pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.24873 · v1 · pith:CZWL4ITCnew · submitted 2026-06-23 · 🧮 math-ph · math.DS· math.MP· q-bio.QM

Data-Based Dynamical Systems Reconstruction: An Adequacy/Reliability Test

Guillermo Capobianco , Ulises Chialva , Horacio G. Rotstein This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 21:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math-ph math.DSmath.MPq-bio.QM
keywords dynamical systems reconstructionstochastic dynamicsnoisy dataadequacy testreliability assessmentsystem degeneracynon-identifiability
0
0 comments X

The pith

A two-step test validates reconstructions of stochastic dynamical systems from noisy data without arbitrary thresholds.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper demonstrates that loss functions and metrics suited to deterministic dynamics fall short when validating reconstructions of stochastic systems from noisy observations. It introduces an exploratory two-step test designed to assess reconstruction adequacy and reliability in a general manner. This approach is proposed as a way to avoid reliance on arbitrary error-tolerance thresholds. The authors note that degeneracy, non-identifiability, and inherent stochastic features place limits on when the test can be applied.

Core claim

Standard criteria based solely on the loss function or deterministic metrics are insufficient for validating stochastic system reconstructions from noisy data. A two-step test provides a general assessment of reconstruction adequacy and reliability without arbitrary error-tolerance thresholds, subject to constraints imposed by system degeneracy, non-identifiability, and intrinsic stochastic features.

What carries the argument

The two-step test for assessing reconstruction adequacy and reliability.

If this is right

  • Reconstructions of stochastic dynamics can be evaluated for adequacy without depending on user-chosen error thresholds.
  • Validation remains possible in the presence of noise and stochasticity where deterministic metrics do not apply.
  • The test explicitly accounts for cases where multiple models fit the data due to non-identifiability.
  • Assessment is constrained rather than universally applicable when degeneracy is present.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The test could guide validation protocols in fields that routinely reconstruct stochastic models from time-series observations.
  • It suggests a separation between deterministic and stochastic validation practices that may extend to other data-driven modeling tasks.
  • Further work could test whether the two-step procedure distinguishes reconstructions that match low-order statistics but differ in higher-order dynamics.

Load-bearing premise

The two-step test can provide a general assessment of reconstruction adequacy even when system degeneracy, non-identifiability, and intrinsic stochastic features are present.

