Role of Dimensionality in Predicting the Spontaneous Behavior of the Brain Using the Classical Ising Model and the Ising Model Implemented on a Structural Connectome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is accumulating evidence that spontaneous fluctuations of the brain are sustained by a structural architecture of axonal fiber bundles. Various models have been used to investigate this structure-function relationship. In this work, we implemented the Ising model using the number of fibers between each pair of brain regions as input. The output of the Ising model simulations on a structural connectome was then compared with empirical functional connectivity data. A simpler two-dimensional classical Ising model was used as the baseline model for comparison purpose. Thermodynamic properties, such as the magnetic susceptibility and the specific heat, illustrated a phase transition from an ordered phase to a disordered phase at the critical temperature. Despite the differences between the two models, the lattice Ising model and the Ising model implemented on a structural connectome (the generalized Ising model) exhibited similar patterns of global properties. To study the behavior of the generalized Ising model around criticality, calculation of the dimensionality and critical exponents was performed for the first time, by introducing a new concept of distance based on structural connectivity. Same value inside the fitting error was found for the dimensionality in both models suggesting similar behavior of the models around criticality.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".