits”. In: Neuron 36.5 (2002), pp. 955–968

    2002

  2. [2]

    Large-scale model of mammalian thalamocortical systems

    Eugene M Izhikevich and Gerald M Edelman. “Large-scale model of mammalian thalamocortical systems”. In: Pro- ceedings of the national academy of sciences 105.9 (2008), pp. 3593–3598

    2008

  3. [3]

    A large-scale model of the functioning brain

    Chris Eliasmith et al. “A large-scale model of the functioning brain”. In: science 338.6111 (2012), pp. 1202–1205

    2012

  4. [4]

    The cell-type specific cortical microcircuit: relating structure and activity in a full-scale spiking network model

    Tobias C Potjans and Markus Diesmann. “The cell-type specific cortical microcircuit: relating structure and activity in a full-scale spiking network model”. In: Cerebral cortex 24.3 (2014), pp. 785–806

    2014

  5. [5]

    Diverse synaptic plasticity mechanisms orchestrated to form and retrieve memories in spiking neural networks

    Friedemann Zenke, Everton J Agnes, and Wulfram Gerstner. “Diverse synaptic plasticity mechanisms orchestrated to form and retrieve memories in spiking neural networks”. In: Nature communications 6.1 (2015), p. 6922

    2015

  6. [6]

    Reconstruction and simulation of neocortical microcircuitry

    Henry Markram et al. “Reconstruction and simulation of neocortical microcircuitry”. In: Cell 163.2 (2015), pp. 456– 492

    2015

  7. [7]

    Interneuronal mechanisms of hippocampal theta oscillations in a full-scale model of the rodent CA1 circuit

    Marianne J Bezaire et al. “Interneuronal mechanisms of hippocampal theta oscillations in a full-scale model of the rodent CA1 circuit”. In: Elife 5 (2016), e18566. Minimizing information loss reduces spiking neuronal networks to differential equations 33 A B C D E F G H Fig. A2: Comparing the bifurcation maps of spiking networks and dsSDEs. Similar to the...

    2016

  8. [8]

    Orientation selectivity from very sparse LGN inputs in a comprehensive model of macaque V1 cortex

    Logan Chariker, Robert Shapley, and Lai-Sang Young. “Orientation selectivity from very sparse LGN inputs in a comprehensive model of macaque V1 cortex”. In: Journal of Neuroscience 36.49 (2016), pp. 12368–12384

    2016

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

    Dissecting the synapse-and frequency-dependent network mechanisms of in vivo hippocampal sharp wave-ripples

    Juan F Ramirez-Villegas et al. “Dissecting the synapse-and frequency-dependent network mechanisms of in vivo hippocampal sharp wave-ripples”. In: Neuron 100.5 (2018), pp. 1224–1240

    2018

  2. [10]

    A multi-scale layer-resolved spiking network model of resting-state dynamics in macaque visual cortical areas

    Maximilian Schmidt et al. “A multi-scale layer-resolved spiking network model of resting-state dynamics in macaque visual cortical areas”. In: PLOS Computational Biology 14.10 (2018), e1006359

    2018

  3. [11]

    Systematic integration of structural and functional data into multi-scale models of mouse primary visual cortex

    Yazan N Billeh et al. “Systematic integration of structural and functional data into multi-scale models of mouse primary visual cortex”. In: Neuron 106.3 (2020), pp. 388–403

    2020

  4. [12]

    Survey of spiking in the mouse visual system reveals functional hierarchy

    Joshua H Siegle et al. “Survey of spiking in the mouse visual system reveals functional hierarchy”. In: Nature 592.7852 (2021), pp. 86–92

    2021

  5. [13]

    The remarkable robustness of surrogate gradient learning for instilling complex function in spiking neural networks

    Friedemann Zenke and Tim P Vogels. “The remarkable robustness of surrogate gradient learning for instilling complex function in spiking neural networks”. In: Neural computation 33.4 (2021), pp. 899–925

    2021

  6. [14]

    A computational model of direction selectivity in Macaque V1 cortex based on dynamic differences between ON and OFF pathways

    Logan Chariker et al. “A computational model of direction selectivity in Macaque V1 cortex based on dynamic differences between ON and OFF pathways”. In: Journal of Neuroscience 42.16 (2022), pp. 3365–3380