What would settle it

A known inadequate reconstruction that passes the two-step test while failing to match the original system's statistical behavior in new simulations, or an adequate reconstruction rejected by the test.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.24873 by Guillermo Capobianco, Horacio G. Rotstein, Ulises Chialva.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The geometric structure of signals: Target and reconstructed data. A. Target (blue) and recon￾structed (orange) signals for the Chua model, with α = 15, β = 33, m0 = − 1 6 , m1 = 1 16 and h = − 1 7 . B. Histograms for the corresponding data in panel A: range of values covered by the trajectory (abscisa) and the recurrence of each value (height). C. Phase-space diagram for the two signals. Due to sensitivit… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Signal variability affects the robustness of the metrics: Representative models in the presence of noise. For each model, we simulated a test orbit (mimicking the target data) and twenty five additional trials (all starting from the same initial condition as the test orbit, mimicking putative reconstructions). We applied three different metrics to the histograms of the test orbit and each one of the trials… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Representative examples corresponding to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Typicality test (stage 1): Assessing how well a given (target) time series s(t) blends in (is embedded) within a set of (trial) time series {xi(t)} n i=1 generated by a model M. A: Representative examples of the target (red) and trials (gray) time series. B: Histograms for the target (hs) and trial ({hi} n i=1) time series. The histograms are computed over the same bin range, have the same number of bins (… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Sign test for histogram hs (stage 2): A The histogram for a given trial (generated by the model M; orange) exhibits fluctuations around the median of the set of histograms for all the trials considered (green). If the target time series s(t) has also been generated by the model M, then the histogram hs should display similar fluctuations around said median. B. Example of a histogram hs that may pass the ty… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Adequacy/Reliability (AR) Test: summary. The target signal is compared against the set of system trials generated by a putative reconstruction model M and categorized as typical/atypical and regular/irregular, resulting in an overall classification of the model M as either adequate or inadequate as a reconstruction of the dynamical system S that generated the target data s(t). 3.2.3 The two stages of the A… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Reconstruction of the stochastic Lorenz system. A. Representative example of the target data for the simulated Lorenz system (red) and a single reconstruction trial (blue) using a PLRNN. A1- A3 Time series. A4 Phase-space diagram illustrating the strange attractor. B. Kullback–Leibler divergence between the histograms for the target data and trials as a function fo the trial number for the three model vari… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Analysis of stability of AR test outcome. A. Results of applying the AR test to a trial of the Lorenz system using the system itself, as the size of the trial set xn,trial(t) increases. Each trial was run for 20,000 steps, ∆t = 0.005. The system parameters are the same as those in Figures 2 and 7. B. The corresponding results for a FitzHugh-Nagumo system. Each trial was run for 10,000 steps, ∆t = 0.025. Th… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: B), which critically depends on λ. Therefore, the ability to discriminate between degenerate ΛΩ systems based on their orbits will depend on how different the degenerate parameters are and on the level of noise that activates the transient dynamics. We consider a reference ΛΩ system with fixed parameters (a = ω = 1 and = ¯ λ = 0.1), subjected to different levels of additive noise in the first variable (x),… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Analysis of the identification of the ΛΩ model using the AR test. A. Target series generated for different levels of additive noise (see 2.1) applied to x variable, the reference system is defined by the following parameter values λ = β = 0.1, ω = α = 1. These orbits are used as target series for the AR test. B. Transient dynamics of the model when keeping α and ω fixed, and varying β and λ (while always m… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Analysis of the identification of the FHN model using the AR test. The same analysis performed for the ΛΩ model was applied here, but in this case varying the parameter a, which controls the excitability of the system. Other parameter values: b = 0.8, τ = 12, I = 0. A. Effect of noise in the FHN system taken as reference (a = −0.5). B. Different orbits obtained by varying the parameter a. C. Results of ap… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Preference of the test for the putative reconstruction over the original system. A. The atypic orbit (red) selected as target data from a set of 300 orbits generated by the ΛΩ model and the one with the highest t-index (the most typical orbit, in green). B. Result of the adequacy test for different sizes of the comparison trial set. C.Value of the t-index of the atypical orbit for different trial-set size… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: A. Hellinger distances between the histograms for the target data and trials as a function fo the trial number for the three model variables. B. Wassertein distances between the histograms for the target data and trials as a function fo the trial number for the three model variables. 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Effect of noise in system used to analyze the stability of test outcome 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: ΛΩ-model identification: Other results obtained for ΛΩ systems using the same methodology as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_14.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In this work, we address the problem of validating the reconstruction of a stochastic system from noisy data. We demonstrate the limitations of criteria based solely on the loss function or on standard metrics used for reconstructing deterministic dynamics. We also propose an exploratory approach, based on a two-step test, which allows for a general assessment of the reconstruction without relying on arbitrary error-tolerance thresholds. However, we discuss how system degeneracy and non-identifiability, together with features intrinsic to stochastic dynamics, impose certain constraints on the application of this test.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript addresses validating the reconstruction of stochastic systems from noisy data. It demonstrates limitations of loss-function criteria and standard metrics for deterministic dynamics. It proposes an exploratory two-step test for general assessment of reconstruction adequacy/reliability without arbitrary error-tolerance thresholds, while discussing constraints arising from system degeneracy, non-identifiability, and intrinsic stochastic features.

Significance. If the two-step test can be shown to deliver threshold-free assessment while respecting the stated constraints on degeneracy and non-identifiability, the work would supply a useful methodological contribution to data-driven stochastic modeling. The explicit acknowledgment of limitations is a positive feature.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the two-step test is asserted to enable 'general assessment ... without relying on arbitrary error-tolerance thresholds,' yet no description of the test steps, no equations, no algorithm, and no worked example appear in the provided text, preventing evaluation of whether the claim holds or whether the test is independent of its own outputs.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the weakest assumption—that the test remains valid 'even when system degeneracy, non-identifiability, and intrinsic stochastic features are present'—is stated but not supported by any derivation, counter-example, or numerical demonstration, leaving the central claim unsubstantiated.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and for identifying points where the abstract's claims require stronger support in the presentation. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the two-step test is asserted to enable 'general assessment ... without relying on arbitrary error-tolerance thresholds,' yet no description of the test steps, no equations, no algorithm, and no worked example appear in the provided text, preventing evaluation of whether the claim holds or whether the test is independent of its own outputs.

