Evaluating the Effects of Size and Precision of Training Data on ANN Training Performance for the Prediction of Chaotic Time Series Patterns
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this research, artificial neural networks (ANN) with various architectures are trained to generate the chaotic time series patterns of the Lorenz attractor. The ANN training performance is evaluated based on the size and precision of the training data. The nonlinear Auto-Regressive (NAR) model is trained in open loop mode first. The trained model is then used with closed loop feedback to predict the chaotic time series outputs. The research goal is to use the designed NAR ANN model for the simulation and analysis of Electroencephalogram (EEG) signals in order to study brain activities. A simple ANN topology with a single hidden layer of 3 to 16 neurons and 1 to 4 input delays is used. The training performance is measured by averaged mean square error. It is found that the training performance cannot be improved by solely increasing the training data size. However, the training performance can be improved by increasing the precision of the training data. This provides useful knowledge towards reducing the number of EEG data samples and corresponding acquisition time for 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it