Stochastic Wiring of Cell Types Enhances Fitness by Generating Phenotypic Variability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The development of neural connectivity is a crucial biological process that gives rise to diverse brain circuits and behaviors. Neural development is a stochastic process, but this stochasticity is often treated as a nuisance to overcome rather than as a functional advantage. Here we use a computational model, in which connection probabilities between discrete cell types are genetically specified, to investigate the benefits of stochasticity in the development of neural wiring. We show that this model can be viewed as a generalization of a powerful class of artificial neural networks—Bayesian neural networks—where each network parameter is a sample from a distribution. Our results reveal that stochasticity confers a greater benefit in large networks and variable environments, which may explain its role in organisms with larger brains. Surprisingly, we find that the average fitness over a population of agents is higher than a single agent defined by the average connection probability. Our model reveals how developmental stochasticity, by inducing a form of non-heritable phenotypic variability, can increase the probability that at least some individuals will survive in rapidly changing, unpredictable environments. Our results suggest how stochasticity may be an important feature rather than a bug in neural development.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".