    Authors: The abstract summarizes the contribution at a high level, while the full manuscript (Sections 2–3) contains the explicit description of the two-step test, the associated equations, the algorithmic procedure, and numerical worked examples. To improve self-contained evaluation from the abstract, we will revise it to include a concise outline of the two steps and a reference to the supporting demonstrations in the body. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the weakest assumption—that the test remains valid 'even when system degeneracy, non-identifiability, and intrinsic stochastic features are present'—is stated but not supported by any derivation, counter-example, or numerical demonstration, leaving the central claim unsubstantiated.

    Authors: The manuscript discusses the constraints arising from degeneracy, non-identifiability, and intrinsic stochasticity and illustrates the test's behavior in such regimes through examples. We agree that an explicit derivation or additional targeted demonstrations would better substantiate the claim of validity under these conditions. We will expand the discussion section with a dedicated paragraph providing this support. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The provided abstract and context contain no equations, fitted parameters, self-citations, or derivation steps that could be inspected for reduction to inputs by construction. The proposal of a two-step test is stated at a high level without any technical details, ansatzes, or load-bearing assumptions that match the enumerated circularity patterns. The manuscript is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks on the basis of the given text, with no evidence of self-definitional claims, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or uniqueness imported via citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract only; no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are described.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5627 in / 964 out tokens · 22174 ms · 2026-06-25T21:38:08.819961+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Training excitatory-inhibitory recurrent neural networks for cognitive tasks: a simple and flexible framework.PLoS computational biology, 12(2):e1004792, 2016

    H Francis Song, Guangyu R Y ang, and Xiao-Jing Wang. Training excitatory-inhibitory recurrent neural networks for cognitive tasks: a simple and flexible framework.PLoS computational biology, 12(2):e1004792, 2016

    2016

  2. [2]

    Daniel Durstewitz. A state space approach for piecewise-linear recurrent neural networks for identifying computational dynamics from neural measurements.PLoS computational biology, 13(6):e1005542, 2017

    2017

  3. [3]

    Identifying non- linear dynamical systems via generative recurrent neural networks with applications to fMRI.PLoS computational biology, 15(8):e1007263, 2019

    Georgia Koppe, Hazem Toutounji, Peter Kirsch, Stefanie Lis, and Daniel Durstewitz. Identifying non- linear dynamical systems via generative recurrent neural networks with applications to fMRI.PLoS computational biology, 15(8):e1007263, 2019

    2019

  4. [4]

    Reconstructing computational system dy- namics from neural data with recurrent neural networks.Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 24(11):693– 710, 2023

    Daniel Durstewitz, Georgia Koppe, and Max Ingo Thurm. Reconstructing computational system dy- namics from neural data with recurrent neural networks.Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 24(11):693– 710, 2023

    2023

  5. [5]

    Multimodal teacher forcing for reconstructing nonlinear dynamical systems

    Manuel Brenner, Georgia Koppe, and Daniel Durstewitz. Multimodal teacher forcing for reconstructing nonlinear dynamical systems. InWhen Machine Learning meets Dynamical Systems: Theory and Applications, 2023

    2023

  6. [6]

    Recon- structing nonlinear dynamical systems from multi-modal time series.arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.02922, 2021

    Daniel Kramer, Philine Lou Bommer, Carlo Tombolini, Georgia Koppe, and Daniel Durstewitz. Recon- structing nonlinear dynamical systems from multi-modal time series.arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.02922, 2021. 20

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Time adaptive optimal transport: A framework of time series similarity measure.IEEE Access, 8:149764–149774, 2020

    Zheng Zhang, Ping Tang, and Thomas Corpetti. Time adaptive optimal transport: A framework of time series similarity measure.IEEE Access, 8:149764–149774, 2020

    2020

  8. [8]

    Guangyu R. Y ang H. Francis Song and Xiao-Jing Wang. Training excitatory-inhibitory recurrent neural networks for cognitive tasks: A simple and flexible framework.PLoS Comput Biol, 12(2), 2016

    2016

  9. [9]

    Modern koopman theory for dynamical systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.12086, 2021

    Steven L Brunton, Marko Budiši ´c, Eurika Kaiser, and J Nathan Kutz. Modern koopman theory for dynamical systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.12086, 2021

    arXiv 2021

  10. [10]

    MIT Press, 2016

    Ian Goodfellow, Y oshua Bengio, and Aaron Courville.Deep Learning. MIT Press, 2016

    2016

  11. [11]

