Asis, Daniel F. · Sep 29, 2026
arXiv: Asis models odour learning in a whole-brain Drosophila connectome
Markdown · JSON · Original source
Daniel F. Asis reports a whole-brain leaky integrate-and-fire model of the FlyWire connectome in which synapses from Kenyon cells (KCs) to mushroom body output neurons (MBONs) can change. Earlier whole-brain models kept synapses fixed, while models that learned simulated only the mushroom body. In Asis’s model, pairing an odour with an injected punishment signal weakened approach MBONs’ response to that odour, while unpaired odours and controls changed little. A second odour could also be learned on the already trained brain, reaching 85.5% of the strength reached by a naive brain. With a different timing rule, a simulated fly body unlearned and relearned across four cycles; the first rule got stuck after one. These are simulation results for aversive learning, not demonstrations of learning in living flies. Asis says odour-specific learning followed from the connectome’s structure given the authored plasticity rule, injected punishment signal and other choices. Reward learning could not be tested: at the synaptic weight and synapse floor used, sugar input did not recruit reward dopamine neurons.
Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims.
Original source
q-bio.NC · Article
Source details
Original source date: Sep 29, 2026 (2026-09-29).
Date basis: Date basis not provided.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-10T14:31:18.738Z. First observed: 2026-11-10T08:33:58.330Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-10T14:19:31.453Z.
Referenced by
Recorded citations and public file attachments. A reference alone does not establish agreement or influence.
No public references recorded here yet.
Limits
The reported findings are from a model, including a simulated fly body, rather than experiments on living flies. The paper reports aversive learning only; reward learning could not be tested with the synaptic weight and synapse floor used. The author says learning depended on an authored plasticity rule, an injected punishment signal and other authored choices detailed in Methods; the supplied evidence does not include those Methods details.
Open question
Could reward learning be modeled with different synaptic weight and synapse-floor choices that allow sugar input to recruit reward dopamine neurons?
Source-stated
Asis adds plastic synapses between Kenyon cells and mushroom body output neurons to a whole-brain leaky integrate-and-fire model of the FlyWire connectome.
I made the synapses from Kenyon cells (KCs) to mushroom body output neurons (MBONs) plastic in a whole-brain leaky integrate-and-fire model of the FlyWire connectome
Source-stated
In one simulated brain, pairing an odour with punishment lowered approach MBON responses to that odour in all five noise replicates; unpaired odours and controls changed little.
Pairing an odour with punishment lowered the response of approach MBONs to that odour from 11.3 to 0.3 Hz in all five noise replicates of one simulated brain, while unpaired and never-paired odours and controls with the rule switched off or scrambled changed little.
Source-stated
A second odour learned on the already trained brain reached 85.5% of the strength reached by a naive brain.
A second odour paired on the already trained brain was learned at 85.5% of the strength reached by a naive brain
Source-stated
With a timing rule in which dopamine arriving before the odour strengthens a synapse, the simulated fly body unlearned and relearned in four cycles; the first rule got stuck after one.
With a timing rule in which dopamine arriving before the odour strengthens a synapse, a simulated fly body driven by the model unlearned and relearned in four of four cycles, whereas the first rule got stuck after one
Source-stated
The reported learning results are aversive; reward learning could not be tested under the synaptic weight and synapse floor used in the model.
All results are for aversive learning; reward learning could not be tested because, at the synaptic weight and synapse floor used here, sugar input does not recruit the reward dopamine neurons.
Source-stated
The author says odour-specificity followed from the connectome structure given the model’s authored plasticity rule, injected punishment signal and other choices.
Learning depended on an authored plasticity rule, an injected punishment signal and other authored choices detailed in Methods; given these choices, the odour-specificity of learning followed from the structure of the connectome.
Source and contributor context
Asis, Daniel F. · Article author
These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage.
Source media
No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
arXiv
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: 0824fb1d-bbe8-4b6e-8caa-3ae4623119b8.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-10T14:31:18.738Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material_development.
Observation: 7511a577d0c197a593fb95ba64fc24d3d1a41465e7aad42009cff18bbfaf8b0c. Source text hash: ef5cee0dd63a46623128267816d7c0b38a5f5a473d3ac2e1b0510f8d29ad4e34.
Revision and source-check history
Version 1 · 2026-11-10T14:31:18.738Z
arXiv: Asis models odour learning in a whole-brain Drosophila connectome
Daniel F. Asis reports a whole-brain leaky integrate-and-fire model of the FlyWire connectome in which synapses from Kenyon cells (KCs) to mushroom body output neurons (MBONs) can change. Earlier whole-brain models kept synapses fixed, while models that learned simulated only the mushroom body. In Asis’s model, pairing an odour with an injected punishment signal weakened approach MBONs’ response to that odour, while unpaired odours and controls changed little. A second odour could also be learned on the already trained brain, reaching 85.5% of the strength reached by a naive brain. With a different timing rule, a simulated fly body unlearned and relearned across four cycles; the first rule got stuck after one. These are simulation results for aversive learning, not demonstrations of learning in living flies. Asis says odour-specific learning followed from the connectome’s structure given the authored plasticity rule, injected punishment signal and other choices. Reward learning could not be tested: at the synaptic weight and synapse floor used, sugar input did not recruit reward dopamine neurons.
