Sentences with phrase «than random noise»

The expectation of finding something other than random noise may be a lot lower, but it may still be interesting to look, and if you do find something — well good because something interesting is learned (I hope).

It may be easy to be more accurate than random noise.

Mann's critics claimed that they could easily obtain a «hockey - stick» shaped leading principal component from data that consisted of nothing more than random noise if they used Mann's data - centering method.

Mann's critics claimed that they could easily obtain «hockey - stick» shaped leading principal components from data that consisted of nothing more than random noise if they used Mann's data - centering method.

Over periods of months (and even a year or two), such forecasts are not much better than random noise.

Not exact matches

I think Lowe's are a bit more clearcut than usual, and perhaps with other prospects it's a bit more random noise fluctuation that should be overlooked.

During sleep, infants» memories pass through different stages that lead to vocabulary development and babies learn to first associate words with what they mean rather than just random noise.

«False positives are going to be random noise rather than systemically biased data.»

If our measure was just capturing random noise in the data rather than information about true principal quality, we would not expect it to be related to teacher quality and turnover.

I prefer not to trade on any time frames lower than 15 minutes, because lower than that, random market noise can distort the true direction of the market.

An important real issue is whether proxy data provides more information than naive models (such as the mean of the calibrating data for instance) or outperform random noise of various types.

The little known Hurst standard deviations due to Hurst - Kolmogorov dynamics (a.k.a. climate persistence) are much higher than Markovian variations and typically TWICE as large as commonly calculated standard deviations of random «white noise» in climate models.

Section 3 is probably the low point where the authors use a toy strawman model (Lasso) to «prove» that random noise will validate within the instrumental period as well or better than the actual proxies from Mann et al 08.

The physical processes causing the noise hasn't changed (at least I have no reason to assume it has), however the random nature of the noise means that sometimes its effects on the signal are greater than at other times.

I suspect that under a pink assumption one might find it difficult to show that it is «very likely» that less than half the warming since 1970 is not due to random fluctuations on the assumption that all we have is linear trend plus noise, without having to bother with other natural cyclic trends.

The fact that every year this decade except 2008 has been among the 10 warmest and that 17 of the top 20 hotest years on record have been in the past 20 years (the others were all in the»80s) precludes random chance at better than 95 % confidence even with red or pink noise!