Removal and replacement of interference in tied-array radio pulsar observations using the spectral kurtosis estimator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We describe how to implement the spectral kurtosis method of interference removal (zapping) on a digitized signal of averaged power values. Spectral kurtosis is a hypothesis test, analogous to the t-test, with a null hypothesis that the amplitudes from which power is formed belong to a ‘good’ distribution – typically Gaussian with zero mean – where power values are zapped if the hypothesis is rejected at a specified confidence level. We derive signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) as a function of amount of zapping for folded radio pulsar observations consisting of a sum of signals from multiple telescopes in independent radio-frequency interference environments, comparing four methods to compensate for lost data with coherent (tied-array) and incoherent summation. For coherently summed amplitudes, scaling amplitudes from non-zapped telescopes achieves a higher SNR than replacing zapped amplitudes with artificial noise. For incoherently summed power values, the highest SNR is given by scaling power from non-zapped telescopes to maintain a constant mean. We use spectral kurtosis to clean a tied-array radio pulsar observation by the Large European Array for Pulsars: the signal from one telescope is zapped with time and frequency resolutions of $6.25\, \mathrm{ms}$ and $0.16\, \mathrm{MHz}$, removing interference, along with 0.27 per cent of ‘good’ data, giving an uncertainty of $0.25\, \mathrm{\mu \mathrm{ s}}$ in pulse time of arrival (TOA) for PSR J1022+1001. We use a single-telescope observation to demonstrate recovery of the pulse profile shape, with 0.6 per cent of data zapped and a reduction from 1.22 to $0.70\, \mathrm{\mu \mathrm{ s}}$ in TOA uncertainty.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".