101,915 research outputs found

    How Correlations Influence Lasso Prediction

    Full text link
    We study how correlations in the design matrix influence Lasso prediction. First, we argue that the higher the correlations are, the smaller the optimal tuning parameter is. This implies in particular that the standard tuning parameters, that do not depend on the design matrix, are not favorable. Furthermore, we argue that Lasso prediction works well for any degree of correlations if suitable tuning parameters are chosen. We study these two subjects theoretically as well as with simulations

    How behavioral constraints may determine optimal sensory representations

    Get PDF
    The sensory-triggered activity of a neuron is typically characterized in terms of a tuning curve, which describes the neuron's average response as a function of a parameter that characterizes a physical stimulus. What determines the shapes of tuning curves in a neuronal population? Previous theoretical studies and related experiments suggest that many response characteristics of sensory neurons are optimal for encoding stimulus-related information. This notion, however, does not explain the two general types of tuning profiles that are commonly observed: unimodal and monotonic. Here, I quantify the efficacy of a set of tuning curves according to the possible downstream motor responses that can be constructed from them. Curves that are optimal in this sense may have monotonic or non-monotonic profiles, where the proportion of monotonic curves and the optimal tuning curve width depend on the general properties of the target downstream functions. This dependence explains intriguing features of visual cells that are sensitive to binocular disparity and of neurons tuned to echo delay in bats. The numerical results suggest that optimal sensory tuning curves are shaped not only by stimulus statistics and signal-to-noise properties, but also according to their impact on downstream neural circuits and, ultimately, on behavior.Comment: 24 pages, 9 figures (main text + supporting information

    Optimization of Planck/LFI on--board data handling

    Get PDF
    To asses stability against 1/f noise, the Low Frequency Instrument (LFI) onboard the Planck mission will acquire data at a rate much higher than the data rate allowed by its telemetry bandwith of 35.5 kbps. The data are processed by an onboard pipeline, followed onground by a reversing step. This paper illustrates the LFI scientific onboard processing to fit the allowed datarate. This is a lossy process tuned by using a set of 5 parameters Naver, r1, r2, q, O for each of the 44 LFI detectors. The paper quantifies the level of distortion introduced by the onboard processing, EpsilonQ, as a function of these parameters. It describes the method of optimizing the onboard processing chain. The tuning procedure is based on a optimization algorithm applied to unprocessed and uncompressed raw data provided either by simulations, prelaunch tests or data taken from LFI operating in diagnostic mode. All the needed optimization steps are performed by an automated tool, OCA2, which ends with optimized parameters and produces a set of statistical indicators, among them the compression rate Cr and EpsilonQ. For Planck/LFI the requirements are Cr = 2.4 and EpsilonQ <= 10% of the rms of the instrumental white noise. To speedup the process an analytical model is developed that is able to extract most of the relevant information on EpsilonQ and Cr as a function of the signal statistics and the processing parameters. This model will be of interest for the instrument data analysis. The method was applied during ground tests when the instrument was operating in conditions representative of flight. Optimized parameters were obtained and the performance has been verified, the required data rate of 35.5 Kbps has been achieved while keeping EpsilonQ at a level of 3.8% of white noise rms well within the requirements.Comment: 51 pages, 13 fig.s, 3 tables, pdflatex, needs JINST.csl, graphicx, txfonts, rotating; Issue 1.0 10 nov 2009; Sub. to JINST 23Jun09, Accepted 10Nov09, Pub.: 29Dec09; This is a preprint, not the final versio
    corecore