Competitive interactions shape brain dynamics and computation across species
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adaptive cognition relies on cooperation across anatomically distributed brain circuits. However, specialised neural systems are also in constant competition for limited processing resources. How does the brain's network architecture enable it to balance these cooperative and competitive tendencies? Here we use computational whole-brain modelling to examine the dynamical and computational relevance of cooperative and competitive interactions in the mammalian connectome. Across human, macaque, and mouse we show that the architecture of the models that most faithfully reproduce brain activity, consistently combines modular cooperative interactions with diffuse, long-range competitive interactions. The model with competitive interactions consistently outperforms the cooperative-only model, with excellent fit to both spatial and dynamical properties of the living brain, which were not explicitly optimised but rather emerge spontaneously. Competitive interactions in the effective connectivity produce greater levels of synergistic information and local-global hierarchy, and lead to superior computational capacity when used for neuromorphic computing. Altogether, this work provides a mechanistic link between network architecture, dynamical properties, and computation in the mammalian brain.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it