MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281629283 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1694395/v1

Extensive Study of Multiple Deep Neural Networks for Complex Random Telegraph Signals

2022· preprint· en· W4281629283 on OpenAlexafffund
Marcel Robitaille, HeeBong Yang, Lu Wang, Na Young Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlind Source Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanada First Research Excellence FundIndustry Canada
KeywordsArtificial neural networkDeep neural networksTelegraphyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Time-fluctuating signals are ubiquitous and diverse in many physical, chemical, and biological systems, among which random telegraph signals (RTSs) refer to a series of instantaneous switching events between two discrete levels from single-particle movements. Reliable RTS analyses are crucial prerequisite to identify underlying mechanisms related to performance sensitivity. When numerous levels partake, complex patterns of multilevel RTSs occur, making their quantitative analysis exponentially difficult, hereby systematic approaches are found elusive. Here, we present a three-step analysis protocol via progressive knowledge-transfer, where the outputs of early step are passed onto a subsequent step. Especially, to quantify complex RTSs, we build three deep neural network architectures that can process temporal data well and demonstrate the model accuracy extensively with a large dataset of different RTS types affected by controlling background noise size. Our protocol offers structured schemes to quantify complex RTSs from which meaningful interpretation and inference can ensue.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.291 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicBlind Source Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207