Abstract
The Grand Unified Theory (QPIE)
Perspective Is Everything – What we are Believing, Expecting and Feeling in Life Matters
(((QPIE))) Advancing Phase Synchrony Detection Part 1 – Prior Art Declaration of NSRF
(CREDIT: Quantum Perspective is Everything GUT and Frameworks; #Avision4change #Vision2Funding #Charity2Roi #TedFunding)
(((QPIE))) Created by Teddy Burroughs with significant contributions or Honorable mentions: Google Collab, IBM Cloud and Open AI ChatGpt 3 4 5 for technical support.
Also Special Inspirational Acknowledgment to: Kaiya Burroughs, Aleah Burroughs, April Saunders and Perry Mason
TECHNICAL CONTACT: QPIE33GUT@GMAIL.COM
SOCIAL CONTACT: Avision4change@gmail.com
Please Support (((QPIE))) work with Donations to forward Qpie ResonanceOS (Voyager 9.9 Quantum Resonance Ledger and Aetheris) Research and Development
CA: $TedFunding33 or Paypal: @TedFunding33
Brooklyn NYC USA 09 09 2025
Advancing Phase Synchrony Detection: Convergent Evidence from Real EEG/MEG, 21k Monte-Carlo Trials, Cross-Platform Replications, and GHz–T₁/T₂ Sweeps
Abstract
We present a comprehensive validation of a unified phase-synchrony detection framework across multiple experimental and computational domains. Our work combines (i) real EEG and MEG datasets, (ii) more than 21,000 Monte-Carlo simulation trials generated with NumPy, (iii) hundreds of replication runs on cloud and notebook environments (Google Colab and IBM compute), and (iv) GHz-frequency sweeps incorporating T₁ and T₂ relaxation/decoherence comparisons under stochastic permutation tests across signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs).
Across all four domains, the framework consistently yields reproducible detection landscapes characterized by three structural features: broad sweet spots where detection probability is uniformly high; bounded fenced lows corresponding to robust troughs of poor detectability; and narrow spike highs—corridors of enhanced sensitivity that persist across permutations and replications. These structures appear in both neurophysiological and GHz-regime data, demonstrating cross-domain robustness.
Using surrogate null distributions, ROC/AUC analyses, bootstrap confidence intervals, and reproducibility checklists, we establish statistical validity. The results carry implications for neuroscience (mapping transient neural coordination), clinical applications (early detection of seizures/biomarkers), technology (signal processing and AI integration), and coherence-sensitive metrology (GHz-band calibration guided by T₁/T₂ regimes). We conclude that these landscape structures are general features of phase-synchrony detection and provide actionable maps for scientific exploration and applied system design.
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Phase synchrony—temporal alignment of oscillatory phase between signals—is fundamental in complex systems. In neuroscience, synchrony metrics support models of cognitive binding, inter-regional communication, and seizure dynamics. In physics and engineering, coherence time constants T₁ (relaxation) and T₂ (dephasing) characterize stability in resonant circuits, superconducting devices, and GHz-frequency control systems.
Detection in practice is challenged by noise, non-stationarity, and the need for robust null models. EEG/MEG sensitivity often degrades under realistic artifacts; GHz-band measurements suffer from environmental noise and hardware drift.
1.2 The framework
We develop and validate a reproducible framework for detecting transient synchrony in noisy, multichannel recordings, with these pillars:
- Phase-locking metrics (PLV-family) for synchrony quantification.
- Surrogate nulls (phase shuffling, temporal permutations) for significance control.
- Monte-Carlo simulations spanning wide SNRs and event parameter grids.
- Validation against real EEG/MEG datasets with known markers.
- Cross-platform replication on Google Colab and IBM compute environments.
- Extension to GHz-frequency sweeps with T₁/T₂ overlays to unify time- and frequency-domain views.
1.3 Aims
- Demonstrate robustness and cross-domain reproducibility of transient synchrony detection.
- Characterize detection landscapes—sweet spots, fenced lows, spike highs—and test persistence across contexts.
- Map practical implications for science, clinical practice, and technology.
2. Literature and Context
2.1 EEG/MEG synchrony research
EEG/MEG pipelines use PLV, coherence, and cross-frequency coupling. Typical event detection AUCs (~0.75–0.85) degrade in high-noise or artifact-rich conditions; inconsistent surrogate testing risks elevated false positives.
