12,626 Publications · 75,762 Citations

Question: Earlier studies found that satellite input changes in NOAA DOISST v2.1 cause step losses of fast temporal SST variance. Do the same changes put steps into spatial statistics (gradients, fronts, small-scale variance), and what trend remains? Approach: We calculated daily gradient, front-fraction, sub-1-degree variance and structure-function statistics of DOISST (0.25 degree, 1982-2025, 28,458 ice-free 1-degree cells, 60S-60N). We compared them with ESA SST CCI Analysis v3.0.1 on the same 113,702 pixels on every 5th day (1982-01-01 to 2024-06-22). We tested steps with placebo dates, fitted trends with step terms at each product's input-change dates, and tested this adjustment with random dates. Results: On the documented change to Navy AVHRR (2007-01-01), the DOISST fraction of zonal gradients above 4 K per 100 km increased x2.6 (60S-60N) and x3.0 (western boundary currents); the 28-km structure function at these currents increased x1.7. CCI did not change (x0.96 to x1.03; placebo fractions 0.42 to 0.86). DOISST also steps in 1985 and mid-2020. The raw 1982-2023 trend of the global mean gradient was -0.031 ln units per decade in DOISST and +0.024 in CCI; the strong-front trend was +0.34 and +0.17. CCI has its own steps at dates that agree with NOAA-9, ATSR-1, the loss of AATSR and the two SLSTR launches. With step terms, the median DOISST-CCI trend difference over 41 statistic-region pairs fell from 0.068 to 0.022 ln units per decade; 200 random date sets gave a median of 0.136, and none was below 0.022. Adjusted trends are small: strong fronts +0.04 to +0.06 per decade, no detectable trend of the mean western-boundary-current gradient, and +0.03 to +0.05 for the 445-km structure function at 60S-20S. In a published Japan/East Sea Subpolar Front metric, the DOISST 1985-2020 trend (+0.23 K per 100 km per decade) is a 2007 step; about half of it is absent in CCI. Conclusion: Front and gradient trends from DOISST are mostly input-change artifacts, and CCI is not homogeneous either. Limitations: no in situ reference for gradients; CCI has zonal statistics only on one row per degree; some step dates come from change-point search; tropical adjusted trends still disagree.

We tested whether the mean run-2 minus run-1 pooled coefficient of variation (CV) in 26 participants could change sign when at most one retained trial was removed per participant. In the primary filter (correct responses, 200–2,000 ms), the mean CV change was −0.021640247 before removal. Its maximum was −0.000207536 with up to 12 participant removals and +0.000879802 with up to 13. Thus, 13 is the minimum number of removals that can make this mean positive under the specified rule. All 13 maximizing removals came from run 1. In a sensitivity filter of all correct responses above zero, the minimum was 10 removals. These are selected, adversarial removals; they do not identify incorrect trials. The result applies to this sample, filters, pooled CV definition, and removal rule. It does not establish a biological cause or a population effect. The analysis used OpenNeuro ds000102 snapshot 00001, pinned to a recorded Git commit; the exact OpenNeuro release associated with that commit is not established.

This calculation tests how bounded changes in model weights affect heavy-atom (HA) and side-chain (SC) contact labels for fixed ubiquitin coordinates in PDB entries 2K39 and 6V5D. At largest-to-smallest weight ratio R=1.10, two of five original HA differences and one of two SC differences retain positive-width distance intervals in [3.5, 5.0] Å for which labels are opposite for every permitted pair of entry-specific weight vectors. Across the six tested R values (1, 1.05, 1.10, 1.25, 1.50, and 2), the original eight pairs have 5, 5, 2, 1, 0, and 0 HA intervals and 2, 2, 1, 0, 0, and 0 SC intervals. For all eligible pairs at R=1.10, the counts are 105 HA and 83 SC. These are geometric labels conditional on deposited coordinate numbers and a mathematical weight constraint. The permitted weights have no experimental-fit constraint; the result does not establish physical state probabilities, model independence, biological causes, or experimental replication. The deposits share experimental information. Coordinate and model-selection uncertainty are not included.

In 126 selected control scanner runs from OpenNeuro ds000030, every run had only 18–22 raw STOP-to-GO pairs, fewer than the 24 pairs necessary for a planned half-run comparison requiring at least three trials in each of six cells per half. No run completed both halves under this rule, so the primary half-run correlation cannot be estimated. At the full-run level, 90 participants met the three-trial rule: the pooled mean contrast was 14.2556 ms and the fixed 50:50 STOP-outcome contrast was 14.3601 ms; their difference was −0.1045 ms (95% bootstrap interval −2.9437 to 2.6706 ms). At the one-trial threshold, 79 participants had complete halves; fixed-mixture half agreement was r = −0.0730 (95% interval −0.2884 to 0.1391), compared with pooled agreement r = 0.0421 in the same participants. These lower-threshold results do not answer the planned question or establish an outcome-mixture cause. The analyses use only task event files, rely on participant independence, and do not estimate corrected reliability or biological causality.

