Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 76 references

Profile-Likelihood and Baseline-Sensitivity Diagnostics for Digitized Radiation-Sensor Decay Datasets

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A weighted exponential fit to digitized points from a published 198Au decay plot reproduces the reported half-life, 2.6687 ± 0.0171 d, and shows that small baseline offsets—not statistical scatter—dominate figure-level reanalysis uncertaint

desk verdict A careful, honest figure-level QA workflow whose real novelty is the reporting hierarchy; the digitized-data reproduction of the 198Au half-life is plausible but would be stronger with a blinded repeat digitization. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.13118 v1 pith:WXVFTZC3 submitted 2026-07-14 physics.data-an nucl-ex

Victor V. Golovko This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.data-annucl-ex
keywords radioactivedecayhalf-lifeestimation198Auplotdigitizationprofilelikelihoodbaselinesensitivityexponentialfittingmostfrequentvalue
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper asks how much of a published half-life measurement survives when only the plotted decay curve is available. It digitizes the room-temperature 198Au decay figure from an earlier experiment and fits a no-offset exponential, recovering T1/2 = 2.6687 ± 0.0171 d against the reported 2.669 ± 0.017 d. The main finding is that the fit is locally well constrained but globally sensitive to additive baseline offsets: a uniform ±0.05 cps shift moves the half-life by up to 0.054 d, roughly three times the statistical error. The paper packages this as a reporting hierarchy—primary estimate, statistical uncertainty, figure-level sensitivity scale, and diagnostic checks kept separate—so that secondary analysts do not overstate what plot-level data can certify. It matters because many legacy and modern experimental datasets are available only as reduced plots, and reproducibility tests need to know which parts of an inference are actually identifiable.

What carries the argument

The central device is the signed residual-offset exponential model A(t) = A0 exp(−ln 2 · t / T1/2) + Boff, where Boff is allowed to be positive or negative. At fixed T1/2 the model is linear in (A0, Boff), so the nuisance offset can be profiled out by weighted least squares without iterative nonlinear refits, yielding a smooth profile in T1/2 that exposes the offset–lifetime trade-off. Supporting machinery includes profile-likelihood scans that refit the remaining parameter at each fixed T1/2, pairwise count-rate ratios that cancel the normalization, a most-frequent-value robust summary for heavy-tailed lifetime distributions, and toy Monte Carlo controls that separate estimator behavior fro

What would settle it

Obtain the original count-rate table for the same room-temperature decay curve and repeat the no-offset and signed-offset fits on the raw values. If the raw-data offset profile is narrow and a ±0.05 cps offset moves the half-life by much less than 0.054 d, the digitization-based sensitivity envelope overstates the true baseline sensitivity. A simpler independent check: have several operators digitize the same published figure and compare the spread in extracted low-rate points; if that spread exceeds roughly 0.03 cps, the reproduced half-life can move outside the quoted statistical band.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is that the digitized 198Au room-temperature decay curve retains the decay scale of the original experiment: the weighted no-offset fit gives T1/2 = (2.6687 ± 0.0171) d, matching the published individual-curve value (2.669 ± 0.017) d, with a profile-likelihood interval of [2.6546, 2.6830] d and a strong A0–T1/2 correlation of −0.831. The same data, however, cannot separate a small constant residual offset from a change in the decay constant over the 3.2-day window. A uniform offset of ±0.05 cps changes the fitted half-life by up to 0.0540 d, and an unconstrained signed-offset profile moves the minimum to roughly 2.82–2.85 d, comparable to the original room-temperature vers

Load-bearing premise

The entire reconstruction hangs on the digitized point coordinates and displayed error bars faithfully representing the plotted data; if the manual axis calibration or point placement is systematically off, especially near the low-count-rate end, the recovered half-life and the offset sensitivity both change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Figure-level digitized data can reproduce a published half-life central value within its quoted statistical uncertainty, at least for well-resolved single-exponential curves.
  • Additive baseline offsets are the dominant analysis-level perturbation for figure-only reconstruction: a ±0.05 cps uniform shift moves the half-life by about 2%, so such reconstructions should carry a separate, non-statistical sensitivity scale.
  • Finite-window exponential data produce systematic estimator shifts—lower pairwise and most-frequent-value central values and broad offset profiles—that are expected and should not be read as evidence for a different physical half-life.
  • Lengthening the observation window reduces normalization–lifetime and offset–lifetime degeneracy, which means window length is a first-order design consideration for any half-life reanalysis.
  • The same reporting hierarchy can be applied to other radionuclides with published decay plots, such as argon-39, to test which parts of a half-life claim are reproducible from reduced data alone.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: the measured baseline sensitivity is large enough that any reported systematic uncertainty smaller than about 0.05 d for this dataset cannot be validated from the figure alone; only raw-data access could certify such precision.
  • Inference: the offset–lifetime trade-off suggests a concrete test for the historical temperature-dependence question: if the original spectra were reanalyzed with an explicit constant-baseline nuisance, part of the apparent room-temperature versus low-temperature difference might be absorbable by baseline shifts.
  • Inference: analysts applying pairwise or most-frequent-value summaries to short-window legacy plots should run matching toy controls; without them, downward shifts in robust estimators could be mistaken for genuine half-life differences.
  • Inference: the same diagnostic hierarchy could be calibrated into a decision rule—if the offset-scan envelope exceeds the claimed total uncertainty of a published value, the plot-level data cannot support that precision claim.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a reproducible reduced-data workflow for testing half-life estimates from digitized radiation-sensor decay plots, using the 198Au room-temperature curve of Spillane et al. as a case study. The author digitizes 78 count-rate points with error bars from the published figure, fits a weighted single-exponential no-offset model, and obtains T1/2 = (2.6687 ± 0.0171) d and A0 = (3.7333 ± 0.0103) cps, closely reproducing the published values T1/2 = (2.669 ± 0.017) d and A(0) = (3.68 ± 0.04) cps. The paper then applies a battery of diagnostics: profile likelihoods, uniform count-rate offsets, time-origin shifts, time-scale distortions, window/truncation and leave-one-out tests, pairwise-ratio and MFV summaries, MDR smoothing, an FFT residual-baseline check, and toy Monte Carlo controls. The main conclusion is that figure-level data can preserve the half-life scale sufficiently for a regression check, but that baseline-like offsets are the dominant figure-level sensitivity and should be reported as a separate diagnostic scale, not as a calibrated systematic uncertainty.

