MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Using likelihood to test for Lévy flight search patterns and for general power‐law distributions in nature

2008· article· en· W2141702741 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Ecology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDiffusion and Search Dynamics
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersBritish Antarctic SurveyNatural Environment Research Council
KeywordsLawLévy flightPower lawStatisticsFlight testEconometricsMathematicsStatistical physicsPolitical scienceComputer sciencePhysicsSimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1. Ecologists are obtaining ever-increasing amounts of data concerning animal movement. A movement strategy that has been concluded for a broad variety of animals is that of Lévy flights, which are random walks whose step lengths come from probability distributions with heavy power-law tails. 2. The exponent that parameterizes the power-law tail, denoted micro, has repeatedly been found to be within the Lévy range of 1 < micro <or= 3. Here, we use Monte Carlo simulations to show that the methods used to infer the value of micro are inaccurate. 3. The widely used method of simply logarithmically transforming a standard histogram of movement lengths has been shown elsewhere to be problematic. Here, we further demonstrate how poor it is, and show that it actually biases estimates of micro towards the Lévy range of 1 < micro <or= 3, and can bias estimates towards the value of micro = 2. Thus, previous reports of animals undergoing Lévy flights, or of micro being close to the reported optimal value of micro = 2, may simply be a consequence of the bias generated by this method. 4. A technique that has been recently recommended is to logarithmically bin the data and then normalize the resulting histogram. We show that this technique also produces biased results, and suffers from similar problems as those just outlined, although to a lesser extent. 5. The proposed solution is to use likelihood. We find that calculating the maximum likelihood estimate of micro gives the most accurate results (having also tested the rank/frequency method). Likelihood has the further advantages of being the easiest method to implement, and of yielding accurate confidence intervals. Results are applicable to power-law distributions in general, and so are not restricted to inference of Lévy flights. 6. We also re-analyse a data set of grey seal movements that was originally reported to demonstrate Lévy flight behaviour. Using Akaike weights, we test four models, and find no evidence for Lévy flights. Overall, our results suggest that Lévy flights might not be as common as previously thought.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it