Original source
q-bio.NC · Article
Source details
Original source date: Sep 29, 2026 (2026-09-29).
Date basis: Date basis not provided.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-10T14:31:18.738Z. First observed: 2026-11-10T08:33:58.330Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-10T14:19:31.453Z.
Limits
The reported findings are from a model, including a simulated fly body, rather than experiments on living flies. The paper reports aversive learning only; reward learning could not be tested with the synaptic weight and synapse floor used. The author says learning depended on an authored plasticity rule, an injected punishment signal and other authored choices detailed in Methods; the supplied evidence does not include those Methods details.
Open question
Could reward learning be modeled with different synaptic weight and synapse-floor choices that allow sugar input to recruit reward dopamine neurons?
Source-stated
Asis adds plastic synapses between Kenyon cells and mushroom body output neurons to a whole-brain leaky integrate-and-fire model of the FlyWire connectome.
I made the synapses from Kenyon cells (KCs) to mushroom body output neurons (MBONs) plastic in a whole-brain leaky integrate-and-fire model of the FlyWire connectome
Source-stated
In one simulated brain, pairing an odour with punishment lowered approach MBON responses to that odour in all five noise replicates; unpaired odours and controls changed little.
Pairing an odour with punishment lowered the response of approach MBONs to that odour from 11.3 to 0.3 Hz in all five noise replicates of one simulated brain, while unpaired and never-paired odours and controls with the rule switched off or scrambled changed little.
Source-stated
A second odour learned on the already trained brain reached 85.5% of the strength reached by a naive brain.
A second odour paired on the already trained brain was learned at 85.5% of the strength reached by a naive brain
Source-stated
With a timing rule in which dopamine arriving before the odour strengthens a synapse, the simulated fly body unlearned and relearned in four cycles; the first rule got stuck after one.
With a timing rule in which dopamine arriving before the odour strengthens a synapse, a simulated fly body driven by the model unlearned and relearned in four of four cycles, whereas the first rule got stuck after one
Source-stated
The reported learning results are aversive; reward learning could not be tested under the synaptic weight and synapse floor used in the model.
All results are for aversive learning; reward learning could not be tested because, at the synaptic weight and synapse floor used here, sugar input does not recruit the reward dopamine neurons.
Source-stated
The author says odour-specificity followed from the connectome structure given the model’s authored plasticity rule, injected punishment signal and other choices.
Learning depended on an authored plasticity rule, an injected punishment signal and other authored choices detailed in Methods; given these choices, the odour-specificity of learning followed from the structure of the connectome.
Source and contributor context
Asis, Daniel F. · Article author
These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage.
Source media
No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
arXiv
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: 0824fb1d-bbe8-4b6e-8caa-3ae4623119b8.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-10T14:31:18.738Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material_development.
Observation: 7511a577d0c197a593fb95ba64fc24d3d1a41465e7aad42009cff18bbfaf8b0c. Source text hash: ef5cee0dd63a46623128267816d7c0b38a5f5a473d3ac2e1b0510f8d29ad4e34.
uncertain · 2026-11-10T14:31:18.738Z · anthropic/claude-opus-5.5
Publication: 0824fb1d-bbe8-4b6e-8caa-3ae4623119b8
attribution — uncertain: Daniel F. Asis is correctly named as sole author on arXiv. However, the summary states the background, that earlier whole-brain models kept synapses fixed and learning models simulated only the mushroom body, as plain fact. It is Asis's framing in the abstract. Smallest repair: 'Asis notes that earlier whole-brain models...'
they keep every synapse fixed and so cannot learn, while models that do learn simulate only the mushroom body
summary — uncertain: The summary is faithful but hard to follow for a non-specialist. 'Drosophila' is never glossed as the fruit fly, though the source says so. Connectome, leaky integrate-and-fire, mushroom body, approach MBONs and synapse floor are central but unexplained in the text; a term-library tooltip is suggested for each. 'The first rule got stuck' refers to a rule the summary never describes: dopamine weakens each synapse in proportion to KC firing. The plain-language significance, a whole-brain fly model that can learn, is left implicit. Smallest repair: say 'fruit fly', define connectome briefly and describe the first rule.
Whole-brain models of the fruit fly built from the FlyWire connectome can predict how neurons respond to a stimulus
date — pass: originalPublished 2026-09-29 matches the arXiv v1 submission date. The feed date of 2026-11-10 is correctly not used.
[Submitted on 29 Sep 2026]
support — uncertain: Most claims are verbatim-grounded, and the conditional framing (authored rule, injected punishment, aversive-only results) is preserved. However, the timing-rule claim and summary drop the source's condition that backward pairing alone was too weak to reach behaviour. Without it, the four-of-four relearning result may read as achieved by the timing rule alone. Smallest repair: add that condition. The 'not living flies' caveat and the reward-learning question follow fairly from the evidence.
backward pairing alone was too weak to reach behaviour
media — pass: The selected media is the verified direct arXiv abstract page for this paper, which is the most direct access to the source.
Challenge or correct this reading
Send a correction or an opposing source with this reading’s URL. Disagreement and uncertainty can remain unresolved.
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivarXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXiv