Using Heterogeneity to Predict Inhibitory Network Model Characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From modeling studies it has been known for >10 years that purely inhibitory networks can produce synchronous output given appropriate balances of intrinsic and synaptic parameters. Several experimental studies indicate that synchronous activity produced by inhibitory networks is critical to the production of population rhythms associated with various behavioral states. Heterogeneity of inputs to inhibitory networks strongly affect their ability to synchronize. In this paper, we explore how the amount of input heterogeneity to two-cell inhibitory networks affects their dynamics. Using numerical simulations and bifurcation analyses, we find that the ability of inhibitory networks to synchronize in the face of heterogeneity depends nonmonotonically on each of the synaptic time constant, synaptic conductance and external drive parameters. Because of this, an optimal set of parameters for a given cellular model with various biophysical characteristics can be determined. We suggest that this could be a helpful approach to use in determining the importance of different, underlying biophysical details. We further find that two-cell coherence properties are maintained in larger 10-cell networks. As such, we think that a strategy of "embedding" small network dynamics in larger networks is a useful way to understand the contribution of biophysically derived parameters to population dynamics in large networks.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".