    2022

  7. [15]

    Reading a neural code

    William Bialek et al. “Reading a neural code”. In: Advances in neural information processing systems 2 (1989)

    1989

  8. [16]

    Reliability of spike timing in neocortical neurons

    Zachary F Mainen and Terrence J Sejnowski. “Reliability of spike timing in neocortical neurons”. In: Science 268.5216 (1995), pp. 1503–1506

    1995

  9. [17]

    Primary cortical representation of sounds by the coordination of action-potential timing

    R Christopher Decharms and Michael M Merzenich. “Primary cortical representation of sounds by the coordination of action-potential timing”. In: Nature 381.6583 (1996), pp. 610–613

    1996

  10. [18]

    Rieke et al

    F. Rieke et al. Spikes: exploring the neural code . Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1997

    1997

  11. [19]

    Neuronal synchrony: a versatile code for the definition of relations?

    Wolf Singer. “Neuronal synchrony: a versatile code for the definition of relations?” In: Neuron 24.1 (1999), pp. 49–65

    1999

  12. [20]

    Regulation of spike timing in visual cortical circuits

    Paul Tiesinga, Jean-Marc Fellous, and Terrence J Sejnowski. “Regulation of spike timing in visual cortical circuits”. In: Nature reviews neuroscience 9.2 (2008), pp. 97–107

    2008

  13. [21]

    Synaptic modifications in cultured hippocampal neurons: dependence on spike timing, synaptic strength, and postsynaptic cell type

    Guo-qiang Bi and Mu-ming Poo. “Synaptic modifications in cultured hippocampal neurons: dependence on spike timing, synaptic strength, and postsynaptic cell type”. In: Journal of neuroscience 18.24 (1998), pp. 10464–10472

    1998

  14. [22]

    Competitive Hebbian learning through spike-timing-dependent synaptic plasticity

    Sen Song, Kenneth D Miller, and Larry F Abbott. “Competitive Hebbian learning through spike-timing-dependent synaptic plasticity”. In: Nature neuroscience 3.9 (2000), pp. 919–926

    2000

  15. [23]

    Spike timing-dependent plasticity of neural circuits

    Yang Dan and Mu-ming Poo. “Spike timing-dependent plasticity of neural circuits”. In: Neuron 44.1 (2004), pp. 23– 30

    2004

  16. [24]

    Neuromodulation of spike-timing-dependent plasticity: past, present, and future

    Zuzanna Brzosko, Susanna B Mierau, and Ole Paulsen. “Neuromodulation of spike-timing-dependent plasticity: past, present, and future”. In: Neuron 103.4 (2019), pp. 563–581

    2019

  17. [25]

    Burst-dependent synaptic plasticity can coordinate learning in hierarchical circuits

    Alexandre Payeur et al. “Burst-dependent synaptic plasticity can coordinate learning in hierarchical circuits”. In: Nature neuroscience 24.7 (2021), pp. 1010–1019

    2021

  18. [26]

    Integrator or coincidence detector? The role of the cortical neuron revisited

    P. K¨ onig, A.K. Engel, and W. Singer. “Integrator or coincidence detector? The role of the cortical neuron revisited”. In: Trends Neurosci. 19 (1996), pp. 130–137

    1996

  19. [27]

    Computing with neural synchrony

    Romain Brette. “Computing with neural synchrony”. In: PLoS computational biology 8.6 (2012), e1002561

    2012

  20. [28]

    Neurophysiological and computational principles of cortical rhythms in cognition

    Xiao-Jing Wang. “Neurophysiological and computational principles of cortical rhythms in cognition”. In: Physiological Reviews 90.3 (2010), pp. 1195–1268

    2010

  21. [29]

    First spikes in ensembles of human tactile afferents code complex spatial fingertip events

    Roland S Johansson and Ingvars Birznieks. “First spikes in ensembles of human tactile afferents code complex spatial fingertip events”. In: Nature neuroscience 7.2 (2004), pp. 170–177

    2004

  22. [30]

    Rhythms for cognition: communication through coherence

    Pascal Fries. “Rhythms for cognition: communication through coherence”. In: Neuron 88.1 (2015), pp. 220–235

    2015

  23. [31]

    Cracking the neural code for sensory perception by combining statistics, intervention, and behavior

