The Determining Role of Covariances in Large Networks of Stochastic Neurons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biological neural networks are notoriously hard to model due to their stochastic behavior and high dimensionality. We tackle this problem by constructing a dynamical model of both the expectations and covariances of the fractions of active and refractory neurons in the network's populations. We do so by describing the evolution of the states of individual neurons with a continuous-time Markov chain, from which we formally derive a low-dimensional dynamical system. This is done by solving a moment closure problem in a way that is compatible with the nonlinearity and boundedness of the activation function. Our dynamical system captures the behavior of the high-dimensional stochastic model even in cases where the mean-field approximation fails to do so. Taking into account the second-order moments modifies the solutions that would be obtained with the mean-field approximation and can lead to the appearance or disappearance of fixed points and limit cycles. We moreover perform numerical experiments where the mean-field approximation leads to periodically oscillating solutions, while the solutions of the second-order model can be interpreted as an average taken over many realizations of the stochastic model. Altogether, our results highlight the importance of including higher moments when studying stochastic networks and deepen our understanding of correlated neuronal activity.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".