Cited by 895Probability and Statistical ResearchStochastic processes and statistical mechanicsMathematical Analysis and Transform Methods

Topics in the Theory of Random Noise

·1970·USSR Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0041-5553(70)90203-x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Markovian approximation is not appropriate for real or actual fluctuations.

    “It is important to realise that this approximation is not appropriate for real or actual fluctuations, as noted at the inception of the standard theory;”

    From Hierarchical Models in the Brain (2008) · cites this paper as [6]

  • The assumption that incremental fluctuations are independent is convenient and appropriate for physical systems with Brownian processes but less plausible for biological and other systems where random fluctuations are generated by dynamical systems.

    “Although, this is a convenient assumption that is exploited in conventional Bayesian filtering schemes and appropriate for physical systems with Brownian processes, it is less plausible for biological and other systems, where random fluctuations are themselves generated by dynamical systems ([6], p 81).”

    From Hierarchical Models in the Brain (2008) · cites this paper as [6]

  • Standard Markovian processes have generalised motion with infinite variance and are infinitely jagged or rough, so high-order terms have no precision and can be ignored.

    “This is because standard Markovian (c.f., Wiener) processes have generalised motion that has infinite variance and are infinitely ‘jagged’ or rough. This means w′, w″, … and x″, x‴, … have no precision (inverse variance) and can be ignored with impunity.”

    From Hierarchical Models in the Brain (2008) · cites this paper as [6]

  • Random fluctuations in biophysical systems are almost invariably the product of dynamical systems, which renders their serial correlations analytic.

    “This is because random fluctuations in biophysical systems are almost invariably the product of dynamical systems, which renders their serial correlations analytic ([6], p 83; [23]).”

    From Hierarchical Models in the Brain (2008) · cites this paper as [6]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Venue
USSR Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1970-01
Volume
10
Issue
6
Pages
267
ISSN
0041-5553 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4253785936
Cited by
895
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 18 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 19
FWCI
18.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
USSR Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Probability and Statistical Research
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Mathematical Physics › Stochastic processes and statistical mechanics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Applied Mathematics › Mathematical Analysis and Transform Methods
Keywords
random noise, stochastic processes, noise theory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review