% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Gutzen:858539,
author = {Gutzen, Robin and von Papen, Michael and Trensch, Guido and
Quaglio, Pietro and Grün, Sonja and Denker, Michael},
title = {{R}eproducible {N}eural {N}etwork {S}imulations:
{S}tatistical {M}ethods for {M}odel {V}alidation on the
{L}evel of {N}etwork {A}ctivity {D}ata},
journal = {Frontiers in neuroinformatics},
volume = {12},
issn = {1662-5196},
address = {Lausanne},
publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation},
reportid = {FZJ-2018-07410},
pages = {90},
year = {2018},
abstract = {Computational neuroscience relies on simulations of neural
network models to bridge the gap between the theory of
neural networks and the experimentally observed activity
dynamics in the brain. The rigorous validation of simulation
results against reference data is thus an indispensable part
of any simulation workflow. Moreover, the availability of
different simulation environments and levels of model
description require also validation of model implementations
against each other to evaluate their equivalence. Despite
rapid advances in the formalized description of models,
data, and analysis workflows, there is no accepted consensus
regarding the terminology and practical implementation of
validation workflows in the context of neural simulations.
This situation prevents the generic, unbiased comparison
between published models, which is a key element of
enhancing reproducibility of computational research in
neuroscience. In this study, we argue for the establishment
of standardized statistical test metrics that enable the
quantitative validation of network models on the level of
the population dynamics. Despite the importance of
validating the elementary components of a simulation, such
as single cell dynamics, building networks from validated
building blocks does not entail the validity of the
simulation on the network scale. Therefore, we introduce a
corresponding set of validation tests and present an example
workflow that practically demonstrates the iterative model
validation of a spiking neural network model against its
reproduction on the SpiNNaker neuromorphic hardware system.
We formally implement the workflow using a generic Python
library that we introduce for validation tests on neural
network activity data. Together with the companion study
(Trensch et al., sub.), the work presents a consistent
definition, formalization, and implementation of the
verification and validation process for neural network
simulations.},
cin = {INM-6 / IAS-6 / INM-10},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-6-20090406 / I:(DE-Juel1)IAS-6-20130828 /
I:(DE-Juel1)INM-10-20170113},
pnm = {574 - Theory, modelling and simulation (POF3-574) / 571 -
Connectivity and Activity (POF3-571) / HBP SGA1 - Human
Brain Project Specific Grant Agreement 1 (720270) / HBP SGA2
- Human Brain Project Specific Grant Agreement 2 (785907) /
SLNS - SimLab Neuroscience (Helmholtz-SLNS)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-574 / G:(DE-HGF)POF3-571 /
G:(EU-Grant)720270 / G:(EU-Grant)785907 /
G:(DE-Juel1)Helmholtz-SLNS},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:30618696},
UT = {WOS:000453919700001},
doi = {10.3389/fninf.2018.00090},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/858539},
}