Topics in the Theory of Random Noise
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
Reaction-rate theory: fifty years after Kramers
Hänggi, P., Talkner, P., & Borkovec, M. (1990) · Reviews of Modern Physics · doi:10.1103/revmodphys.62.251 · Cited by 6,154 · see citing works
Hierarchical Models in the Brain
Friston, K. (2008) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000211 · Cited by 952 · see citing works
Considerations in the assessment of heart rate variability in biobehavioral research
Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. A. J. (2014) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00805 · Cited by 395 · see citing works
- 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