ArticleJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2023
Seeing through noise in power laws.
Article in Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Universal scale-free representations in human visual cortex.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Scaling in branch thickness and the fractal aesthetic of trees.PNAS nexus · 2025Article
- Seeing through noise in power laws.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite widespread claims of power laws across the natural and social sciences, evidence in data is often equivocal. Modern data and statistical methods reject even classic power laws such as Pareto's law of wealth and the Gutenberg-Richter law for earthquake magnitudes. We show that the maximum-likelihood estimators and Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) statistics in widespread use are unexpectedly sensitive to ubiquitous errors in data such as measurement noise, quantization noise, heaping and censorship of small values. This sensitivity causes spurious rejection of power laws and biases parameter estimates even in arbitrarily large samples, which explains inconsistencies between theory and data. We show that logarithmic binning by powers of
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.