MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382930886 · doi:10.1073/pnas.2218841120

Intrinsic neural diversity quenches the dynamic volatility of neural networks

2023· article· en· W4382930886 on OpenAlexafffund
Axel Hutt, Scott Rich, Taufik A. Valiante, Jérémie Lefebvre

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsArtificial neural networkVolatility (finance)Computer scienceStatistical physicsArtificial intelligenceEconometricsEconomicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heterogeneity is the norm in biology. The brain is no different: Neuronal cell types are myriad, reflected through their cellular morphology, type, excitability, connectivity motifs, and ion channel distributions. While this biophysical diversity enriches neural systems' dynamical repertoire, it remains challenging to reconcile with the robustness and persistence of brain function over time (resilience). To better understand the relationship between excitability heterogeneity (variability in excitability within a population of neurons) and resilience, we analyzed both analytically and numerically a nonlinear sparse neural network with balanced excitatory and inhibitory connections evolving over long time scales. Homogeneous networks demonstrated increases in excitability, and strong firing rate correlations-signs of instability-in response to a slowly varying modulatory fluctuation. Excitability heterogeneity tuned network stability in a context-dependent way by restraining responses to modulatory challenges and limiting firing rate correlations, while enriching dynamics during states of low modulatory drive. Excitability heterogeneity was found to implement a homeostatic control mechanism enhancing network resilience to changes in population size, connection probability, strength and variability of synaptic weights, by quenching the volatility (i.e., its susceptibility to critical transitions) of its dynamics. Together, these results highlight the fundamental role played by cell-to-cell heterogeneity in the robustness of brain function in the face of change.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score0.549

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations32
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207