User talk:Mas414/Benchmark II: Model Description
You could add units for some of the state variables that don't have a typical value in the paper to give the reader a better idea. You could take out eq 4 & 17 since its a repeat equation of eq 2, but if its important to duplicate the equation you could explain why. Great descriptions of the other equations. --Robert Herd (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2017 (EDT)
If you want, you could put the equations in math script to make them larger and more distinct. You can do that by wrapping the text between . Also if you want to put a special character like α in the math script, you have to do it like \alpha. Also, you repeat equation 2 two other times for equation 4 and 17. I'm not sure if that is important to the paper or not. Other than that, the other equations and descriptions looked good. Also, don't forget to give an explanation for the simulations of your paper.
- Benchmark submitted on time?
- Rubric submitted on time?
- State variables, parameters and inputs to the model clearly distinguished?
- Δg, f, and h are not state variables as they are not governed by differential equations. g, on the other hand, is a state variable and is missing from your table.
- Term-by-term description of model components?
- J(B,b) is not the Jacobian.
- Have you described model assumptions?
- Some, though the assumptions that are present for each of the different versions of the model aren't described.
- Description of equation simulation?
- None provided.
Your explanation of the equations could be greatly improved by organizing it differently. The equations come from multiple different versions of the model, and they aren't all relevant at once. Some replace others when certain assumptions are in place, which you haven't specified. It is important to make all of this clear.
I encourage you to properly typeset your equations, which will make them easier to read. There are examples provided here.
When you say "TN is the time constant of the neural integrator, which is generally around 25s in humans", I wonder if you perhaps mean 25 ms. That would be a more appropriate time scale for neuron activity.
On the whole, this is a fair Model Description. For the final paper, I recommend making the changes outlined here. Remember also to include a description of your model extension for the final term paper in this section.