MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950263613

A New Fast Parallel Statistical Measurement Technique for Computational Cosmology

2005· preprint· en· W2950263613 on OpenAlexaff
Robert J. Thacker, H. M. P. Couchman

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2005
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicScientific Research and Discoveries
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSkewAlgorithmSampling (signal processing)SmoothingInterpolation (computer graphics)ComputationNoise (video)GridMoment (physics)KurtosisProcess (computing)Point processFilter (signal processing)MathematicsArtificial intelligenceStatisticsComputer vision
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Higher order cumulants of point processes, such as skew and kurtosis, require significant computational effort to calculate. The traditional counts-in-cells method implicitly requires a large amount of computation since, for each sampling sphere, a count of particles is necessary. Although alternative methods based on tree algorithms can reduce execution time considerably, such methods still suffer from shot noise when measuring moments on low amplitude signals. We present a novel method for calculating higher order moments that is based upon first top-hat filtering the point process data on to a grid. After correcting for the smoothing process, we are able to sample this grid using an interpolation technique to calculate the statistics of interest. The filtering technique also suppresses noise and allows us to calculate skew and kurtosis when the point process is highly homogeneous. The algorithm can be implemented efficiently in a shared memory parallel environment provided a data-local random sampling technique is used. The local sampling technique allows us to obtain close to optimal speed-up for the sampling process on the Alphaserver GS320 NUMA architecture.

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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.890

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.136 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicScientific Research and DiscoveriesFrench-language works237,207