Information-Geometric Measures for Estimation of Connection Weight Under Correlated Inputs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The brain processes information in a highly parallel manner. Determination of the relationship between neural spikes and synaptic connections plays a key role in the analysis of electrophysiological data. Information geometry (IG) has been proposed as a powerful analysis tool for multiple spike data, providing useful insights into the statistical interactions within a population of neurons. Previous work has demonstrated that IG measures can be used to infer the connection weight between two neurons in a neural network. This property is useful in neuroscience because it provides a way to estimate learning-induced changes in synaptic strengths from extracellular neuronal recordings. A previous study has shown, however, that this property would hold only when inputs to neurons are not correlated. Since neurons in the brain often receive common inputs, this would hinder the application of the IG method to real data. We investigated the two-neuron-IG measures in higher-order log-linear models to overcome this limitation. First, we mathematically showed that the estimation of uniformly connected synaptic weight can be improved by taking into account higher-order log-linear models. Second, we numerically showed that the estimation can be improved for more general asymmetrically connected networks. Considering the estimated number of the synaptic connections in the brain, we showed that the two-neuron IG measure calculated by the fourth- or fifth-order log-linear model would provide an accurate estimation of connection strength within approximately a 10% error. These studies suggest that the two-neuron IG measure with higher-order log-linear expansion is a robust estimator of connection weight even under correlated inputs, providing a useful analytical tool for real multineuronal spike data.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".