Can <i>Drosophila melanogaster</i> tell who’s who?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Drosophila melanogaster are known to live in a social but cryptic world of touch and odours, but the extent to which they can perceive and integrate visual information is a hotly debated topic. Some researchers fixate on the limited resolution of D. melanogaster’s optics, other’s on their seemingly identical appearance; yet there is evidence of individual recognition and surprising visual learning in flies. Here, we apply machine learning and show that individual D. melanogaster are visually distinct. We also use the striking similarity of Drosophila’s visual system to current convolutional neural networks to theoretically investigate D. melanogaster’s capacity for visual understanding. We find that, despite their limited optical resolution, D. melanogaster’s neuronal architecture has the capability to extract and encode a rich feature set that allows flies to re-identify individual conspecifics with surprising accuracy. These experiments provide a proof of principle that Drosophila inhabit in a much more complex visual world than previously appreciated. Author summary In this paper, we determine a proof of principle for inter-individual recognition in two parts; is there enough information contained in low resolution pictures for inter-fly discrimination, and if so does Drosophila’s visual system have enough capacity to use it. We show that the information contained in a 29×29 pixel image (number of ommatidia in a fly eye) is sufficient to achieve 94% accuracy in fly re-identification. Further, we show that the fly eye has the theoretical capacity to identify another fly with about 75% accuracy. Although it is unlikely that flies use the exact algorithm we tested, our results show that, in principle, flies may be using visual perception in ways that are not usually appreciated.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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.
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".