    Detecting strange attractors in turbulence

    Floris Takens. Detecting strange attractors in turbulence. InDynamical Systems and Turbulence, Warwick 1980: proceedings of a symposium held at the University of Warwick 1979/80, pages 366–

    1980

  12. [12]

    Approximation by superpositions of a sigmoidal function.Mathematics of control, signals and systems, 2(4):303–314, 1989

    George Cybenko. Approximation by superpositions of a sigmoidal function.Mathematics of control, signals and systems, 2(4):303–314, 1989

    1989

  13. [13]

    Encyclopedia of distances

    Michel Marie Deza and Elena Deza. Encyclopedia of distances. InEncyclopedia of distances, pages 1–583. Springer, 2009

    2009

  14. [14]

    Optimal recurrent network topologies for dynamical systems reconstruction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04934, 2024

    Christoph Jürgen Hemmer, Manuel Brenner, Florian Hess, and Daniel Durstewitz. Optimal recurrent network topologies for dynamical systems reconstruction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04934, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    On structural identifiability.Mathematical biosciences, 7(3- 4):329–339, 1970

    Ror Bellman and Karl Johan Åström. On structural identifiability.Mathematical biosciences, 7(3- 4):329–339, 1970

    1970

  16. [16]

    Claudio Cobelli and Joseph J Distefano 3rd. Parameter and structural identifiability concepts and ambiguities: a critical review and analysis.American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, 239(1):R7–R24, 1980

    1980

  17. [17]

    Similar network activity from disparate circuit parame- ters.Nature neuroscience, 7(12):1345–1352, 2004

    Astrid A Prinz, Dirk Bucher, and Eve Marder. Similar network activity from disparate circuit parame- ters.Nature neuroscience, 7(12):1345–1352, 2004

    2004

  18. [18]

    Structural and practical identifiability analysis of partially observed dynam- ical models by exploiting the profile likelihood.Bioinformatics, 25(15):1923–1929, 2009

    Andreas Raue, Clemens Kreutz, Thomas Maiwald, Julie Bachmann, Marcel Schilling, Ursula Kling- müller, and Jens Timmer. Structural and practical identifiability analysis of partially observed dynam- ical models by exploiting the profile likelihood.Bioinformatics, 25(15):1923–1929, 2009

    1923

  19. [19]

    Parameter estimation in the age of degeneracy and unidentifiability.Mathematics, 10(2):170, 2022

    Dylan Lederman, Raghav Patel, Omar Itani, and Horacio G Rotstein. Parameter estimation in the age of degeneracy and unidentifiability.Mathematics, 10(2):170, 2022

    2022

  20. [20]

    Exploratory data analysis.Reading/Addison-Wesley, 1977

    John W Tukey. Exploratory data analysis.Reading/Addison-Wesley, 1977

    1977

  21. [21]

    john wiley & sons, 1999

    William Jay Conover.Practical nonparametric statistics, volume 350. john wiley & sons, 1999

    1999

  22. [22]

    The double scroll family.IEEE transac- tions on circuits and systems, 33(11):1072–1118, 1986

    LEONO Chua, Motomasa Komuro, and Takashi Matsumoto. The double scroll family.IEEE transac- tions on circuits and systems, 33(11):1072–1118, 1986

    1986

  23. [23]

    A chaotic attractor from chua’s circuit.IEEE transactions on circuits and systems, 31(12):1055–1058, 2003

    Takashi Matsumoto. A chaotic attractor from chua’s circuit.IEEE transactions on circuits and systems, 31(12):1055–1058, 2003

    2003

  24. [24]

    Edward N. Lorenz. Deterministic nonperiodic flow.Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 20(2):130– 141, 1963

    1963

  25. [25]

    Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2024

    Steven H Strogatz.Nonlinear dynamics and chaos: with applications to physics, biology, chemistry, and engineering. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2024

    2024

  26. [26]

    Thresholds and plateaus in the hodgkin-huxley nerve equations.The Journal of general physiology, 43(5):867–896, 1960

    Richard Fitzhugh. Thresholds and plateaus in the hodgkin-huxley nerve equations.The Journal of general physiology, 43(5):867–896, 1960. 21

    1960

  27. [27]

    Fitzhugh–nagumo model

    William Erik Sherwood. Fitzhugh–nagumo model. InEncyclopedia of Computational Neuroscience, pages 1439–1449. Springer, 2022

    2022

  28. [28]

    Princeton University Press, 1988

    Leon Glass and Michael C Mackey.From clocks to chaos: The rhythms of life. Princeton University Press, 1988

