Bibliographic record
Abstract
In modern interdisciplinary research, manifold time series data have been garnering more attention. A critical question in analyzing such data is ``stationarity'', which reflects the underlying dynamic behavior and is crucial across various fields like cell biology, neuroscience and empirical finance. Yet, there has been an absence of a formal definition of stationarity that is tailored to manifold time series. This work bridges this gap by proposing the first definitions of first-order and second-order stationarity for manifold time series. Additionally, we develop novel statistical procedures to test the stationarity of manifold time series and study their asymptotic properties. Our methods account for the curved nature of manifolds, leading to a more intricate analysis than that in Euclidean space. The effectiveness of our methods is evaluated through numerical simulations and their practical merits are demonstrated through analyzing a cell-type proportion time series dataset from a paper recently published in Cell. The first-order stationarity test result aligns with the biological findings of this paper, while the second-order stationarity test provides numerical support for a critical assumption made therein.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".