Files
digital-drosophila/registry/feedback-context-review-20260930/REPORT.md
T

2.0 KiB
Raw Blame History

Feedback motif contextualization — read-only review

This is not a new learning stage, intervention or model. Source: six archived calibration odors, one seed 131101, frozen_reference; all cases retained. Late interval 500–1,000 ms. Fractions measure positive arrived weights, not causal importance, g attribution or net excitation after inhibition/APL.

Target idx / type Five-node internal positive input Positive sources Sources needed for 80% Base late spikes omit ALLN omit ALPN
1197 / lLN1_bc 8.96–8.99% 197–197 49–49 228–228 217–218 227–227
1381 / lLN1_bc 7.86–7.89% 214–214 51–51 227–228 227–228 227–227
1511 / lLN1_bc 7.57–7.60% 205–205 52–52 228–228 219–221 227–228
82312 / KC 36.16–36.39% 8–8 4–4 60–61 60–61 0–0
133666 / VA6_adPN 10.18–10.22% 119–119 31–31 212–214 0–0 208–210

Consequence for the next experiment

The two-cell loop can sustain activity in isolation, but the full-brain watched ALLNs receive most positive input from outside the five-cell motif. Do not target only this pair as the established unique cause. Existing conditional omissions freeze other recorded events: removing ALLN arrivals still leaves PN/other recorded drive. This establishes conditional sufficiency of residual input, NOT that an ALLN knockout in the live brain would fail. Likewise a large input fraction is not a causal fraction; small inputs can matter near threshold. The VA6->KC edge illustrates why fractions alone are not a deletion target ranking. Future separately authorized model tests should first validate operator semantics, then assess distributed local feedback and preservation of stimulus information, before learning. No gain/threshold/eta/mask tuning is licensed by this table. No new simulations, learning, weights or frozen-file changes. No heldout data used. Usable associative learning remains unachieved.