Multi-policy models of interregional communication in the human connectome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Network models of communication, e.g. shortest paths, diffusion, navigation, have become useful tools for studying structure-function relationships in the brain. These models generate estimates of communication efficiency between all pairs of brain regions, which can then be linked to the correlation structure of recorded activity, i.e. functional connectivity (FC). At present, however, communication models have a number of limitations, including difficulty adjudicating between models and the absence of a generic framework for modeling multiple interacting communication policies at the regional level. Here, we present a framework that allows us to incorporate multiple region-specific policies and fit them to empirical estimates of FC. Briefly, we show that many communication policies, including shortest paths and greedy navigation, can be modeled as biased random walks, enabling these policies to be incorporated into the same multi-policy communication model alongside unbiased processes, e.g. diffusion. We show that these multi-policy models outperform existing communication measures while yielding neurobiologically interpretable regional preferences. Further, we show that these models explain the majority of variance in time-varying patterns of FC. Collectively, our framework represents an advance in network-based communication models and establishes a strong link between these patterns and FC. Our findings open up many new avenues for future inquiries and present a flexible framework for modeling anatomically-constrained communication.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".