001029461 001__ 1029461
001029461 005__ 20250203103504.0
001029461 037__ $$aFZJ-2024-05136
001029461 1001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)144174$$aDiesmann, Markus$$b0$$eCorresponding author
001029461 1112_ $$aWorkshop "MPI and NEST GPU"$$cCagliari$$d2023-10-05 - 2023-10-06$$wItaly
001029461 245__ $$aLarge-scale network models as digital twins advance theory and neuromorphic computing$$f2023-10-05 - 
001029461 260__ $$c2023
001029461 3367_ $$033$$2EndNote$$aConference Paper
001029461 3367_ $$2DataCite$$aOther
001029461 3367_ $$2BibTeX$$aINPROCEEDINGS
001029461 3367_ $$2ORCID$$aLECTURE_SPEECH
001029461 3367_ $$0PUB:(DE-HGF)31$$2PUB:(DE-HGF)$$aTalk (non-conference)$$btalk$$mtalk$$s1730981509_13532$$xInvited
001029461 3367_ $$2DINI$$aOther
001029461 520__ $$aSimulation of large-scale neural networksIn this talk I will criticize the present state of the field of computational neuroscience by pointing out that minimal models explain individual mechanisms, but do not confront these ideas with the anatomical and physiological constraints of the brain. The reduction to the bare equations required provides researchers with few contact points to build on these works and construct larger systems with a wider explanatory scope. Furthermore, although the brain is large, it has a finite number of elements, such that downscaling the network size or taking limits to infinity come with the risk of perturbing the correlation structure. Why are larger models not routinely being built, and why does computational neuroscience seem to be stuck at a certain level of model complexity? There are multiple reasons for this situation. On the conceptual level there is a tradition in neuroscience to fund only hypothesis-driven research; instrument-driven or platform-based research is not common, although Nobel prizes are given for methods. Additionally, constructing large-scale models goes beyond the period of an individual PhD project. Possibly, doctoral researchers may just be missing the digital tools to reuse large-scale models and extend them reproducibly. Nevertheless, simulation has firmly established itself in neuroscience as a third pillar alongside experiment and theory. With simulations, researchers can probe ideas beyond what is presently treatable by analytical approaches or accessible by experimental techniques. In addition, simulation software has matured to a point where researchers can collaborate by exchanging high-level model descriptions. Digital workflows are becoming available which enable researchers to collaborate on large-scale models as data integration platforms. I argue that the change of perspective required is to view software as scientific infrastructure with all consequences for the requirements on quality, long-term availability, and support.As a concrete example, I discuss how the universality of mammalian cortex has acted as a motivation to construct large-scale models, and demonstrate how digital tools have helped to reproduce results and increase the confidence in such models. The accessibility of benchmark models drives further modeling work, but also influences technological developments in the field of neuromorphic computing.Einevoll GT, Destexhe A, Diesmann M, Grün S, Jirsa V, de Kamps M, Migliore M, Ness TV, Plesser HE, Schürmann F (2019) The Scientific Case for Brain Simulations. Neuron 102:735-744. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2019.03.027Aimone JB, Awile O, Diesmann M, Knight JC, Nowotny T, Schürmann F (2023) Editorial: Neuroscience, Computing, Performance, and Benchmarks: Why It Matters to Neuroscience How Fast We Can Compute. Front. Neuroinform 17. DOI: 10.3389/fninf.2023.1157418keywords: simulation as third pillar, software as infrastructure, universality of cortex, cortical microcircuit, multi-area model, neuromorphic computing
001029461 536__ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5232$$a5232 - Computational Principles (POF4-523)$$cPOF4-523$$fPOF IV$$x0
001029461 536__ $$0G:(EU-Grant)945539$$aHBP SGA3 - Human Brain Project Specific Grant Agreement 3 (945539)$$c945539$$fH2020-SGA-FETFLAG-HBP-2019$$x1
001029461 536__ $$0G:(DE-Juel1)BMBF-03ZU1106CB$$aBMBF 03ZU1106CB - NeuroSys: Algorithm-Hardware Co-Design (Projekt C) - B (BMBF-03ZU1106CB)$$cBMBF-03ZU1106CB$$x2
001029461 536__ $$0G:(DE-HGF)SO-092$$aACA - Advanced Computing Architectures (SO-092)$$cSO-092$$x3
001029461 536__ $$0G:(EU-Grant)604102$$aHBP - The Human Brain Project (604102)$$c604102$$fFP7-ICT-2013-FET-F$$x4
001029461 536__ $$0G:(EU-Grant)101147319$$aEBRAINS 2.0 - EBRAINS 2.0: A Research Infrastructure to Advance Neuroscience and Brain Health (101147319)$$c101147319$$fHORIZON-INFRA-2022-SERV-B-01$$x5
001029461 909CO $$ooai:juser.fz-juelich.de:1029461$$pec_fundedresources$$pVDB$$popenaire
001029461 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)5008462-8$$6P:(DE-Juel1)144174$$aForschungszentrum Jülich$$b0$$kFZJ
001029461 9131_ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF4-523$$1G:(DE-HGF)POF4-520$$2G:(DE-HGF)POF4-500$$3G:(DE-HGF)POF4$$4G:(DE-HGF)POF$$9G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5232$$aDE-HGF$$bKey Technologies$$lNatural, Artificial and Cognitive Information Processing$$vNeuromorphic Computing and Network Dynamics$$x0
001029461 9141_ $$y2024
001029461 920__ $$lno
001029461 9201_ $$0I:(DE-Juel1)IAS-6-20130828$$kIAS-6$$lComputational and Systems Neuroscience$$x0
001029461 9201_ $$0I:(DE-Juel1)INM-6-20090406$$kINM-6$$lComputational and Systems Neuroscience$$x1
001029461 9201_ $$0I:(DE-Juel1)INM-10-20170113$$kINM-10$$lJara-Institut Brain structure-function relationships$$x2
001029461 980__ $$atalk
001029461 980__ $$aVDB
001029461 980__ $$aI:(DE-Juel1)IAS-6-20130828
001029461 980__ $$aI:(DE-Juel1)INM-6-20090406
001029461 980__ $$aI:(DE-Juel1)INM-10-20170113
001029461 980__ $$aUNRESTRICTED