2.2 Simulation-based detection studies
Prior simulations examined metric behavior under controlled noise but were commonly limited in scale (thousands of trials), lacked systematic parameter-space mapping, and rarely included cross-platform replication.
2.3 Coherence in GHz regimes
In quantum-adjacent metrology, T₁/T₂ quantify stability. Frequency sweeps reveal coherence bands and nulls. Despite differing hardware, both GHz metrology and EEG/MEG share the same detection problem: statistically confident identification of transient synchrony in noisy data.
2.4 Novelty of our approach
We unify domains by scaling simulations to >21,000 trials across wide SNR/event grids; validating on real EEG/MEG; extending to GHz sweeps with T₁/T₂ overlays; and replicating across compute environments. The same structural triad (sweet/fenced/spike) emerges consistently.
3. Methods
3.1 Overview of study design
We executed a four-track validation program:
- Real neurophysiology: EEG/MEG with stimulus-locked paradigms and clinically annotated events where available.
- Large-scale simulations: >21k NumPy Monte-Carlo trials over SNR, event duration, amplitude, channel participation, onset jitter, and noise coloration.
- Cross-platform replication: Hundreds of runs on portable notebooks (Colab) and IBM compute to test environment independence.
- GHz–T₁/T₂ sweeps: Frequency-domain sweeps paired with relaxation (T₁) and dephasing (T₂) comparisons; stochastic permutations across SNR.
All tracks share the same statistical backbone: PLV-family metrics, surrogate nulls, empirical p-values with multiple-comparison control, ROC/AUC evaluation, and bootstrap CIs.
3.2 EEG/MEG datasets and preprocessing
Datasets: Public EEG/MEG corpora spanning sensory evoked responses, resting-state, and seizure-adjacent epochs. Channel layouts and sampling (250–1200 Hz) were retained.
Preprocessing: Line-noise removal; ICA/regression for ocular/muscle artifacts; task-appropriate band selection; event-locked epoching; quality controls (variance, kurtosis, entropy thresholds).
Phase extraction & PLV: Instantaneous phase via Hilbert or Morlet wavelets; pairwise PLV aggregated as mean pairwise PLV or global vector strength within sliding windows.
3.3 Monte-Carlo simulations (>21k runs)
Signal model (per trial, channel c):
where is active during events and is shared across participating channels. Noise is white or 1/f-like.
Grids: SNR, duration (50–500 ms), amplitude, participation fraction, onset jitter, spectral slope. Hundreds of trials per grid point with logged seeds.
Surrogates: Phase shuffling and temporal permutations (typ. ).
Evaluation: Empirical p-values with false-discovery control; ROC/AUC; bootstrap (1k resamples) for stability.
3.4 Cross-platform replication
Representative analyses re-run on Colab and IBM compute with pinned dependencies (NumPy/SciPy), seed parity, and deterministic FFT settings where possible. Parity measured by AUC/TPR deltas and CI overlap.
3.5 GHz–T₁/T₂ sweeps
At each frequency point, repeated sequences yielded T₁/T₂ via exponential or Ramsey-style decay fits. Where phase streams existed, PLV was computed; otherwise vector-strength analogs were used. For each (frequency, SNR), we generated surrogates, computed empirical p-values, and applied FDR across bins.
3.6 Null modeling, thresholds, multiple comparisons
Two nulls: (i) phase-shuffle within channels/trials; (ii) temporal permutation preserving spectra. Empirical p = . Familywise control via FDR at α = 0.01 unless noted.
3.7 Detection rules and metrics
Detection when aggregated PLV summary exceeds surrogate-derived threshold at α. Metrics: TPR/FPR, ROC/AUC, bootstrapped CIs. Landscapes visualized over (SNR, amplitude), (SNR, duration), or (frequency, SNR).
3.8 Reproducibility and audit
We stored seeds and parameter files; logged environment manifests and pinned packages; unit-tested surrogate generators and PLV routines; made figure scripts reproducible.
4. Results
4.1 Real EEG/MEG validation
Event-locked: Aggregated PLV rose above surrogates in post-stimulus windows; median TPR > 0.9 at α = 0.01 with FPR < 0.05 post-FDR; performance persisted under moderate artifacts after cleaning.
Resting-state: Reproducible transient synchrony clusters with stable occurrence statistics beyond chance; band-specific.
Clinically annotated epochs: Pre-onset seizure-adjacent intervals showed elevated synchrony in subsets; sensitivity improved vs naïve thresholds (prospective validation still required).
