X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/chaos1.git/blobdiff_plain/9e6c76e39059d7f227f7ed48ad71195374a2f2a5..HEAD:/authors_response.tex?ds=sidebyside diff --git a/authors_response.tex b/authors_response.tex index f6bcb54..52f85a3 100644 --- a/authors_response.tex +++ b/authors_response.tex @@ -26,9 +26,11 @@ Detailed changes and addressed issues in the revision of the paper "Recurrent Neural Networks and Chaos: Construction, \\ Evaluation, and Prediction Ability" \\ renamed in \\ -"Chaotic Neural Networks: Construction, Evaluation, and Prediction Ability" +Neural Networks and Chaos: Construction, Evaluation of Chaotic Networks, \\ +and Prediction of Chaos with Multilayer Feedforward Networks" -by Jacques M. Bahi, Jean-Fran\c{c}ois Couchot, Christophe Guyeux, and Michel Salomon +by Jacques M. Bahi, Jean-Fran\c{c}ois Couchot, \\ +Christophe Guyeux, and Michel Salomon \bigskip \end{center} @@ -52,7 +54,12 @@ considered and have led to modifications in the paper. {\it Our response} - To be completed + Indeed, our contributions are twofold. Firstly, we present how to + construct chaotic neural networks, according to Devaney's definition + of chaos, and we discuss their evaluation. Secondly, we study the + capacity of classical multilayer feedfoward neural networks to + predict chaotic data. To highlight clearly these contributions we + have changed the title of our paper, as said above. \item Please explain the Line 242( "than chaotic iterations Ff with initial condition............" ) and Line 298( "investigate, when comparing neural networks and Devaney's chaos"). @@ -71,20 +78,28 @@ considered and have led to modifications in the paper. {\it Our response} - To be completed + We have corrected lines 402-405 (now lines 419-422) as follows: + ``For all those feedforward network topologies and all outputs the + obtained results for the non-chaotic case outperform the chaotic + ones. Finally, the rates for the strategies show that the different + feedforward networks are unable to learn them.'' More generally, in + the whole paper the term feedforward has been added, when needed, to + clarify our discussion. \item Please explain the meanings of the percentage in TABLE I and TABLE II. - {\it Our response} + {\it Our response} - To be completed + We have explained how the success rates (percentage) are computed + lines~405-407. \item Except for prediction success rates, in order to reflect the prediction ability, please add the analysis of the prediction errors for data sequence and diagram it. {\it Our response} - To be completed + We have added two figures (Figures~3 and 4) and some comments about them + lines~425-431. We hope that we have answered the reviewer remark. \end{enumerate} \begin{itemize} @@ -107,6 +122,8 @@ considered and have led to modifications in the paper. {\it Our response} + As suggested by the reviewer the conclusion has been shortened and we + have presented those definitions differently. \end{enumerate} We are very grateful to the reviewers who, by their recommendations,