MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2536004288 · doi:10.5539/ijsp.v5n6p1

Time Series Chaos Detection and Assessment via Scale Dependent Lyapunov Exponent

2016· article· en· W2536004288 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Livio Fenga

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Statistics and Probability · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLyapunov exponentComputer scienceNonlinear systemNoise (video)Dynamical systems theoryWaveletSeries (stratigraphy)CHAOS (operating system)Chaos theoryRange (aeronautics)Scale (ratio)Synchronization of chaosSample (material)Statistical physicsControl theory (sociology)Applied mathematicsMathematicsArtificial intelligenceChaoticPhysicsControl (management)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many dynamical systems in a wide range of disciplines -- such as engineering, economy and biology -- exhibit complex behaviors generated by nonlinear components which might result in deterministic chaos. While in lab--controlled setups its detection and level estimation is in general a doable task, usually the same does not hold for many practical applications. This is because experimental conditions imply facts like low signal--to--noise ratios, small sample sizes and not--repeatability of the experiment, so that the performances of the tools commonly employed for chaos detection can be seriously affected. To tackle this problem, a combined approach based on wavelet and chaos theory is proposed. This is a procedure designed to provide the analyst with qualitative and quantitative information, hopefully conducive to a better understanding of the dynamical system the time series under investigation is generated from. The chaos detector considered is the well known Lyapunov Exponent. A real life application, using the Italian Electric Market price index, is employed to corroborate the validity of the proposed approach.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Statistics and ProbabilitySame topicNeural Networks and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207