From 2a6d9ae38885311b605c61f2b40cff769e037a67 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dennis Huben <dennis.huben@rwth-aachen.de>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 16:52:10 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Add plots to appendix for defending choice of bin numbers to
 calculate sigma

---
 main.tex | 23 +++++++++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/main.tex b/main.tex
index 2b628c9..b52dcad 100644
--- a/main.tex
+++ b/main.tex
@@ -654,7 +654,7 @@ To confirm that the $\sigma$ parameter estimated from the fit is indeed a good m
  \label{noiseparameters2}
 \end{figure}
 
-We tried several different bin sizes (30 to 300 bins) and spike widths. There was little difference between the different parameters (see appendix).
+We tried several different bin sizes (30 to 300 bins) and spike widths. There was little difference between the different parameters (see figure \ref{sigma_bins} in appendix).
 
 \section*{Electric fish as a real world model system}
 
@@ -755,9 +755,6 @@ and \ref{fig:popsizenarrow10} C), the ratio of coding fraction in a large popula
 to the coding fraction in a single cell is larger for higher frequencies.
 
 %simulation plots are from 200hz/nice coherence curves.ipynb
-
-
-
 \begin{figure}
  \centering
  broad
@@ -768,6 +765,24 @@ to the coding fraction in a single cell is larger for higher frequencies.
  \includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{img/fish/cf_curves/cfN_broad_3.pdf}
 \end{figure}
 
+
+%compare_params_300.py auf oilbird
+\begin{figure}
+ \includegraphics[width=0.30\linewidth]{img/sigma/parameter_assessment/bins100v300.pdf}
+ \includegraphics[width=0.30\linewidth]{img/sigma/parameter_assessment/bins50v300.pdf}
+ \includegraphics[width=0.30\linewidth]{img/sigma/parameter_assessment/bins30v300.pdf}
+ 
+ \hspace{0.30\linewidth}
+ \includegraphics[width=0.30\linewidth]{img/sigma/parameter_assessment/bins50v100.pdf}
+ \includegraphics[width=0.30\linewidth]{img/sigma/parameter_assessment/bins30v100.pdf}
+ 
+ \hspace{0.60\linewidth}
+ \includegraphics[width=0.30\linewidth]{img/sigma/parameter_assessment/bins30v50.pdf}
+ \caption{Comparing different bin numbers for the calculation of $\sigma$. Values were in good agreement when we compare 50 bins and 100 bins. For 300 bins $\sigma$ was estimated smaller than for the other bin numbers, especially for $\sigma > 0.8$. For 30 bins a few estimates stuck close to $\sigma = 0$, when they didn't for the other bin numbers. We chose to proceed with 50 bins.}
+ \label{sigma_bins}
+\end{figure}
+
+
 %box_script.py, quot_sigma() und quot_sigma_narrow()
 \begin{figure}
  \centering