Prediction of noisy chaotic time series using an optimal radial basis function neural network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers the problem of optimum prediction of noisy chaotic time series using a basis function neural network, in particular, the radial basis function (RBF) network. In the noiseless environment, predicting a chaotic time series is equivalent to approximating a nonlinear function. The optimal generalization is achieved when the number of hidden units of a RBF predictor approaches infinity. When noise exists, it is shown that an optimal RBF predictor should use a finite number of hidden units. To determine the structure of an optimal RBF predictor, we propose a new technique called the cross-validated subspace method to estimate the optimum number of hidden units. While the subspace technique is used to identify a suitable number of hidden units by detecting the dimension of the subspace spanned by the signal eigenvectors, the cross validation method is applied to prevent the problem of overfitting. The effectiveness of this new method is evaluated using simulated noisy chaotic time series as well as real-life oceanic radar signals. Results show that the proposed method can find the correct number of hidden units of an RBF network for an optimal prediction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".