A behavioral architecture for realistic simulations of Drosophila larva locomotion and foraging

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The paper presents a three-layered hierarchical model for simulating Drosophila larva locomotion, navigation, and learning. The model consists of a basic locomotory layer that generates crawling and turning using a coupled oscillator framework, incorporating intermittency in movement through alternating runs and pauses. The intermediate layer enables navigation by allowing larvae to actively sense and respond to odor gradients, facilitating chemotaxis. The adaptive learning layer integrates a spiking neural network model of the Mushroom Body, simulating associative learning where larvae modify their behavior based on past experiences. The model is validated through simulations of free exploration, chemotaxis, and odor preference learning, demonstrating close agreement with empirical behavioral data. This modular framework provides a valuable advance for modeling larva behavior.

Strengths:

Every modeling paper requires certain assumptions and abstractions. The main strength of this paper lies in its modular and hierarchical approach to modeling behavior, making connections to influential theories of motor control in the brain. The authors also provide a convincing discussion of the experimental evidence supporting their layered behavioral architecture. This abstraction is valuable, offering researchers a useful conceptual framework and marking a significant step forward in the field. Connections to empirical larval movement are another major strength.

Weaknesses:

While the model represents a conceptual advance in the field, some of its assumptions and choices fall behind state-of-the-art approaches. One limitation is the paper's simplified representation of larval neuromechanics, in which the body is reduced to a two-segment structure with basic neural control. Another limitation is the absence of an explicit neuromuscular control system, which would better capture the role of segmental central pattern generators (CPGs) and neuronal circuits in regulating peristalsis and turning in Drosophila larvae. Many detailed neuromechanical models, as cited by the authors, have already been published. These abstractions overlook valuable experimental studies that detail segmental dynamics during crawling and the larval connectome.

The strength of the model could also be its weakness. The model follows a subsumption architecture, where low-level behaviors operate autonomously while higher layers modulate them. However, this approach may underestimate the complexity of real neural circuits, which likely exhibit more intricate feedback mechanisms between sensory input and motor execution.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Sakagiannis et al. propose a hierarchically layer architecture to larval locomotion and foraging. They go from exploration to chemotaxis and odour preference test after associative learning.

Strengths:

A new locomotion model based on two oscillators that also incorporates peristaltic strides.

Weaknesses:

• The model is not always clearly or sufficiently explained (chemotaxis and odour test).

• Data analysis of the model movement is not very thorough.

• Comparisons with locomotion of behaving animals missing in chemotaxis and odour preference test after associative learning.

• Overall it is hard to judge the descriptive and predictive value of the model.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper presents a framework for a multilevel agent-based model of the drosophila larva, using a simplified larval body and locomotor equations coupled to oscillators and sensory input. The model itself is built upon significant existing literature, particularly Wystrach, Lagogiannis, and Webb 2016 and Jürgensen et al. 2024. The aim is to generate an easily configurable, well-documented platform for organism-scale behavioral simulation in specific experiments. The authors demonstrate qualitative similarity between in vivo behavioral experiments to calibrated models.

Strengths:

The goal is excellent - a system to rapidly run computational experiments that align naturally with behavioral experiments would be well-suited to develop intuitions and cut through hypotheses. The authors provide quantitative descriptions that show that the best-fit parameters in their models produce results that agree with several properties of larval locomotion.

The description of model calibration in the appendix is clear and explains several aspects of the model better than the main text.

In addition, the code is well-organized using contemporary Python tooling and the documentation is nicely in progress (although it remains incomplete). However, see notes for difficulties with installation.

Weaknesses:

(1) As presented here the modeling itself is described in an unclear fashion and without a particular scientific question. The majority of the effort appears to be calibrating modest extensions of existing models and applying them to very simple experiments. This could be an effective first part of a paper on the software tool, but the paper needs to point to a scientific question or, if it is a tool paper, a gap in the current state of modeling tools needed to address scientific goals. While the manuscript has a good overview of larval behavioral papers, the discussion of modeling is more of an afterthought. However, the paper is a modeling paper and the contribution is to modeling and particularly with this work's minor adaptions of existing models, it is unclear what the principle contribution is intended to be.

(2) While the models presented do qualitatively agree with experimental data in specific situations, there is no effort to challenge the model assumptions or compare them to alternative models. Simply because the data is consistent in a small number of simple experiments does not mean that the models are correct. Moreover, given the highly empirical nature of the modeling, I wonder what results are largely the model putting out what was put in, particularly with regards to kinematic results like frequency and body length or the effect of learning simply changing the sensory gain constant. It is difficult to imagine how at this level of empirical modeling, it would appear quite difficult to integrate the type of cell-type-specific perturbation or functional observation that is common in larval experiments.