Significance. If the digitized data are unbiased, the paper provides a useful and unusually transparent case study in reduced-data analysis: it separates the primary fit from statistical uncertainty, figure-level sensitivity, and robustness diagnostics, and it makes data and scripts available on OSF. The external validation of the MFV implementation against the neutron-lifetime benchmark and the toy-MC controls that separate finite-window estimator behavior from digitization artifacts are genuine strengths. However, the central claim — that the digitized dataset reproduces the published half-life — rests on the accuracy of manual digitization, which is not independently validated. The fitted A0 excess and the lack of reported Δχ² values for the signed-offset profile are specific weaknesses that need to be addressed before the reproduction claim can be taken as established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2, Sec. 4.1, Sec. 4.7] The load-bearing claim that the no-offset fit reproduces the published half-life is not validated against an independent digitization or a synthetic-figure calibration. The point-picking jitter test in Sec. 4.7 perturbs the already-selected points and cannot detect a systematic selection toward the known published curve, a shared axis-calibration error, or a uniform vertical bias. The fitted A0 = 3.7333 ± 0.0103 cps is 0.053 cps above the published A(0) = 3.68 ± 0.04 cps — about five times the fit standard error and roughly 1.3 combined standard deviations — and this difference is comparable to the ±0.05 cps uniform offset that changes T1/2 by 0.054 d. The paper should either test for a vertical extraction bias of this size, show why such a bias would not affect the half-life, or provide an independent blinded re-digitization / synthetic-figure calibration before asserting that the half-
  2. [Sec. 4.6] The signed-offset profile is used to support a non-identifiability conclusion, but the paper reports no Δχ² values for the profile minima at T1/2 ≈ 2.82–2.85 d. Without these values, the reader cannot distinguish a shallow valley that supports the 'diagnostic only' interpretation from a statistically significant three-parameter alternative. This matters because the reported shift (0.181 d) is larger than the published room-temperature vs 12 K difference (0.096 d). Please report Δχ²(T1/2 = 2.85 d) relative to the no-offset fit, and if the valley is broad, give the profile width at the usual thresholds (e.g., Δχ² = 1 or 2.71). Only then can the claim that the offset model is non-identifiable rather than preferred be evaluated.
  3. [Sec. 3.2, Sec. 4.7, Sec. 6] The manuscript states in Sec. 3.2 that when χ²/ndf > 1 the reported uncertainty should be scaled by s = sqrt(χ²/ndf), and Sec. 4.2 reports s = 1.201. However, the final statistical uncertainty in Sec. 4.7 and Sec. 6 is the unscaled value ±0.0171 d (and Table 1 reports the covariance-matrix standard error as ±0.0171 d). With s = 1.201, the scaled statistical uncertainty would be ±0.0205 d. The paper should either apply the scale factor consistently throughout the reporting hierarchy or explicitly state that all 'stat' entries are unscaled and that the scale factor is provided only as a diagnostic. As written, the internal inconsistency undercuts the paper's own stated reporting rule.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2] The phrase 'the uncertainties shown in the published plot were described as statistically significant' should presumably read 'statistical uncertainties'; please correct the wording.
  2. [Table 1 / Sec. 4.5] The row 'Constant uncertainty check, σ = median(σ_i)' appears in Table 1 but is not explained in the text of Sec. 4.5. Please describe this test in the main text and state what it is designed to probe.
  3. [Sec. 4.8] The percentile-bootstrap intervals for the pairwise median and MFV are obtained by resampling the 78 original points, then recomputing the pairwise distribution. Because pairwise ratios share points, these intervals are only approximate diagnostic intervals. The text acknowledges the shared-point structure, but the distinction between resampling points and resampling independent pairwise ratios should be stated more explicitly in the method description.
  4. [Appendix A] The MDR fits report χ²/ndf values from 0.051 to 1.586; the text correctly notes that the MDR points are correlated and that the formal fit uncertainties are not meaningful. This is appropriate, but it would be clearer to state up front that the MDR χ²/ndf values are listed only as descriptive quantities, not as goodness-of-fit statistics.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central reproduction is a genuine external benchmark and the supporting diagnostics are internal controls, not derived predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that a weighted no-offset exponential fit to manually digitized points from Spillane et al. (Ref. [18]) reproduces the published half-life, 2.6687±0.0171 d vs. 2.669±0.017 d. The fitted half-life is obtained from the digitized count rates alone; the published value is used only as an external benchmark for comparison, so the claimed reproduction is a self-consistency check rather than an equation-level circularity. The toy Monte Carlo diagnostics are generated from the no-offset best-fit model, but they are used only to calibrate the expected behavior of pairwise/MFV estimators under an assumed null model, and the paper explicitly states they are not an alternative measurement of the 198Au half-life. This is a standard parametric-bootstrap-style control, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The signed-offset profile and offset scans are sensitivity diagnostics and are explicitly not treated as revised half-life estimates. The MFV method is attributed to Steiner, and the implementation is validated against the external neutron-lifetime benchmark of Zhang et al. (Ref. [41]) rather than relying on the author's own prior papers; the self-citations to Refs. [25, 26, 44, 55, 56, 62, 71] are contextual and not load-bearing. The acknowledged digitization limitations (Section 2) and the possibility of manual point-picking bias are correctness risks, not circularity: the paper does not use the target result as an input to its derivation. Accordingly, no specific circular reduction can be exhibited, and the appropriate verdict is no significant circularity, with a minor score adjustment only for the presence of non-load-bearing self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; Boff is a statistical nuisance parameter, not a claimed new force, particle, or conserved quantity. The free parameters are fitted model parameters and hand-chosen perturbation ranges that determine the sensitivity envelope.

