MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2530815550 · doi:10.17713/ajs.v32i1&2.449

Statistical Analysis of Stochastic Resonance in a Thresholded Detector

2003· article· en· W2530815550 on OpenAlexaff
Priscilla E. Greenwood, Ursula U. Müller, Lawrence M. Ward, Wolfgang Wefelmeyer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
Topicstochastic dynamics and bifurcation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDetectorStatistical analysisStatistical physicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePhysicsStatisticsPattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A subthreshold signal may be detected if noise is added to the data. The noisy signal must be strong enough to exceed the threshold at least occasionally; but very strong noise tends to drown out the signal. There is an optimal noise level, called stochastic resonance. We explore the detectability of different signals, using statistical detectability measures. In the simplest setting, the signal is constant, noise is added in the form of i.i.d. random variables at uniformly spaced times, and the detector records the times at which the noisy signal exceeds the threshold. We study the best estimator for the signal from the thresholded data and determine optimal configurations of several detectors with different thresholds. In a more realistic setting, the noisy signal is described by a nonparametric regression model with equally spaced covariates and i.i.d. errors, and the detector records again the times at which the noisy signal exceeds the threshold. We study Nadaraya–Watson kernel estimators from thresholded data. We determine the asymptotic mean squared error and the asymptotic mean average squared error and calculate the corresponding local and global optimal bandwidths. The minimal asymptotic mean average squared error shows a strong stochastic resonance effect.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicstochastic dynamics and bifurcationFrench-language works237,207