(3) The central framing of a "layered control architecture" does not have a significant impact on the work presented here and the paper would do better with less emphasis on it. Given the limited empirical models, there are only so many parameters where different components can influence one another, and as best as I can tell from the paper there is only chemotaxis and modulation of a chemotactic gain constant that are incorporated so far. However, since these are empirical functions it says little about how the layers are actually controlled by the nervous system - indeed, the larval nervous system appears to have many levels of local and long-range module of circuits at both the sensory and motor layers. It is not clear how this aspect would contribute beyond the well-appreciated concept of a relatively finite set of behavioral primitives in an insect brain, particularly for the fly larva. What would be a contradictory model and how would the authors differentiate between that and the one they currently propose? If focusing only on olfactory learning and chemotaxis, how does the current framing add to the existing understanding?

(4) The paper uses experimental data to calibrate the models, however, the experiments are not described at all in the text.

Author response:

We thank all three anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful evaluations of our manuscript and for recognizing the conceptual advance in combining agent-based behavioral simulations with systems neuroscience models. We are especially encouraged by the acknowledgement of the framework’s potential to support simulation of neural control of individual animal behavior in realistic sensory environments.

Below, we respond to each reviewer’s public comments in turn. Throughout, we have aimed to clarify our rationale for modeling choices, acknowledge limitations, and outline concrete steps for improvement in the revised manuscript.

Furthermore, the call for a better description of the model implementation as voiced by all three reviewers and additional requests from community members has prompted us to formulate a separate technically detailed description of the publicly available larvaworld software package as well as of the readily implemented models in form of a preprint paper (Sakagiannis et al., 2025, bioRxiv, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.06.15.659765).

Reviewer #1:

We are happy to read that this reviewer considers the proposed behavioral architecture ‘a significant step forward in the field’, and that she/he recognizes the strengths of our work in the modular and hierarchical approach that provides connections to influential theories of motor control in the brain, in the experimental evidence it is based on, and in the valuable abstractions that we have chosen for the larval behavioral modeling.

The reviewer raises important points about the simplifications we have made, both conceptually and in the specific implementation of larval behaviors. Our main goal in this study is to introduce a conceptual framework that integrates agent-based modeling with systems neuroscience models in a modular fashion. To serve this purpose, we aimed for a minimal yet representative implementation at the motor layer of the architecture, calibrated to larval locomotion kinematics. This choice enables efficient simulation while allowing us to test top-down modulation and adaptive mechanisms in higher layers without the computational overhead of a full neuromechanical model. In addition to chemotaxis, we have recently used this simplified approach to model thermotaxis in larvae (Kafle et al., 2025, iScience, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2025.112809).

The reviewer notes the absence of explicit segmental neuromuscular control or central pattern generators (CPGs). We deliberately abstracted from these mechanisms, representing the larval body as two segments with basic kinematic control, to focus on reproducing overall locomotor patterns. This bisegmental simplification, which we illustrate in Supplemental Video “Bisegmental larva-body simplification”, retains the behavioral features relevant to our current aims. However, the modular structure of the framework means that more detailed neuromechanical models—incorporating CPG dynamics or connectome-derived circuit models—can be integrated in future work without altering the architecture as a whole.

We fully agree that real neural circuits are more complex than a strict subsumption architecture implies. In the Drosophila larva, there is clear evidence for ascending sensory feedback from the motor periphery to premotor and higher brain circuits, as well as neuromodulatory influences. These add layers of complexity beyond the predominantly descending control in our present model. At the same time, both larval and adult connectome data show that across-level descending and ascending connections are sparse compared to the dense within-layer connectivity. We see value in casting our model as a hierarchical control system precisely to make the strengths and limitations of such an abstraction explicit. The revised manuscript will include further discussion of these points.

In summary, our design choices reflect a trade-off: by limiting the biological detail in the lower layers, we gain computational efficiency and maintain a clear modular structure that can host models at different levels of abstraction. This ensures that the architecture remains both a tool for immediate behavioral simulation and a scaffold for integrating richer neural and biomechanical models as they become available.

Reviewer #2:

We thank the reviewer for recognizing the novelty of our locomotory model, particularly the implementation of peristaltic strides based on our new analyses of empirical larval tracks, and for providing constructive feedback that will help us improve the manuscript.