free parameters (6)
  • A0 (initial count rate) = 3.7333 cps
    Fitted in Eq. (1); strongly correlated with T1/2 (ρ=-0.831), and the degeneracy is central to the sensitivity story.
  • T1/2 (half-life) = 230575 s = 2.6687 d
    Target parameter fitted to the digitized data; not a hidden free parameter, but the central claim rests on this fit.
  • Boff (signed residual offset) = -0.167 cps (free) / -0.137 cps (weak prior) at profile minima
    Nuisance parameter in Eq. (4); its tradeoff with T1/2 produces the 2.82-2.85 d diagnostic minima.
  • sigma_B (prior width) = 0.2928 cps
    Chosen as 3x the empirical width 0.0976 cps near Δχ²≤1; softens the offset prior in Eq. (5).
  • Uniform offset scan range b = ±0.05 cps
    Chosen by hand; defines the 0.054 d 'fig' sensitivity scale in Table 1.
  • Time-scale distortion range = ±0.5%
    Arbitrary test range; produces ±1153 s half-life shifts.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Single exponential decay model A(t) = A0 exp(-ln2 t/T1/2)
    Used throughout; original data may contain multi-component or detector effects, but the paper treats this model as adequate (Sec. 3.1).
  • domain assumption Independent Gaussian errors with variances from digitized error bars
    Diagonal error model; correlations from shared axis calibration cannot be reconstructed (Sec. 3).
  • domain assumption Digitized points and uncertainties faithfully represent the published figure
    Foundation of all results; manual digitization with two-point calibration (Sec. 2).
  • domain assumption Data are background-subtracted, so additive offsets are signed residual terms, not physical backgrounds
    Interpretation of Boff in Eq. (4) and exclusion of nonnegative background as primary (Sec. 3.4).
  • standard math Δχ²=1 threshold approximates a 68.27% confidence interval
    Profile-likelihood convention under Gaussian errors; the paper notes it is not exact (Sec. 3.3).
  • standard math Levenberg-Marquardt weighted least squares gives local covariance estimates
    Algorithm from Moré (1978); used for fits (Sec. 3.1).
  • domain assumption Toy data generated from the no-offset model are a valid control for estimator bias
    Used to interpret pairwise/MFV shifts; controls are idealized and not alternative measurements (Sec. 4.9).
  • domain assumption Published 198Au half-life of Ref. [18] is the correct external benchmark
    Used as the reference value in Secs. 4.1 and 6.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Profile-Likelihood and Baseline-Sensitivity Diagnostics for Digitized Radiation-Sensor Decay Datasets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WXVFTZC3

