MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2602208471 · doi:10.1214/18-aoas1162

Exact spike train inference via $\ell_{0}$ optimization

2018· preprint· en· W2602208471 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sean Jewell, Daniela Witten

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Annals of Applied Statistics · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPython (programming language)Computer scienceTRACE (psycholinguistics)InferenceSoftwareOptimization problemSpike (software development)Convex optimizationMeasure (data warehouse)AlgorithmMathematical optimizationRegular polygonMathematicsArtificial intelligenceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years new technologies in neuroscience have made it possible to measure the activities of large numbers of neurons simultaneously in behaving animals. For each neuron a fluorescence trace is measured; this can be seen as a first-order approximation of the neuron’s activity over time. Determining the exact time at which a neuron spikes on the basis of its fluorescence trace is an important open problem in the field of computational neuroscience. Recently, a convex optimization problem involving an $\ell_{1}$ penalty was proposed for this task. In this paper we slightly modify that recent proposal by replacing the $\ell_{1}$ penalty with an $\ell_{0}$ penalty. In stark contrast to the conventional wisdom that $\ell_{0}$ optimization problems are computationally intractable, we show that the resulting optimization problem can be efficiently solved for the global optimum using an extremely simple and efficient dynamic programming algorithm. Our R-language implementation of the proposed algorithm runs in a few minutes on fluorescence traces of 100,000 timesteps. Furthermore, our proposal leads to substantial improvements over the previous $\ell_{1}$ proposal, in simulations as well as on two calcium imaging datasets. R-language software for our proposal is available on CRAN in the package LZeroSpikeInference. Instructions for running this software in python can be found at https://github.com/jewellsean/LZeroSpikeInference.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Annals of Applied StatisticsSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207