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!
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_psiis computed frompsibefore adding the rotational bias to producez(which I believe corresponds to\phiin 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
\psito exclude the rotational bias term, or is there another interpretation I'm missing? Thanks for any clarification!