@misc{pith2026260713118,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Profile-Likelihood and Baseline-Sensitivity Diagnostics for Digitized Radiation-Sensor Decay Datasets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WXVFTZC3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.13118}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate interpretation of radiation-sensor decay data is important for environmental monitoring, site remediation, radiation metrology, detector quality assurance, and nuclear data evaluation. When the original gamma-spectrometry records are unavailable, a published decay plot may be the only source that can be reanalyzed independently. This study presents a reproducible reduced-data workflow for testing half-life estimates from a digitized 198-Au decay dataset. A weighted exponential fit to the digitized data points reproduces the published room-temperature half-life, indicating that the main decay scale is retained in the figure-level dataset. The analysis then tests how the fitted result changes under plausible figure-level effects, including baseline-like offsets, time-axis reconstruction, finite-window leverage, and ratio-based robustness checks using pairwise summaries and Steiner's most frequent value statistics. The no-offset fit is locally well constrained, but small constant offsets can shift the fitted half-life because the normalization, decay constant, and residual baseline are partly degenerate over the limited time window. Toy Monte Carlo diagnostics show that some estimator shifts are expected for finite-window exponential data. This study does not revise recommended nuclear data or replace the original experiment. Instead, it shows how published radiation-sensor decay data can be tested for reproducibility, identifiability, and sensitivity to analysis choices when only reduced or figure-level information is available.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13118 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Workflow for reduced-data quality assurance of a digitized radiation-sensor decay dataset. The input is the published plotted dataset, meaning the individual count-rate points and displayed error bars. The workflow separates the primary no-offset regression estimate from residual checks, profile-likelihood intervals, sensitivity tests, and supporting robustness diagnostics. Final reporting separates the primary esti… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Baseline weighted fit of Eq. (1) to the digitized 198Au data points extracted from the published figure. The top panel shows the fitted decay curve and digitized count-rate data with error bars. The bottom panel shows the normalized residuals of ri = [Ai − Aˆ(ti )]/σi . The same color coding is used in both panels: black for |ri | ≤ 1, blue for 1 < |ri | ≤ 2, and red for |ri | > 2. This color mapping links each data… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Profile likelihood for the no-offset exponential model, shown as ∆χ 2 versus the mean lifetime τ = T1/2/ ln 2 in days. The solid vertical line marks the best-fit value, while the dashed vertical lines mark the approximate one-standard-deviation interval obtained from the ∆χ 2 = 1 crossing for one parameter of interest. The horizontal dashed line at ∆χ 2 = 1 indicates the approximate 68.27% confidence interval thresh… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sensitivity of the fitted half-life to a uniform additive offset b applied to all digitized count rates. The offset scan shows that baseline-like shifts at the level of tens of milli-cps can move the inferred T1/2 by up to about 0.0540 d, or 1.30 h. This makes the addi…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Residual-offset profile likelihood for the background-subtracted, digitized figure-level dataset. The figure shows ∆χ 2 (T1/2) under the signed residual-offset model for the unconstrained offset (LS: free) and weakly regularized offset (LS: prior) variants. The broad p…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: All-valid-pair distribution of pairwise lifetime estimates, τij, from the digitized 198Au decay data. The green histogram shows the pairwise lifetime distribution. Vertical markers show the regression estimate, pairwise median, and pairwise MFV. The blue band shows the…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    An Open-Source Iterative Python Module for the Automated Identification of Photopeaks in Photon Spectra.Radiation2022,2, 193–214

    Fearn, S.J.; et al. An Open-Source Iterative Python Module for the Automated Identification of Photopeaks in Photon Spectra.Radiation2022,2, 193–214. doi: 10.3390/radiation2020014

    work page doi:10.3390/radiation2020014

  2. [2]

    Precision Measurement of Radioactivity in Gamma-Rays Spectrometry Using Two HPGe Detectors Comparison Techniques: Application to the Soil Measurement.MethodsX2017,4, 42–54

    Guembou Shouop, C.J.; et al. Precision Measurement of Radioactivity in Gamma-Rays Spectrometry Using Two HPGe Detectors Comparison Techniques: Application to the Soil Measurement.MethodsX2017,4, 42–54. doi: 10.1016/j.mex.2016.12.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.mex.2016.12.003 2016

  3. [3]

    Development of a UAV-Based Gamma Spectrometry System for Natural Radionuclides and Field Tests at Central Asian Uranium Legacy Sites.Remote Sens.2022,14, 2147

    Kunze, C.; et al. Development of a UAV-Based Gamma Spectrometry System for Natural Radionuclides and Field Tests at Central Asian Uranium Legacy Sites.Remote Sens.2022,14, 2147. doi: 10.3390/rs14092147

    work page doi:10.3390/rs14092147 2022

  4. [4]

    Handheld Magnetic-Compliant Gamma-Ray Spectrometer for Environmental Monitor- ing and Scrap Metal Screening.Sensors2022,22, 1412

    Carminati, M.; et al. Handheld Magnetic-Compliant Gamma-Ray Spectrometer for Environmental Monitor- ing and Scrap Metal Screening.Sensors2022,22, 1412. doi: 10.3390/s22041412

    work page doi:10.3390/s22041412

  5. [5]

    The Activation Method for Cross Section Measurements in Nuclear Astrophysics.Eur

    Gyürky, G.; et al. The Activation Method for Cross Section Measurements in Nuclear Astrophysics.Eur. Phys. J. A2019,55, 41. doi: 10.1140/epja/i2019-12708-4

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/i2019-12708-4

  6. [6]

    A Head-to-Head Comparison between Two Commercial Software Packages for Hy- brid Dosimetry after Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy.EJNMMI Phys.2020,7, 36

    Huizing, D.M.V .; et al. A Head-to-Head Comparison between Two Commercial Software Packages for Hy- brid Dosimetry after Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy.EJNMMI Phys.2020,7, 36. doi: 10.1186/s40658- 020-00308-9

    work page doi:10.1186/s40658- 2020

  7. [7]

    Usefulness of Continuous Probability Distributions of Rates for Modelling Radionuclide Biokinetics in Humans and Animals.Sci