    Stefano Panzeri et al. “Cracking the neural code for sensory perception by combining statistics, intervention, and behavior”. In: Neuron 93.3 (2017), pp. 491–507

    2017

  24. [32]

    Gamma and beta bursts underlie working memory

    Mikael Lundqvist et al. “Gamma and beta bursts underlie working memory”. In: Neuron 90.1 (2016), pp. 152–164

    2016

  25. [33]

    Neuronal oscillations in cortical networks

    Gyorgy Buzsaki and Andreas Draguhn. “Neuronal oscillations in cortical networks”. In: science 304.5679 (2004), pp. 1926–1929

    2004

  26. [34]

    Which model to use for cortical spiking neurons?

    Eugene M Izhikevich. “Which model to use for cortical spiking neurons?” In: IEEE transactions on neural networks 15.5 (2004), pp. 1063–1070

    2004

  27. [35]

    Chaos in neuronal networks with balanced excitatory and inhibitory activity

    Carl Van Vreeswijk and Haim Sompolinsky. “Chaos in neuronal networks with balanced excitatory and inhibitory activity”. In: Science 274.5293 (1996), pp. 1724–1726

    1996

  28. [36]

    Neuronal dynamics: From single neurons to networks and models of cognition

    Wulfram Gerstner et al. Neuronal dynamics: From single neurons to networks and models of cognition . Cambridge University Press, 2014

    2014

  29. [37]

    Chaotic resonance in typical routes to chaos in the Izhikevich neuron model

    Sou Nobukawa, Haruhiko Nishimura, and Teruya Yamanishi. “Chaotic resonance in typical routes to chaos in the Izhikevich neuron model”. In: Scientific reports 7.1 (2017), pp. 1–9

    2017

  30. [38]

    Dynamics of sparsely connected networks of excitatory and inhibitory spiking neurons

    Nicolas Brunel. “Dynamics of sparsely connected networks of excitatory and inhibitory spiking neurons”. In: Journal of computational neuroscience 8 (2000), pp. 183–208

    2000

  31. [39]

    Irregular dynamics in up and down cortical states

    Jorge F Mejias, Hilbert J Kappen, and Joaquin J Torres. “Irregular dynamics in up and down cortical states”. In: PLoS One 5.11 (2010), e13651

    2010

  32. [40]

    The impact of structural heterogeneity on excitation-inhibition balance in cortical networks

    Itamar D Landau et al. “The impact of structural heterogeneity on excitation-inhibition balance in cortical networks”. In: Neuron 92.5 (2016), pp. 1106–1121

    2016

  33. [41]

    A data-informed mean-field approach to mapping of cortical parameter landscapes

    Zhuo-Cheng Xiao, Kevin K Lin, and Lai-Sang Young. “A data-informed mean-field approach to mapping of cortical parameter landscapes”. In: PLoS Computational Biology 17.12 (2021), e1009718

    2021

  34. [42]

    From spiking neuron models to linear-nonlinear models

    Srdjan Ostojic and Nicolas Brunel. “From spiking neuron models to linear-nonlinear models”. In: PLoS computational biology 7.1 (2011), e1001056

    2011

  35. [43]

    Towards a theory of cortical columns: From spiking neurons to interacting neural populations of finite size

    Tilo Schwalger, Moritz Deger, and Wulfram Gerstner. “Towards a theory of cortical columns: From spiking neurons to interacting neural populations of finite size”. In: PLoS computational biology 13.4 (2017), e1005507

    2017

  36. [44]

    Macroscopic description for networks of spiking neurons

    Ernest Montbri´ o, Diego Paz´ o, and Alex Roxin. “Macroscopic description for networks of spiking neurons”. In:Physical Review X 5.2 (2015), p. 021028

    2015

  37. [45]

    Dynamic finite size effects in spiking neural networks

    Michael A Buice and Carson C Chow. “Dynamic finite size effects in spiking neural networks”. In: PLoS computational biology 9.1 (2013), e1002872

    2013

  38. [46]

    A quantitative description of membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve

    Alan L Hodgkin and Andrew F Huxley. “A quantitative description of membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve”. In: The Journal of Physiology 117.4 (1952), p. 500. Minimizing information loss reduces spiking neuronal networks to differential equ...

