Odor-conditioned rheotaxis of the sea lamprey: modeling, analysis and validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mechanisms for orienting toward and locating an odor source are sought in both biology and engineering. Chemical ecology studies have demonstrated that adult female sea lamprey show rheotaxis in response to a male pheromone with dichotomous outcomes: sexually mature females locate the source of the pheromone whereas immature females swim by the source and continue moving upstream. Here we introduce a simple switching mechanism modeled after odor-conditioned rheotaxis for the sea lamprey as they search for the source of a pheromone in a one-dimensional riverine environment. In this strategy, the females move upstream only if they detect that the pheromone concentration is higher than a threshold value and drifts down (by turning off control action to save energy) otherwise. In addition, we propose various uncertainty models such as measurement noise, actuator disturbance, and a probabilistic model of a concentration field in turbulent flow. Based on the proposed model with uncertainties, a convergence analysis showed that with this simplistic switching mechanism, the lamprey converges to the source location on average in spite of all such uncertainties. Furthermore, a slightly modified model and its extensive simulation results explain the behaviors of immature female lamprey near the source location.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".