    Shuryak, I.; et al. Usefulness of Continuous Probability Distributions of Rates for Modelling Radionuclide Biokinetics in Humans and Animals.Sci. Rep.2019,9, 1218. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-38046-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-018-38046-9 2019

  8. [8]

    Systematic Influences on the Areas of Peaks in Gamma-Ray Spectra That Have a Large Statistical Uncertainty.Appl

    Bruggeman, M.; et al. Systematic Influences on the Areas of Peaks in Gamma-Ray Spectra That Have a Large Statistical Uncertainty.Appl. Radiat. Isot.2018,134, 51–55. doi: 10.1016/j.apradiso.2017.06.016

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apradiso.2017.06.016 2018

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    A Baseline Estimation Procedure to Improve MDA Evaluation in Gamma-Ray Spec- trometry.Eur

    Tomarchio, E.; et al. A Baseline Estimation Procedure to Improve MDA Evaluation in Gamma-Ray Spec- trometry.Eur. Phys. J. Plus2023,138, 700. doi: 10.1140/epjp/s13360-023-04308-3

    doi

  2. [10]

    doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-03762-2

    Brandt, S.Data Analysis: Statistical and Computational Methods for Scientists and Engineers, 4th ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2014. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-03762-2

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    Direct Measurement of the39Ar Half-Life from 3.4 Years of Data with the DEAP-3600 Detector.Eur

    Adhikari, P .; et al. Direct Measurement of the39Ar Half-Life from 3.4 Years of Data with the DEAP-3600 Detector.Eur. Phys. J. C2025,85, 728. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-14289-5

    doi

  4. [12]

    Using CMS Open Data in Research—Challenges and Directions.EPJ Web Conf.2021,251, 01004

    Lassila-Perini, K.; Lange, C.; Carrera Jarrin, E.; Bellis, M. Using CMS Open Data in Research—Challenges and Directions.EPJ Web Conf.2021,251, 01004. doi: 10.1051/epjconf/202125101004. 35 of 37

    2021

  5. [13]

    A Detailed Map of Higgs Boson Interactions by the ATLAS Experiment Ten Years after the Discovery.Nature2022,607, 52–59

    ATLAS Collaboration. A Detailed Map of Higgs Boson Interactions by the ATLAS Experiment Ten Years after the Discovery.Nature2022,607, 52–59. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04893-w

    doi

  6. [14]

    A Portrait of the Higgs Boson by the CMS Experiment Ten Years after the Discovery

    CMS Collaboration. A Portrait of the Higgs Boson by the CMS Experiment Ten Years after the Discovery. Nature2022,607, 60–68. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04892-x

    doi

  7. [15]

    Available online: WebPlotDigitizer ( accessed on 9 July 2026)

    Rohatgi, A.WebPlotDigitizer, version 4.8; Automeris LLC: Pacifica, CA, USA, 2024. Available online: WebPlotDigitizer ( accessed on 9 July 2026)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Validity and Reliability Analysis of the PlotDigitizer Software Program for Data Extraction from Single-Case Graphs.Perspect

    Aydin, O.; et al. Validity and Reliability Analysis of the PlotDigitizer Software Program for Data Extraction from Single-Case Graphs.Perspect. Behav. Sci.2022,45, 239–257. doi: 10.1007/s40614-021-00284-0

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    Nuclear Data Sheets for A= 198.Nucl

    Huang, X.; et al. Nuclear Data Sheets for A= 198.Nucl. Data Sheets2016,133, 221–416. doi: 10.1016/j.nds.2016.02.002

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    The 198Auβ Half-Life in the Metal Au.Eur

    Spillane, T.; et al. The 198Auβ Half-Life in the Metal Au.Eur. Phys. J. A2007,31, 203. doi: 10.1140/epja/i2006- 10212-8

    doi

  11. [19]

    Half-Life Heresy.New Sci.2006,192, 36–39

    Muir, H. Half-Life Heresy.New Sci.2006,192, 36–39. doi: 10.1016/S0262-4079(06)60789-6

    2006 doi

  12. [20]

    Potential Enhancement of Alpha Decay in Metals at Cryogenic Temperatures.Eur

    Belli, P .; et al. Potential Enhancement of Alpha Decay in Metals at Cryogenic Temperatures.Eur. Phys. J. Plus 2026,141, 363. doi: 10.1140/epjp/s13360-026-07605-9

    2026 doi

  13. [21]

    The Half-Life of 198Au: High-Precision Measurement Shows No Temperature Depen- dence.Eur

    Goodwin, J.R.; et al. The Half-Life of 198Au: High-Precision Measurement Shows No Temperature Depen- dence.Eur. Phys. J. A2007,34, 271–274. doi: 10.1140/epja/i2007-10509-0

    doi

  14. [22]

    Measurement of the Half-Life of 198Au in a Nonmetal: High-Precision Measurement Shows No Host-Material Dependence.Phys

    Goodwin, J.R.; et al. Measurement of the Half-Life of 198Au in a Nonmetal: High-Precision Measurement Shows No Host-Material Dependence.Phys. Rev. C2010,82, 044320. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.82.044320

    doi

  15. [23]

    Tests of Nuclear Half-Lives as a Function of the Host Medium and Temperature: Refutation of Recent Claims.Appl

    Hardy, J.C.; et al. Tests of Nuclear Half-Lives as a Function of the Host Medium and Temperature: Refutation of Recent Claims.Appl. Radiat. Isot.2010,68, 1550–1554. doi: 10.1016/j.apradiso.2009.11.047

    2010 doi

  16. [24]

    Dissertation, Texas A&M University: College Station, TX, USA, 2012

    Goodwin, J.R.Can Environmental Factors Affect Half-Life in Beta-Decay? An Analysis; Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas A&M University: College Station, TX, USA, 2012. Available online: http://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/148338/GOODWIN-DISSERTATION- 2012.pdf ( acce...