    1952

  39. [47]

    Stable propagation of synchronous spiking in cortical neural net- works

    M. Diesmann, M. O. Gewaltig, and A. Aertsen. “Stable propagation of synchronous spiking in cortical neural net- works”. In: Nature 402 (1999), pp. 529–533

    1999

  40. [48]

    Desynchronization in diluted neural networks

    R¨ udiger Zillmer et al. “Desynchronization in diluted neural networks”. In: Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 74.3 (2006), p. 036203

    2006

  41. [49]

    Sensitivity to perturbations in vivo implies high noise and suggests rate coding in cortex

    Michael London et al. “Sensitivity to perturbations in vivo implies high noise and suggests rate coding in cortex”. In: Nature 466.7302 (2010), pp. 123–127

    2010

  42. [50]

    The columnar organization of the neocortex

    Vernon B Mountcastle. “The columnar organization of the neocortex.” In: Brain: a journal of neurology 120.4 (1997), pp. 701–722

    1997

  43. [51]

    The basic uniformity in structure of the neocortex

    AJ Rockel, Robert W Hiorns, and TP Powell. “The basic uniformity in structure of the neocortex.” In: Brain: a journal of neurology 103.2 (1980), pp. 221–244

    1980

  44. [52]

    The minicolumn hypothesis in neuroscience

    Daniel P Buxhoeveden and Manuel F Casanova. “The minicolumn hypothesis in neuroscience”. In: Brain 125.5 (2002), pp. 935–951

    2002

  45. [53]

    Barrel cortex function

    Dirk Feldmeyer et al. “Barrel cortex function”. In: Progress in neurobiology 103 (2013), pp. 3–27

    2013

  46. [54]

    Excitatory and inhibitory interactions in localized populations of model neurons

    Hugh R Wilson and Jack D Cowan. “Excitatory and inhibitory interactions in localized populations of model neurons”. In: Biophysical journal 12.1 (1972), pp. 1–24

    1972

  47. [55]

    A mathematical theory of the functional dynamics of cortical and thalamic nervous tissue

    Hugh R Wilson and Jack D Cowan. “A mathematical theory of the functional dynamics of cortical and thalamic nervous tissue”. In: Kybernetik 13.2 (1973), pp. 55–80

    1973

  48. [56]

    Kinetic theory for neuronal network dynamics

    David Cai et al. “Kinetic theory for neuronal network dynamics”. In: Communications in Mathematical Sciences 4.1 (2006), pp. 97–127

    2006

  49. [57]

    Self-consistent stochastic dynamics for finite-size networks of spiking neurons

    Gianni V Vinci, Roberto Benzi, and Maurizio Mattia. “Self-consistent stochastic dynamics for finite-size networks of spiking neurons”. In: Physical Review Letters 130.9 (2023), p. 097402

    2023

  50. [58]

    Beyond mean field theory: statistical field theory for neural networks

    Michael A Buice and Carson C Chow. “Beyond mean field theory: statistical field theory for neural networks”. In: Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2013.03 (2013), P03003

    2013

  51. [59]

    Biophysics of computations

    Christof Koch. Biophysics of computations . 1999

    1999

  52. [60]

    A neuronal network model of macaque primary visual cortex (V1): Orientation selectivity and dynamics in the input layer 4Ca

    David McLaughlin et al. “A neuronal network model of macaque primary visual cortex (V1): Orientation selectivity and dynamics in the input layer 4Ca”. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97.14 (2000), pp. 8087– 8092

    2000

  53. [61]

    Pharmacology and nerve-endings

    Henry Dale. Pharmacology and nerve-endings . 1935

    1935

  54. [62]

    Principles of neural science

    Eric R Kandel et al. Principles of neural science . Vol. 4. McGraw-hill New York, 2000

    2000

  55. [63]

    Fast global oscillations in networks of integrate-and-fire neurons with low firing rates

    Nicolas Brunel and Vincent Hakim. “Fast global oscillations in networks of integrate-and-fire neurons with low firing rates”. In: Neural computation 11.7 (1999), pp. 1621–1671

    1999

  56. [64]

    Field-theoretic approach to fluctuation effects in neural networks

    Michael A Buice and Jack D Cowan. “Field-theoretic approach to fluctuation effects in neural networks”. In: Physical Review E 75.5 (2007), p. 051919

