Neural population densities shape network correlations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The way sensory microcircuits manage cellular response correlations is a crucial question in understanding how such systems integrate external stimuli and encode information. Most sensory systems exhibit heterogeneities in terms of population sizes and features, which all impact their dynamics. This work addresses how correlations between the dynamics of neural ensembles depend on the relative size or density of excitatory and inhibitory populations. To do so, we study an apparently symmetric system of coupled stochastic differential equations that model the evolution of the populations' activities. Excitatory and inhibitory populations are connected by reciprocal recurrent connections, and both receive different stimuli exhibiting a certain level of correlation with each other. A stability analysis is performed, which reveals an intrinsic asymmetry in the distribution of the fixed points with respect to the threshold of the nonlinearities. Based on this, we show how the cross correlation between the population responses depends on the density of the inhibitory population, and that a specific ratio between both population sizes leads to a state of zero correlation. We show that this so-called asynchronous state subsists, despite the presence of stimulus correlation, and most importantly, that it occurs only in asymmetrical systems where one population outnumbers the other. Using linear approximations, we derive analytical expressions for the root of the cross-correlation function and study how the asynchronous state is impacted by the model's parameters. This work suggests a possible explanation for why inhibitory cells outnumber excitatory cells in the visual system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".