    2012

  17. [25]

    Robust Lifetime Estimation from HPGe Radiation-Sensor Time Series Using Pairwise Ratios and MFV Statistics.Sensors2026,26, 706

    Golovko, V .V . Robust Lifetime Estimation from HPGe Radiation-Sensor Time Series Using Pairwise Ratios and MFV Statistics.Sensors2026,26, 706. doi: 10.3390/s26020706

    doi

  18. [26]

    Improving Confidence Intervals and Central Value Estimation in Small Datasets through Hybrid Parametric Bootstrapping.Inf

    Golovko, V .V . Improving Confidence Intervals and Central Value Estimation in Small Datasets through Hybrid Parametric Bootstrapping.Inf. Sci.2025,716, 122254. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2025.122254

    2025

  19. [27]

    Experiences with the Ge(Li) Detector for High-Resolution Gamma Ray Spectrometry and a Practical Approach to the Pulse Pileup Problem.Nucl

    Anders, O.U. Experiences with the Ge(Li) Detector for High-Resolution Gamma Ray Spectrometry and a Practical Approach to the Pulse Pileup Problem.Nucl. Instrum. Methods1969,68, 205–208. doi: 10.1016/0029- 554X(69)90220-1

    doi

  20. [28]

    The Levenberg–Marquardt Algorithm: Implementation and Theory

    Moré, J.J. The Levenberg–Marquardt Algorithm: Implementation and Theory. InNumerical Analysis: Proceedings of the Biennial Conference Held at Dundee, June 28–July 1, 1977; Watson, G.A., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1978; pp. 105–116. doi: 10.1007/BFb0067700

    1977 doi

  21. [29]

    Exponential Analysis in Physical Phenomena.Rev

    Istratov, A.A.; et al. Exponential Analysis in Physical Phenomena.Rev. Sci. Instrum.1999,70, 1233–1257. doi: 10.1063/1.1149581

    1999 doi

  22. [30]

    Theory of Nuclear Half-Life Determination by Statistical Sampling.Europhys

    Silverman, M.P . Theory of Nuclear Half-Life Determination by Statistical Sampling.Europhys. Lett.2014,105, 22001. doi: 10.1209/0295-5075/105/22001

    2014 doi

  23. [31]

    Measuring Radioactive Half-Lives via Statistical Sampling in Practice.Europhys

    Lorusso, G.; et al. Measuring Radioactive Half-Lives via Statistical Sampling in Practice.Europhys. Lett.2017, 120, 22001. doi: 10.1209/0295-5075/120/22001

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    Most Frequent Value and Cohesion of Probability Distributions.Acta Geod

    Steiner, F. Most Frequent Value and Cohesion of Probability Distributions.Acta Geod. Geophys. Montan. Acad. Sci. Hung.1973,8, 381–395

    1973

  25. [33]

    Most Frequent Value Procedures: A Short Monograph.Geophys

    Steiner, F. Most Frequent Value Procedures: A Short Monograph.Geophys. Trans.1988,34, 139–260

    1988

  26. [34]

    Robust Method for Confidence Interval Estimation in Outlier-Prone Datasets: Application to Molecular and Biophysical Data.Biomolecules2025,15, 704

    Golovko, V .V . Robust Method for Confidence Interval Estimation in Outlier-Prone Datasets: Application to Molecular and Biophysical Data.Biomolecules2025,15, 704. doi: 10.3390/biom15050704

    doi

  27. [35]

    Steiner, F.The Most Frequent Value: Introduction to a Modern Conception of Statistics; Akadémiai Kiadó: Budapest, Hungary, 1991

    1991

  28. [36]

    Steiner, F.Optimum Methods in Statistics; Akadémiai Kiadó: Budapest, Hungary, 1997

    1997

  29. [37]

    Applicability of the Most Frequent Value Method in Groundwater Modeling.Hydrogeol

    Szucs, P .; et al. Applicability of the Most Frequent Value Method in Groundwater Modeling.Hydrogeol. J. 2006,14, 31–43. doi: 10.1007/s10040-004-0426-1

    2006 doi

  30. [38]

    Improved Well Logs Clustering Algorithm for Shale Gas Identification and Formation Evaluation.Acta Geod

    Szabó, N.P .; et al. Improved Well Logs Clustering Algorithm for Shale Gas Identification and Formation Evaluation.Acta Geod. Geophys.2021,56, 711–729. doi: 10.1007/s40328-021-00358-0

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    Most Frequent Value Statistics and Distribution of 7Li Abundance Observations.Mon