    2007

  57. [65]

    Model Reduction Captures Stochastic Gamma Oscillations on Low-Dimensional Manifolds

    Yuhang Cai et al. “Model Reduction Captures Stochastic Gamma Oscillations on Low-Dimensional Manifolds”. In: Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience (2021), p. 74

    2021

  58. [66]

    Multi-band oscillations emerge from a simple spiking network

    Tianyi Wu et al. “Multi-band oscillations emerge from a simple spiking network”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.14942 (Under review by Chaos) (2022). url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.14942

    2022 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Kinetic models of synaptic transmission

    Alain Destexhe, Zachary F Mainen, Terrence J Sejnowski, et al. “Kinetic models of synaptic transmission”. In: Methods in neuronal modeling 2 (1998), pp. 1–25

    1998

  60. [68]

    Impact of spontaneous synaptic activity on the resting properties of cat neocortical pyramidal neurons in vivo

    Denis Par´ e et al. “Impact of spontaneous synaptic activity on the resting properties of cat neocortical pyramidal neurons in vivo”. In: Journal of neurophysiology 79.3 (1998), pp. 1450–1460

    1998

  61. [69]

    Averaging for Markov Chains

    Grigorios A Pavliotis et al. “Averaging for Markov Chains”. In: Multiscale Methods: Averaging and Homogenization (2008), pp. 137–143

    2008

  62. [70]

    Stochastic neural field model: multiple firing events and correlations

    Yao Li and Hui Xu. “Stochastic neural field model: multiple firing events and correlations”. In: Journal of mathematical biology 79.4 (2019), pp. 1169–1204

    2019

  63. [71]

    Emergent dynamics in a model of visual cortex

    Aaditya V Rangan and Lai-Sang Young. “Emergent dynamics in a model of visual cortex”. In: Journal of computa- tional neuroscience 35.2 (2013), pp. 155–167

    2013

  64. [72]

    Dynamics of multistable states during ongoing and evoked cortical activity

    Luca Mazzucato, Alfredo Fontanini, and Giancarlo La Camera. “Dynamics of multistable states during ongoing and evoked cortical activity”. In: Journal of Neuroscience 35.21 (2015), pp. 8214–8231

    2015

  65. [73]

    Synchronization in networks of excitatory and inhibitory neurons with sparse, random connectivity

    Christoph B¨ orgers and Nancy Kopell. “Synchronization in networks of excitatory and inhibitory neurons with sparse, random connectivity”. In: Neural computation 15.3 (2003), pp. 509–538

    2003

  66. [74]

    Firing rate models for gamma oscillations

    Stephen Keeley et al. “Firing rate models for gamma oscillations”. In: Journal of Neurophysiology 121.6 (2019), pp. 2181–2190

    2019

  67. [75]

    A master equation formalism for macroscopic modeling of asynchronous irregular activity states

    Sami El Boustani and Alain Destexhe. “A master equation formalism for macroscopic modeling of asynchronous irregular activity states”. In: Neural computation 21.1 (2009), pp. 46–100

    2009

  68. [76]

    Stochastic neural field theory and the system-size expansion

    Paul C Bressloff. “Stochastic neural field theory and the system-size expansion”. In: SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics 70.5 (2010), pp. 1488–1521

    2010

  69. [77]

    Impact of network structure and cellular response on spike time correlations

    James Trousdale et al. “Impact of network structure and cellular response on spike time correlations”. In: PLoS computational biology 8.3 (2012), e1002408

    2012

  70. [78]

    Systematic fluctuation expansion for neural network activity equations

    Michael A Buice, Jack D Cowan, and Carson C Chow. “Systematic fluctuation expansion for neural network activity equations”. In: Neural computation 22.2 (2010), pp. 377–426

    2010

  71. [79]

    A case study in the functional consequences of scaling the sizes of realistic cortical models

    Madhura R Joglekar et al. “A case study in the functional consequences of scaling the sizes of realistic cortical models”. In: PLoS computational biology 15.7 (2019), e1007198

    2019

  72. [80]

    Beyond blow-up in excitatory integrate and fire neuronal networks: refractory period and spontaneous activity

    Maria J Caceres and Benoit Perthame. “Beyond blow-up in excitatory integrate and fire neuronal networks: refractory period and spontaneous activity”. In: Journal of theoretical biology 350 (2014), pp. 81–89

    2014

  73. [81]

    How well do reduced models capture the dynamics in models of interacting neurons?

