MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965510792 · doi:10.1109/lsp.2019.2931150

An Improved Stationarity Test Based on Surrogates

2019· article· en· W2965510792 on OpenAlexaff
Douglas Baptista de Souza, Jocelyn Chanussot, Anne‐Catherine Favre, Pierre Borgnat

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Signal Processing Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlind Source Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsComputer scienceTest (biology)AlgorithmMachine learningData miningArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last years, several stationarity tests have been proposed. One of these methods uses time-frequency representations and stationarized replicas of the signal (known as surrogates) for testing wide-sense stationarity. In this letter, we propose a procedure to improve the original surrogate test. The proposed methodology can be seen as a guideline on how the surrogate test can be improved. We show mathematically that the modified test should exhibit improved classification performance. Numerical simulations on synthetic and real-world signals are carried out to evaluate the modified test against competing ones.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Signal Processing LettersSame topicBlind Source Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207