    Zhang, J. Most Frequent Value Statistics and Distribution of 7Li Abundance Observations.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.2017,468, 5014–5019. doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx627. 36 of 37

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    Most Frequent Value Statistics and the Hubble Constant.Publ

    Zhang, J. Most Frequent Value Statistics and the Hubble Constant.Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.2018,130, 084502. doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aac767

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    MFV Approach to Robust Estimate of Neutron Lifetime.Eur

    Zhang, J.; et al. MFV Approach to Robust Estimate of Neutron Lifetime.Eur. Phys. J. C2022,82, 1106. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-11071-9

    doi

  34. [42]

    Most Frequent Value Analysis of Distance Measurements to M87.Mon

    Zhang, J.; et al. Most Frequent Value Analysis of Distance Measurements to M87.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2024,533, 2916–2926. doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1958

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    KAN-LSTM-Transformer Neural Networks, MFV and Cosmological Parameters.arXiv 2026, arXiv:2607.06959

    Zhang, J.; Chen, Y.-D. KAN-LSTM-Transformer Neural Networks, MFV and Cosmological Parameters.arXiv 2026, arXiv:2607.06959. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2607.06959

    2026 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    Unveiling Insights: Harnessing the Power of the Most-Frequent-Value Method for Sensor Data Analysis.Sensors2023,23, 8856

    Golovko, V .V .; et al. Unveiling Insights: Harnessing the Power of the Most-Frequent-Value Method for Sensor Data Analysis.Sensors2023,23, 8856. doi: 10.3390/s23218856

    doi

  37. [45]

    doi: 10.32614/R.manuals

    R Core Team.R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2026. doi: 10.32614/R.manuals. Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ ( accessed on 9 July 2026)

    2026 doi

  38. [46]

    Computation of Standard Errors.Health Serv

    Dowd, B.E.; et al. Computation of Standard Errors.Health Serv. Res.2014,49, 731–750. doi: 10.1111/1475- 6773.12122

    2014

  39. [47]

    A Method for Computing Profile-Likelihood-Based Confidence Intervals.J

    Venzon, D.J.; et al. A Method for Computing Profile-Likelihood-Based Confidence Intervals.J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. C Appl. Stat.1988,37, 87–94. doi: 10.2307/2347496

    1988 doi

  40. [48]

    Limits and Confidence Intervals in the Presence of Nuisance Parameters.Nucl

    Rolke, W.A.; et al. Limits and Confidence Intervals in the Presence of Nuisance Parameters.Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A2005,551, 493–503. doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2005.05.068

    2005 doi

  41. [49]

    Structural and Practical Identifiability Analysis of Partially Observed Dynamical Models by Exploiting the Profile Likelihood.Bioinformatics2009,25, 1923–1929

    Raue, A.; et al. Structural and Practical Identifiability Analysis of Partially Observed Dynamical Models by Exploiting the Profile Likelihood.Bioinformatics2009,25, 1923–1929. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp358

    1923 doi

  42. [50]

    Asymptotic Formulae for Likelihood-Based Tests of New Physics.Eur

    Cowan, G.; et al. Asymptotic Formulae for Likelihood-Based Tests of New Physics.Eur. Phys. J. C2011,71,

  43. [51]

    Statistics

    Cowan, G. Statistics. InReview of Particle Physics; Particle Data Group, 2023. Available online: https: //pdg.lbl.gov/2023/reviews/rpp2023-rev-statistics.pdf ( accessed on 9 July 2026)

    2023

  44. [52]

    An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality: Complete Samples.Biometrika1965,52, 591–611

    Shapiro, S.S.; et al. An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality: Complete Samples.Biometrika1965,52, 591–611. doi: 10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591

    doi

  45. [53]

    Asymptotic Theory of Certain Goodness-of-Fit Criteria Based on Stochastic Processes

    Anderson, T.W.; et al. Asymptotic Theory of Certain Goodness-of-Fit Criteria Based on Stochastic Processes. Ann. Math. Stat.1952,23, 193–212. doi: 10.1214/aoms/1177729437

    1952

  46. [54]

    On the Kolmogorov–Smirnov Test for Normality with Mean and Variance Unknown.J

    Lilliefors, H.W. On the Kolmogorov–Smirnov Test for Normality with Mean and Variance Unknown.J. Am. Stat. Assoc.1967,62, 399–402. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1967.10482916

    1967

  47. [55]

    Simplified Efficiency Calibration Methods for Semiconductor Detectors Used in Criticality Dosimetry.Appl

    Golovko, V .V . Simplified Efficiency Calibration Methods for Semiconductor Detectors Used in Criticality Dosimetry.Appl. Radiat. Isot.2022,187, 110335. doi: 10.1016/j.apradiso.2022.110335

    2022

  48. [56]

    Simplified Efficiency Calibration Methods for Scintillation Detectors Used in Nuclear Remedi- ation.J

    Golovko, V .V . Simplified Efficiency Calibration Methods for Scintillation Detectors Used in Nuclear Remedi- ation.J. Clean. Prod.2024,478, 143910. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.143910

    2024

  49. [57]