    Yao Li, Logan Chariker, and Lai-Sang Young. “How well do reduced models capture the dynamics in models of interacting neurons?” In: Journal of mathematical biology 78.1 (2019), pp. 83–115

    2019

  74. [82]

    Learning spiking neuronal networks with artificial neural networks: neural oscillations

    Ruilin Zhang et al. “Learning spiking neuronal networks with artificial neural networks: neural oscillations”. In: Journal of Mathematical Biology 88.6 (2024), p. 65

    2024

  75. [83]

    Data-driven discovery of partial differential equations

    Samuel H Rudy et al. “Data-driven discovery of partial differential equations”. In: Science advances 3.4 (2017), e1602614

    2017

  76. [84]

    Deep learning for universal linear embeddings of nonlinear dynamics

    Bethany Lusch, J Nathan Kutz, and Steven L Brunton. “Deep learning for universal linear embeddings of nonlinear dynamics”. In: Nature communications 9.1 (2018), p. 4950. 36 Jie Chang1 et al

    2018

  77. [85]

    A tour of reinforcement learning: The view from continuous control

    Benjamin Recht. “A tour of reinforcement learning: The view from continuous control”. In: Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems 2.1 (2019), pp. 253–279

    2019

  78. [86]

    Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations

    Maziar Raissi, Paris Perdikaris, and George E Karniadakis. “Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations”. In: Journal of Computational physics 378 (2019), pp. 686–707

    2019

  79. [87]

    Discovering governing equations from data by sparse identification of nonlinear dynamical systems

    Steven L Brunton, Joshua L Proctor, and J Nathan Kutz. “Discovering governing equations from data by sparse identification of nonlinear dynamical systems”. In: Proceedings of the national academy of sciences 113.15 (2016), pp. 3932–3937

    2016

  80. [88]

    Learning dynamical systems and bifurcation via group sparsity

    Hayden Schaeffer, Giang Tran, and Rachel Ward. “Learning dynamical systems and bifurcation via group sparsity”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.01558 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Using scientific machine learning for experimental bifurcation analysis of dynamic systems

    Sandor Beregi et al. “Using scientific machine learning for experimental bifurcation analysis of dynamic systems”. In: Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 184 (2023), p. 109649

    2023

  82. [90]

    Impulses and physiological states in theoretical models of nerve membrane

    Richard FitzHugh. “Impulses and physiological states in theoretical models of nerve membrane”. In: Biophysical journal 1.6 (1961), pp. 445–466

    1961

  83. [91]

    The finite state projection algorithm for the solution of the chemical master equation

    Brian Munsky and Mustafa Khammash. “The finite state projection algorithm for the solution of the chemical master equation”. In: The Journal of chemical physics 124.4 (2006)

    2006

  84. [92]

    Adaptive discrete Galerkin methods applied to the chemical master equation

    Peter Deuflhard et al. “Adaptive discrete Galerkin methods applied to the chemical master equation”. In: SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 30.6 (2008), pp. 2990–3011

    2008

  85. [93]

    A review of the adjoint-state method for computing the gradient of a functional with geophysical applications

    R-E Plessix. “A review of the adjoint-state method for computing the gradient of a functional with geophysical applications”. In: Geophysical Journal International 167.2 (2006), pp. 495–503

    2006

  86. [94]

    Historical development of the Newton–Raphson method

    Tjalling J Ypma. “Historical development of the Newton–Raphson method”. In: SIAM review 37.4 (1995), pp. 531– 551

    1995

  87. [95]

    A quantitative population model of whisker barrels: re-examining the Wilson-Cowan equations

    David J Pinto et al. “A quantitative population model of whisker barrels: re-examining the Wilson-Cowan equations”. In: Journal of computational neuroscience 3 (1996), pp. 247–264

    1996

  88. [96]

    Rhythm and synchrony in a cortical network model

    Logan Chariker, Robert Shapley, and Lai-Sang Young. “Rhythm and synchrony in a cortical network model”. In: Journal of Neuroscience 38.40 (2018), pp. 8621–8634

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.