You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hello! Thank you for releasing the code for this fascinating paper. After reviewing the code, I have a question regarding the computation of m_{bind}.
In the paper on arXiv (link to paper), m_{bind} is described as the average of two terms—one with an added bias term (\psi) and one without (\chi). This struck me as unusual, so I checked the code and noticed that neither of the averaged terms appears to include any bias.
Specifically, I observed that the variable magnitude_psi is computed from psibefore adding the rotational bias to produce z (which I believe corresponds to \phi in the paper). This suggests a potential inconsistency between the code and the paper unless it’s confirmed that adding the rotational bias does not impact the magnitude of \psi (which seems unlikely).
Could it be that the paper might need to redefine \psi to exclude the rotational bias term, or is there another interpretation I'm missing? Thanks for any clarification!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
niqodea
changed the title
Clarification on the computation of m_bind
Clarification on the computation of m_{bind}Oct 30, 2024
Hello! Thank you for releasing the code for this fascinating paper. After reviewing the code, I have a question regarding the computation of
m_{bind}
.In the paper on arXiv (link to paper),
m_{bind}
is described as the average of two terms—one with an added bias term (\psi
) and one without (\chi
). This struck me as unusual, so I checked the code and noticed that neither of the averaged terms appears to include any bias.Specifically, I observed that the variable
magnitude_psi
is computed frompsi
before adding the rotational bias to producez
(which I believe corresponds to\phi
in the paper). This suggests a potential inconsistency between the code and the paper unless it’s confirmed that adding the rotational bias does not impact the magnitude of\psi
(which seems unlikely).Could it be that the paper might need to redefine
\psi
to exclude the rotational bias term, or is there another interpretation I'm missing? Thanks for any clarification!The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: