Abstract:figure legend Neural networks execute the transformation of inputs into the neural activity that enables the execution of a task. Thus, they have the potential to establish causal relationships between the input, the elements of a circuit, the network activity, and eventually behavior. When the purpose of building a model is to understand the mechanisms that enable behavior in biological circuits, the design of network models should be guided by three principles: (1) biological constraints are necessary (e.g., connectivity), (2) the network activity should match the recorded activity, and (3) the network should be able to perform the task of interest. Machine‐learning‐based training can help accomplish these goals. Due to the staggering complexity of the brain and its neural circuitry, neuroscientists rely on the analysis of mathematical models to elucidate its function. From Hodgkin and Huxley's detailed description of the action potential in 1952 to today, new theories and increasing computational power have opened up novel avenues to study how neural circuits implement the computations that underlie behavior. Computational neuroscientists have developed many models of neural circuits that differ in complexity, biological realism, or emergent network properties. With recent advances in experimental techniques for detailed anatomical reconstructions of large‐scale activity recordings, precise biological data has become more available. The challenge when building network models is to reflect experimental results, either through a high level of detail or by finding an appropriate level of abstraction. Meanwhile, machine learning has facilitated the development of artificial neural networks (ANN), which are trained to perform specific tasks. While they have proven successful at achieving task‐oriented behavior, they are often abstract constructs that differ in many features from the physiology of brain circuits. Thus, it is unclear whether the mechanisms underlying computation in biological circuits can be investigated by analyzing artificial networks that accomplish the same function but differ in their mechanisms. Here, we argue that building biologically realistic network models is crucial to establishing causal relationships between neurons, synapses, circuits, and behavior. More specifically, we advocate for network models that consider the connectivity structure and the recorded activity dynamics while evaluating task performance.

Generative models for network neuroscience: prospects and promise

Generative models of the human connectome

Building a small brain with a simple stochastic generative model

Linking fast and slow: the case for generative models

How to incorporate biological insights into network models and why it matters

Exploring Biological Neuronal Correlations with Quantum Generative Models

A generative model of the connectome with dynamic axon growth

Resolving structural variability in network models and the brain

Coming up short: generative network models fail to accurately capture long-range connectivity

Emerging Frontiers of Neuroengineering: A Network Science of Brain Connectivity

Network neuroscience and the connectomics revolution

Modeling the Evolution of Biological Neural Networks Based on Caenorhabditis Elegans Connectomes Across Development.

Pioneering new paths: the role of generative modelling in neurological disease research

Null models in network neuroscience

Leveraging advances in machine learning for the robust classification and interpretation of networks

Neuroscience needs Network Science

Discovering universal statistical laws of complex networks

Connectome-based modelling of neurodegenerative diseases: towards precision medicine and mechanistic insight

Automatic Discovery of Families of Network Generative Processes

Functional brain networks: great expectations, hard times, and the big leap forward

Network neuroscience