Maximum likelihood estimators for truncated and censored power-law distributions show how neuronal avalanches may be misevaluated
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The coordination of activity amongst populations of neurons in the brain is critical to cognition and behavior. One form of coordinated activity that has been widely studied in recent years is the so-called neuronal avalanche, whereby ongoing bursts of activity follow a power-law distribution. Avalanches that follow a power law are not unique to neuroscience, but arise in a broad range of natural systems, including earthquakes, magnetic fields, biological extinctions, fluid dynamics, and superconductors. Here, we show that common techniques that estimate this distribution fail to take into account important characteristics of the data and may lead to a sizable misestimation of the slope of power laws. We develop an alternative series of maximum likelihood estimators for discrete, continuous, bounded, and censored data. Using numerical simulations, we show that these estimators lead to accurate evaluations of power-law distributions, improving on common approaches. Next, we apply these estimators to recordings of in vitro rat neocortical activity. We show that different estimators lead to marked discrepancies in the evaluation of power-law distributions. These results call into question a broad range of findings that may misestimate the slope of power laws by failing to take into account key aspects of the observed data.
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 | 0.020 | 0.127 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".