Desynchronizing a Chaotic Pattern Recognition Neural Network to Model Inaccurate Perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The usual goal of modeling natural and artificial perception involves determining how a system can extract the object that it perceives from an image that is noisy. The "inverse" of this problem is one of modeling how even a clear image can be perceived to be blurred in certain contexts. To our knowledge, there is no solution to this in the literature other than for an oversimplified model in which the true image is garbled with noise by the perceiver himself. In this paper, we propose a chaotic model of pattern recognition (PR) for the theory of "blurring." This paper, which is an extension to a companion paper demonstrates how one can model blurring from the view point of a chaotic PR system. Unlike the companion paper in which a chaotic PR system extracts the pattern from the input, in this case, we show that even without the inclusion of additional noise, perception of an object can be "blurred" if the dynamics of the chaotic system are modified. We thus propose a formal model and present an analysis using the Lyapunov exponents and the Routh-Hurwitz criterion. We also demonstrate experimentally the validity of our model by using a numeral data set. A byproduct of this model is the theoretical possibility of desynchronization of the periodic behavior of the brain (as a chaotic system), rendering us the possibility of predicting, controlling, and annulling epileptic behavior.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".