    Robustness in the Strategy of Scientific Model Building

    Box, G.E.P . Robustness in the Strategy of Scientific Model Building. InRobustness in Statistics; Launer, R.L., Wilkinson, G.N., Eds.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1979; pp. 201–236. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12- 438150-6.50018-2

    1979 doi

  50. [58]

    On the Variety of Methods for Calculating Confidence Intervals by Bootstrapping.J

    Puth, M.-T.; et al. On the Variety of Methods for Calculating Confidence Intervals by Bootstrapping.J. Anim. Ecol.2015,84, 892–897. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.12382

    2015

  51. [59]

    doi: 10.1201/9780429246593

    Efron, B.; et al.An Introduction to the Bootstrap; Chapman and Hall/CRC: New York, NY, USA, 1993. doi: 10.1201/9780429246593

    1993 doi

  52. [60]

    Davison, A.C.; et al.Bootstrap Methods and Their Application; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK,

  53. [61]

    Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC, USA, 2006; Report EPA/600/R-06/022

    Singh, A.; et al.On the Computation of a 95% Upper Confidence Limit of the Unknown Population Mean Based Upon Data Sets with Below Detection Limit Observations; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC, USA, 2006; Report EPA/600/...

    2006

  54. [62]

    Optimizing Sensor Data Interpretation via Hybrid Parametric Bootstrapping.Sensors2025,25,

    Golovko, V .V . Optimizing Sensor Data Interpretation via Hybrid Parametric Bootstrapping.Sensors2025,25,

  55. [63]

    (Particle Data Group)

    Workman, R.L.; et al. (Particle Data Group). Review of Particle Physics.Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys.2022,2022, 083C01. doi: 10.1093/ptep/ptac097

    2022 doi

  56. [64]

    Analysis of Exponential Curves by a Method of Moments, with Special Attention to Sedi- mentation Equilibrium and Fluorescence Decay.Biochemistry1971,10, 3233–3241

    Dyson, R.D.; et al. Analysis of Exponential Curves by a Method of Moments, with Special Attention to Sedi- mentation Equilibrium and Fluorescence Decay.Biochemistry1971,10, 3233–3241. doi: 10.1021/bi00793a012. 37 of 37

    doi

  57. [65]

    Sulla Determinazione Empirica di una Legge di Distribuzione.G

    Kolmogorov, A.N. Sulla Determinazione Empirica di una Legge di Distribuzione.G. Ist. Ital. Attuari1933,4, 83–91

  58. [67]

    Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods.Biom

    Wilcoxon, F. Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods.Biom. Bull.1945,1, 80–83. doi: 10.2307/3001968. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3001968 ( accessed on 9 July 2026)

    1945

  59. [68]

    On a Test of Whether One of Two Random Variables Is Stochastically Larger than the Other.Ann

    Mann, H.B.; et al. On a Test of Whether One of Two Random Variables Is Stochastically Larger than the Other.Ann. Math. Stat.1947,18, 50–60. doi: 10.1214/aoms/1177730491

    1947

  60. [69]

    Recommended Conventions for Reporting Results from Direct Dark Matter Searches.Eur

    Baxter, D.; et al. Recommended Conventions for Reporting Results from Direct Dark Matter Searches.Eur. Phys. J. C2021,81, 907. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09655-y

    doi

  61. [70]

    Confidence Limits, Error Bars and Method Comparison in Molecular Modeling

    Nicholls, A. Confidence Limits, Error Bars and Method Comparison in Molecular Modeling. Part 1: The Calculation of Confidence Intervals.J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des.2014,28, 887–918. doi: 10.1007/s10822-014- 9753-z

    2014 doi

  62. [71]

    Application of the Most Frequent Value Method for39Ar Half-Life Determination.Eur

    Golovko, V .V . Application of the Most Frequent Value Method for39Ar Half-Life Determination.Eur. Phys. J. C2023,83, 930. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12113-6

    doi

  63. [72]

    Refinements in the Method of Moments for Analysis of Multiexponential Capacitance Transients in Deep-Level Transient Spectroscopy.J

    Ikossi-Anastasiou, K.; et al. Refinements in the Method of Moments for Analysis of Multiexponential Capacitance Transients in Deep-Level Transient Spectroscopy.J. Appl. Phys.1987,61, 182–190. doi: 10.1063/1.338852

    1987 doi

  64. [73]

    The Analysis of Exponential and Nonexponential Transients in Deep-Level Transient Spectroscopy.J

    Kirchner, P .D.; et al. The Analysis of Exponential and Nonexponential Transients in Deep-Level Transient Spectroscopy.J. Appl. Phys.1981,52, 6462–6470. doi: 10.1063/1.328595

    1981 doi

  65. [74]

    On the Mono-Exponential Fitting of Phosphorescence Decays.Appl

    Fuhrmann, N.; et al. On the Mono-Exponential Fitting of Phosphorescence Decays.Appl. Phys. B2014,116, 359–369. doi: 10.1007/s00340-013-5700-2

    doi

  66. [1183]

    doi: 10.3390/s25041183

    doi

  67. [1554]

    doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1554-0

    doi

  68. [1997]

    Available online: Google Books record ( accessed on 9 July 2026)

    ISBN: 9780521574716. Available online: Google Books record ( accessed on 9 July 2026)

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.