Retrospective for the Dynamic Sensorium Competition for predicting large-scale mouse primary visual cortex activity from videos
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
Understanding how biological visual systems process information is challenging because of the nonlinear relationship between visual input and neuronal responses. Artificial neural networks allow computational neuroscientists to create predictive models that connect biological and machine vision. Machine learning has benefited tremendously from benchmarks that compare different model on the same task under standardized conditions. However, there was no standardized benchmark to identify state-of-the-art dynamic models of the mouse visual system. To address this gap, we established the Sensorium 2023 Benchmark Competition with dynamic input, featuring a new large-scale dataset from the primary visual cortex of ten mice. This dataset includes responses from 78,853 neurons to 2 hours of dynamic stimuli per neuron, together with the behavioral measurements such as running speed, pupil dilation, and eye movements. The competition ranked models in two tracks based on predictive performance for neuronal responses on a held-out test set: one focusing on predicting in-domain natural stimuli and another on out-of-distribution (OOD) stimuli to assess model generalization. As part of the NeurIPS 2023 competition track, we received more than 160 model submissions from 22 teams. Several new architectures for predictive models were proposed, and the winning teams improved the previous state-of-the-art model by 50%. Access to the dataset as well as the benchmarking infrastructure will remain online at www.sensorium-competition.net.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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