Deep neural network analysis models for complex random telegraph signals
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
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. A reliable RTS analysis is a crucial prerequisite to identify underlying mechanisms related to device performance and sensitivity. When numerous levels are involved, complex patterns of multilevel RTSs occur and make their quantitative analysis exponentially difficult, hereby systematic approaches are often elusive. In this work, we present a three-step analysis protocol via progressive knowledge-transfer, where the outputs of the early step are passed onto a subsequent step. Especially, to quantify complex RTSs, we resort to three deep neural network architectures whose trained models can process raw temporal data directly. We furthermore demonstrate the model accuracy extensively with a large dataset of different RTS types in terms of additional background noise types and amplitude size. Our protocol offers structured schemes to extract the parameter values of complex RTSs as imperative information with which researchers can draw meaningful and relevant interpretations and inferences of given devices and systems.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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