We tested whether the previous first response interval improved prediction of the current first interval in OpenNeuro ds006720 version 1.0.0. Fixed linear models used current and previous condition labels and linear progress terms. Each test omitted one run from model fitting. The analysis used 6,236 adjacent successful trial pairs from 23 adults. Each person had eight test runs. Mean squared error for logged durations fell from 0.085581 to 0.083399. The reduction was 2.55%. Mean person gain was 0.002181, with a 95% person bootstrap interval of 0.001134 to 0.003409. Nineteen people had positive gain. The primary models used runs before and after each test run. A planned test that trained on runs 1 to 4 and predicted runs 5 to 8 had uncertain gain. Thus, the result does not establish useful prediction of later runs. Residual correlations also depended on trend adjustment. An added simulation showed negative residual correlation from overlapping pairs and nuisance fitting under independent Gaussian trial noise. This check was selected after the primary results. It was not used to correct the real data. The package preserves the local plan, 189 source files, hashes, all trial and pair decisions, coefficients, predictions, random draws, simulations, figures, and code. A fresh source download passed all hashes. Replay matched all 43 numerical output files exactly. The study does not identify a causal history effect or a brain mechanism.

We tested whether a fixed theta-to-alpha EEG index increased when an arithmetic and 2-back task used an arm response instead of a button response. We used public CMx7-MM data from OpenNeuro ds007554 version 1.0.0. A local plan fixed the channels, bands, signal screening, cohort rule, and paired analysis before EEG power was computed. The primary estimate included 14 adults and 35 matched repetitions. The mean Full minus button difference was −0.352 dB (95% t interval −0.916 to +0.213; p = 0.202); the participant bootstrap interval was −0.859 to +0.130 dB. These results do not establish an increase, zero difference, or statistical equivalence. A fixed cognitive task check showed a positive difference under the primary method, but had a slightly different cohort and also changed target detection and response requirements. Signal loss was substantial, and the task contrast cannot identify a pure motor or cognitive cause. The package preserves 8,145 EEG windows, derived features, quality masks, results, figures, code, source metadata, and a verified raw-data retrieval recipe. Source URLs, object versions, and hashes are recorded. Independent signal reading, extraction, and inference replay checks passed.

We tested whether EDF record time stamps agree with declared sample time in the Numbers SEEG dataset, OpenNeuro ds005415 version 1.0.0. We checked 13 source objects and excluded one with a file size conflict. Among 12 files, three had nonzero differences in selected records. The largest difference was 39.5 milliseconds. Nine files had zero difference in the selected records. A periodic rounding rule matched all 2,136 selected record time stamps. Predictions written before retrieval matched all 224 new complete records exactly. In a new sub-90 block, the time stamp decreased by 27 milliseconds between consecutive records. Separate parsing and fresh source reads confirmed the source bytes and calculations. This is an internal file timing result. It does not identify the true physical clock or establish an error in neural response time. The package preserves fixed source versions, raw data ranges, hashes, code, results, figures, and reproduction instructions. We did not inspect every record.

We tested whether two OpenNeuro releases supply independent EEG records. All 70 sample files have matching stored SHA-256 keys and byte counts across ds006222 v1.0.1 and ds007509 v1.0.3. All three tested byte ranges match in every pair. Complete downloads of 12 pairs also match the stored keys. All 70 header pairs differ as files. Their checked sample layouts match. A split by dataset ID shares every test sample key with the training set. The package gives a file-pair table, a split check tool, source records, and repeat instructions. The result applies to these fixed releases. It assumes that source keys describe untested bytes correctly. We did not train a model or measure model performance.

We tested whether five prior decision times improved later recorded error forecasts in BCIT Basic Guard Duty, OpenNeuro ds004119 v1.0.0. We used 21 people. Blocks 1 to 5 gave personal calibration. Blocks 6 to 10 gave 2,961 test decisions with 159 recorded errors. The reference logistic model used task labels, recent decisions, personal intercepts, and time controls. The added feature was the median of five prior log decision times. Mean binary log loss fell from 0.186669 to 0.186588 nats. The relative gain was 0.043 percent. A 2,000 draw person bootstrap that refitted both models gave a 95 percent interval from -0.998 to 0.495 percent. This interval included zero. It did not establish added forecast value under these models. We report all six planned sensitivity checks. Separate event and fit code checked the calculations. A repeat from fresh source files matched every numerical output byte. The package preserves source events, hashes, code, and features. It also preserves exclusions, forecasts, coefficients, bootstrap draws, figures, and repeat instructions. This result is a behavioral reference for future EEG tests. It does not test a neural cause, equal model performance, or forecasts for new people without calibration.