The reviewer highlights the need for clearer explanations of the chemotaxis and odor preference modules. We expand these sections in the revised manuscript with more explicit descriptions of model structure, parameterization, and calibration. As mentioned above, we have also prepared a separate preprint dedicated to the larvaworld Python package, which contains detailed implementation notes and hands-on tutorials that allow users to adapt or extend individual modules.

Regarding the comparison to empirical behavior in chemotaxis, our present analysis is indeed primarily qualitative. However, we would like to emphasize that the temporal profile of odor concentration at the larval head in our simulations matches that measured in Gomez-Marin et al. (Nature Comm., 2011, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1455) using only one additional free parameter, while all parameters of the basic locomotory model had been fitted to a separate exploration dataset before and were kept fixed in the chemotaxis experiments. In addition to the simulation of chemotaxis in the present paper, we recently used larvaworld in a practical model application to estimate a species-specific parameter of thermotaxis from experiments across different drosophilids (Kafle et al., 2025, iScience, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2025.112809).

The preference index in our simulations was computed using the same definition as in the established experimental group assay for larval memory retention, enabling a direct quantitative comparison between simulated and empirical results. Variability in the simulated outcomes arose naturally from inter-individual differences in body length and locomotory parameters, derived from real larval measurements, as well as from the random initial orientation of each individual in the arena. These factors contributed to variation in individual tracks and ultimately produced preference index values that closely matched those observed experimentally. In the revised manuscript, we also discuss handedness, as highlighted by the reviewer, as another meaningful expression of inter-individual variability in Drosophila larvae and insects more generally.

Finally, we acknowledge the reviewer’s concern about the scalability and broader applicability of the model. While the present paper focuses on three specific behavioral paradigms (exploration, chemotaxis, odor preference), the modular structure of the architecture is designed for flexibility: modules at any layer can be exchanged for more detailed or alternative implementations, and new sensory modalities or behaviors can be integrated without redesigning the system. The larvaworld package, associated codebase, and documentation are openly available to encourage adoption and adaptation by the larval research community.

Reviewer #3:

This public review provides an excellent account of our central aim to build an easily configurable, well-documented platform for organism-scale behavioral simulation and we are happy to read that the reviewer considers this an excellent goal.

We thank the reviewer for her/his account of our well-organized code using contemporary Python tooling. We are currently further improving code readability and code documentation, and we will release a new version of the larvaworld Python package. We further agree with the reviewer’s assessment that understanding the model calibration currently requires reading of the appendix. For the revised manuscript we thus aim at improving our description of all calibration and modeling steps along the way. We will also make sure to improve the description of the experimental datasets used for calibration.

We recognize that our description of the paper’s scientific contribution could be clearer. In revision, we will sharpen the Introduction and Discussion to highlight our main contributions:

(1) Promoting a shift from isolated neural circuit modeling to integrated agent-based simulations in realistic environments.

(2) Proposing the layered behavioral architecture, adopting the subsumption paradigm for modular integration.

(3) Providing the larvaworld software as a ready-to-use, extensible modeling platform.

(4) Implementing an empirically calibrated locomotory model and demonstrating its integration with navigation and learning modules in replicated behavioral paradigms.

We agree with the reviewer that the next challenge is to integrate the empirically based behavioral simulations presented here with functional brain models capable of reproducing or predicting experimental findings at the level of cellular neurophysiology, including the effects of cell-type-specific manipulations such as gene knock-down or optogenetic activation/inhibition. However, based on our experience with systems-level modeling, we deliberately invested in behavioral simulation because functional models of the nervous system—including our own—often lack translation into simulated agent behavior. In many cases, model output is limited to one or more variables that can at best be interpreted as a behavioral bias, and most often represents an “average animal” that fails to capture inter-individual differences. By linking our spiking mushroom body model to behavioral simulations in a group of individual agents during memory retention tests (Figure 6C,D), we were able to achieve a first successful direct comparison between simulated and experimental behavior metrics—in this case, the behavioral preference index reported in Jürgensen et al. (iScience, 2024, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2023.108640).

Finally, we reiterate that the layered behavioral architecture is designed to promote a modular modeling paradigm. Our adoption of a subsumption architecture does not conflict with the concept of behavioral primitives; on the contrary, the notion that such primitives follow (semi-)autonomous motor programs and can be combined into more complex behaviors was the starting point for our implementation of the architecture in the fly larva. In our view, a genuinely contradictory paradigm for neural control of behavior would require a non-modular, strictly non-hierarchical organization of the nervous system and, by extension, of behavioral control.