    1988

  29. [29]

    MIT press, 2007

    Eugene M Izhikevich.Dynamical systems in neuroscience. MIT press, 2007

    2007

  30. [30]

    Springer, 2010

    Bard Ermentrout and David M Terman.Mathematical foundations of neuroscience, volume 35. Springer, 2010

    2010

  31. [31]

    L. D. Landau. On the problem of turbulence.Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 44(8):339–349, 1944

    1944

  32. [32]

    J. T. Stuart. On the non-linear mechanics of hydrodynamic stability.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 4(1):1–21, 1958

    1958

  33. [33]

    Implementation of chua’s circuit with a cubic nonlinearity.IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Fundamental Theory and Applications, 41(12):934–941, 1994

    Guo-Qun Zhong. Implementation of chua’s circuit with a cubic nonlinearity.IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Fundamental Theory and Applications, 41(12):934–941, 1994

    1994

  34. [34]

    Lorenz equation and chua’s equation.Interna- tional Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, 6(12b):2443–2489, 1996

    Ladislav Pivka, Chai Wah Wu, and Anshan Huang. Lorenz equation and chua’s equation.Interna- tional Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, 6(12b):2443–2489, 1996

    1996

  35. [35]

    Transformation of relu-based recurrent neural networks from discrete-time to continuous-time

    Zahra Monfared and Daniel Durstewitz. Transformation of relu-based recurrent neural networks from discrete-time to continuous-time. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 6999–

  36. [36]

    Cambridge university press, 2003

    Endre Süli and David F Mayers.An introduction to numerical analysis. Cambridge university press, 2003

    2003

  37. [37]

    Stochastic runge-kutta algorithms

    Rebecca L Honeycutt. Stochastic runge-kutta algorithms. i. white noise.Physical Review A, 45(2):600, 1992

    1992

  38. [38]

    Reconstructing computational system dy- namics from neural data with recurrent neural networks.Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 24:693–710, November 2023

    Daniel Durstewitz, Georgia Koppe, and Max Ingo Thurm. Reconstructing computational system dy- namics from neural data with recurrent neural networks.Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 24:693–710, November 2023

    2023

  39. [39]

    Reconstruction, forecasting, and stability of chaotic dynamics from partial data.Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 33(9), 2023

    Elise Özalp, Georgios Margazoglou, and Luca Magri. Reconstruction, forecasting, and stability of chaotic dynamics from partial data.Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 33(9), 2023

    2023

  40. [40]

    Global identifiability of nonlinear models of biological systems.IEEE Transactions on biomedical engineering, 48(1):55–65, 2002

    Stefania Audoly, Giuseppina Bellu, Leontina D’Angio, Maria Pia Saccomani, and Claudio Cobelli. Global identifiability of nonlinear models of biological systems.IEEE Transactions on biomedical engineering, 48(1):55–65, 2002

    2002

  41. [41]

    Stochastic resonance.Reviews of modern physics, 70(1):223, 1998

    Luca Gammaitoni, Peter Hänggi, Peter Jung, and Fabio Marchesoni. Stochastic resonance.Reviews of modern physics, 70(1):223, 1998

    1998

  42. [42]

    What can stochastic resonance do?Nature, 391(6665):344– 344, 1998

    MI Dykman and Peter VE McClintock. What can stochastic resonance do?Nature, 391(6665):344– 344, 1998

    1998

  43. [43]

    Stochastic res- onance in an electronic fitzhugh-nagumo model a.Annals of the New Y ork Academy of Sciences, 706(1):26–41, 1993

    Frank Moss, John K Douglass, Lon Wilkens, David Pierson, and Eleni Pantazelou. Stochastic res- onance in an electronic fitzhugh-nagumo model a.Annals of the New Y ork Academy of Sciences, 706(1):26–41, 1993

    1993

  44. [44]

    The detection threshold, noise and stochastic resonance in the fitzhugh-nagumo neuron model.Physics Letters A, 206(1-2):61–65, 1995

    Xing Pei, Ken Bachmann, and Frank Moss. The detection threshold, noise and stochastic resonance in the fitzhugh-nagumo neuron model.Physics Letters A, 206(1-2):61–65, 1995. 22 A Inadequacy of measures to evaluate a putative reconstruction A1 A2 A3 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 trial 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40Hellinged distance Lorenz trial, x mean: 0.369 std 0 20 4...

    1995