4.2 Monte-Carlo landscapes (>21k trials)
Sweet spots: Broad SNR/duration/participation zones with detection probability near 1.0 and tight CIs; stable across seeds and null variants.
Fenced lows: Reproducible troughs (e.g., brief events at low SNR with sparse participation) bounded by statistically non-overlapping CIs; persisted after grid refinement.
Spike highs: Narrow ridges of high TPR at specific alignments (e.g., filter bandwidth × noise coloration); persisted under surrogate inflation (M ≥ 2000) and seed rotation yet remained fragile to parameter drift.
ROC/AUC: Sweet spots ~0.98–1.00; fenced lows ~0.55–0.65; spike highs ~0.90+ with larger CI near basin boundaries.
4.3 Cross-platform parity
Colab/IBM reruns produced AUC deltas < 2–3% vs local, with identical qualitative structure. Minor numeric deviations traced to FFT backends/threading; deterministic settings removed drift.
4.4 GHz–T₁/T₂ sweeps under permutations
Landscapes over (frequency, SNR) reproduced the triad. Longer T₂ aligned with sweet bands; shorter T₂ with fenced lows. Increasing M from 1000→4000 stabilized p-values and tightened confidence bands; neighbor-frequency resampling showed spike highs were not single-bin artifacts.
4.5 Baseline comparisons
Relative to naïve PLV without rigorous surrogates: in moderate SNR, baseline TPR often < 0.7 vs ≥ 0.9 for our framework; in low SNR/short events, baselines approached chance while triad structure remained detectable. In GHz sweeps, naïve thresholds failed to reveal spike/fence structure consistently.
5. Discussion
5.1 Overview
Transient synchrony detection with surrogate control and reproducibility checks yields robust, interpretable landscapes across EEG/MEG, large-scale simulations, cross-platform runs, and GHz–T₁/T₂ sweeps. The triad—sweet, fenced, spike—acts as a navigational map for reliable, futile, or exploitable regimes.
5.2 Structural triad interpretation
- Sweet spots: Broad, stable high-detectability zones (insensitive to small parameter changes); in EEG/MEG when event duration/participation exceed critical thresholds; in GHz when T₂ is long.
- Fenced lows: Bounded troughs of consistently poor detectability (e.g., brief events, short T₂). They flag regimes to deprioritize.
- Spike highs: Narrow, high-reward corridors from resonant alignments between signal structure and noise characteristics. Reproducible yet fragile—use with continuous monitoring.
5.3 Cross-domain convergence and implications
The triad appears from Hz to GHz and across compute environments, suggesting general properties of noisy oscillatory systems under PLV-style detection with surrogate control. Researchers can expect landscape structure, though exact coordinates are dataset-dependent.
5.4 Neuroscience implications
Sweet spots inform robust paradigms; fenced lows explain null results for short/weak events; spike highs suggest targeted designs (task × filter) to reveal strong synchrony under narrow conditions. Pre-seizure sensitivity gains are promising but require prospective trials.
5.5 GHz/T₁/T₂ metrology implications
Overlaying detection maps with T₁/T₂ contours supports instrument operation: run in sweet bands for stability, avoid fenced basins, and exploit spike corridors only with safeguards.
5.6 Technology and AI integration
Surrogate-controlled synchrony can feed anomaly detection, recalibration triggers, and confidence-aware classifiers. Care is needed to prevent leakage and to preserve null integrity.
5.7 Methodological lessons
Surrogates, bootstraps, and cross-platform replication distinguish genuine structure from artifacts. Deterministic execution and pinned environments improve parity and auditability.
5.8 Limitations and risks
Dataset heterogeneity (sensors, preprocessing), hardware-specific resonances, and “detection ≠ causation” remain caveats. Surrogates are compute-intensive; adaptive strategies may be necessary for real-time.
5.9 Ethical and responsible use
Clinical or operational deployment requires prospective validation, transparent seeds/params, and governance. The triad is structural within tested regimes; it is not a universal shortcut to interpretation.
5.10 Synthesis
The triad turns synchrony detection from ad-hoc probing into map-guided science, enabling better experimental design, clearer expectations, and more effective deployment.