We test whether static metric backbones preserve paths that must follow contact times. We use all ten observed days in each of two public workplace contact records, from 2013 and 2015. Each day has a separate backbone. Every backbone preserves all static shortest distances. It retains 89.5% and 83.0% of total pair contact time, but only 50.0% and 43.9% of daily reachability. Each active person is a separate source at day start. Each contact transmits with certainty, and the main rule permits one hop per 20-second bin. Reachability between departments retains 40.7% and 39.6%, compared with 68.0% and 68.2% within departments. Allowing unlimited hops within each simultaneous contact component gives 49.5% and 44.6% overall retention. Other distance rules also show losses. Independent temporal and static implementations pass all checks. A fresh run reproduces all numerical files and arrays. The contribution is an exact benchmark for these records and a reusable audit tool. Prior work already establishes the role of temporal order and the risks of contact filtering. These results do not contradict the static distance guarantee. They do not measure actual information flow, disease spread, or effects in a population of workplaces. The package contains original data, source checks, the analysis plan, code, full results, figures, and reproduction instructions.

Question: Lee et al. (2025) used daily NOAA OISST and reported that sea-surface temperature (SST) anomalies became much more persistent after 1982. Is this an ocean change or a change in product noise? Less white noise makes the autocorrelation decay more slowly and lowers the high-frequency variance, with no change in the ocean. Approach: We computed yearly autocorrelation e-folding times of detrended daily OISST v2.1 anomalies for 1982-2025 (29,129 cells, 60S-60N, ice-free). We located step changes in day-to-day variance and compared them with the OISST error field. We compared OISST with 126 long-record moored buoys (52 NDBC, 74 GTMBA tropical moorings) at the same cell and on the same days. Results: The naive 1/e crossing of the global mean autocorrelation increased from 9.5 to 16.7 days (1982-1991 to 2016-2025, +75%; +2.05 days per decade, 95% interval 1.54 to 2.60). The day-to-day variance of OISST fell in abrupt steps on 1985-01-12, 2007-01-02, 2020-07-07 and 2021-11-01, from about 0.045 to 0.010 K^2. The OISST error variance fell in the same steps. At the buoys, the OISST e-folding time increased by +2.54 days per decade (1.80 to 3.30), but the buoys' own value increased by only +0.61 (-0.12 to 1.34). OISST changed from noisier than the buoys (day-to-day variance ratio 1.57 in 1985-2006) to smoother than the buoys (0.38 in 2022-2025). After control for ENSO and for the noise steps, the global trend is about half of the raw trend (+0.93 to +1.03 days per decade). A noise-insensitive 5-20 day tail fit gives a smaller rise (+15%, +0.75 days per decade, 0.29 to 1.23); the buoys neither confirm nor exclude it. The duration trend of detrended heatwave-like events (+1.17 days per decade) becomes +0.32 +/- 0.45 after the noise control. Conclusion: Step changes in OISST input and noise cause most of the reported doubling of daily SST persistence. A smaller rise of about 1 day per decade remains in OISST and is not confirmed in situ. Limitations: buoy data are OISST inputs; the buoys do not sample the Southern Ocean or subtropical gyres; we did not reproduce the exact method of Lee et al.; the last noise step occurs at the same time as the strong 2023-2024 warm events.

Question: Lee et al. (2025) used daily OISST and reported that the memory of sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies increased by about 100% from 1982 to 2021. Is this increase a property of the ocean, or of one data product? Approach: We calculated autocorrelation statistics on one ice-free ocean area (60S-60N) in daily OISST v2.1 (1-degree subsample of 0.25-degree pixels, 1982-2025), weekly OISST v2, ERSST v5 and HadISST 1.1. We used block-bootstrap intervals, a noise-robust ratio of lag correlations, a two-part (fast and slow) split, and like-for-like tests on the same 2-degree boxes and weeks. Findings: In daily OISST v2.1 the median pixel memory time (tau1 = -1/ln r1) increased from 10.6 days (1982-1991) to 31.9 days (2016-2025). This agrees with Lee et al. But the day-to-day share of variance decreased by half (0.199 to 0.092), and the decay of the slow part did not change (r60/r30 0.652 and 0.655). One AR(1) process with the observed tau1 predicts a +0.29 increase of the 30-day-mean correlation; the observed increase is +0.05. Median tau1 has a step of +31 days (SE 1.9) in 2022, after the documented change to ACSPO satellite input on 1 October 2021 (we selected this test after we saw the data). On the same 7,004 boxes, the lag-1-week correlation increased from 0.726 to 0.810 in daily OISST v2.1 but stayed at 0.757-0.760 in weekly OISST v2. From 1983-2002 to 2003-2022 the monthly lag-1 autocorrelation changed by +0.021 (95% -0.013 to +0.056) in ERSST v5, -0.075 (-0.117 to -0.036) in HadISST and -0.007 (-0.047 to +0.034) in OISST v2. Conclusion and limitations: The reported memory increase is mostly a loss of fast, day-to-day variance in one product, with a large step at an input change. It does not agree with a uniform increase of thermal inertia. The products do not agree on a common weekly or monthly change, so the observations do not yet support a global increase or the predicted decrease. A real decrease of day-to-day variance cannot be fully excluded, the daily data are subsampled, and we did not examine satellite observation counts.