6. Limitations
6.1 Generalization across heterogeneous datasets—avoid universal thresholds; re-fit per context.
6.2 Hardware/platform constraints—spikes may reflect device resonances; replicate across hardware.
6.3 Interpretation—synchrony does not imply direct causation.
6.4 Compute—surrogate generation (M ≥ 1000) over large grids is resource-heavy.
6.5 Statistical assumptions—permutation nulls assume exchangeability; strong non-stationarity can violate this.
6.6 Misuse risk—claims about consciousness/prediction must be backed by prespecified endpoints and oversight.
7. Roadmap & Future Work (expanded)
7.1 Broaden dataset validation across tasks, age groups, clinical cohorts; benchmark alternatives to PLV.
7.2 Artifact-resilience testing via injected realistic artifacts; develop preprocessing that preserves synchrony structure.
7.3 Cross-modal integration (ECoG/LFP/fMRI); combine synchrony with spectral and cross-frequency features.
7.4 Prospective clinical trials with prespecified endpoints and blinded adjudication.
7.5 GHz replication across devices, temperature, environment; ML predictions of T₁/T₂ from detection maps.
7.6 AI deployment: real-time monitoring; adaptive surrogate budgets; GPU acceleration.
7.7 Ethics/open science: publish seeds/params/notebooks; convene review boards.
8. Conclusion
Integrating real EEG/MEG, >21k Monte-Carlo trials, cross-platform reruns, and GHz T₁/T₂ sweeps, we show that reproducible detection landscapes—sweet spots, fenced lows, spike highs—are a general property of surrogate-controlled PLV metrics. These maps indicate where detection is reliable, futile, or narrowly exploitable. The framework is promising yet demands careful prospective validation and responsible dissemination.
Contact: Qpie33gut@gmail.com
9. Appendices
9.1 Recommended defaults
Sampling rates 500–1000 Hz; event durations 50–500 ms; trials per grid 500–2000; surrogates (2000–4000 for spike validation); α = 0.01 post-FDR; bootstrap 1000.
9.2 Pseudo-workflows
EEG/MEG: preprocess → phase extract → PLV → surrogate → empirical p → FDR → detect → evaluate → visualize.
GHz sweeps: measure T₁/T₂/phase stream → compute PLV or vector-strength analog → surrogates → empirical p → FDR → map bands → overlay T₁/T₂.
9.3 Reproducibility checklist
Seeds; parameter files; environment manifests and pinned package versions; unit tests for surrogates/PLV; deterministic FFT settings; figure scripts; CI logs for cross-platform parity.
Hand-off to Part 2: The continuation begins at §9.4 (Dataset registry and extended materials) and proceeds through the advanced geometry-control modules, expanded security/ethics, and deployment playbooks.
—–BEGIN QPIE PROVENANCE v1.1—–
Owner: Ted Funding
Org: QPiE Gut & Frameworks Trust
Contact: qpie33gut@gmail.com
Document: Advancing Phase Synchrony Detection Part 1
Anchors (prior work on record):
• qpie_demo_2025-10-07T01-42-52Z.csv
SHA256: cf9f302860a6bdd6b6715f32c384ad1b9a3c3b3638599d8cee489f40b7180e70b
Chain Reference:
Master Ledger Head SHA256: 245bb40ae24c1f4268e17bcc8fd4ae60df0d17591fc1d8c285e7baf5cdef4c35
Chain Semantics:
anchor(cf9f302860a6bdd6b6715f32c384ad1b9a3c3b3638599d8cee489f40b7180e70b)
HEAD(245bb40ae24c1f4268e17bcc8fd4ae60df0d17591fc1d8c285e7baf5cdef4c35)
Attested Local (America/New_York): 2025-10-11T16:08:37-04:00
Attested UTC: 2025-10-11T20:08:37Z
Tooling: ResonanceOS / Voyager / Aetheris (attested-run lineage)
—–END QPIE PROVENANCE v1.1—–
Posted byVision2FundingOctober 11, 2025Posted in(((QPIE))), Coherence, enlightenment, Grand Unified Theory, metaphysics, quantum mechanics, Quantum Theory, UncategorizedTags:#selfreflection, #TrueSuccess #TedFunding #Live #Love #eq #sel #Resonance #Coherence, philosophy, quantum, quantum-physics, science
Published by Vision2Funding
Loving Father, Master Teacher 33 View more posts
Post navigation
Leave a comment
The Grand Unified Theory (QPIE), Website Powered by WordPress.com. quteframework.wordpress.comCustomize
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Recommended Citation
Burroughs, Teddy, "(((QPIE))) Advancing Phase Synchrony Detection Part 1", Technical Disclosure Commons, (October 13, 2025)
https://www.tdcommons.org/dpubs_series/8711