The number of differently expressed genes meeting a given significance criterion is governed by the error level of the expression measures which, in turn, systematically varies between the different tissues and tissue types.
The goodness of fit can be assessed by looking at the error level when \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$F_E$$$\end{document} F E crossing 50%%, i.e., the level which half of fittings do not exceed.
Moreover, our design of EAC is calculating a ratio instead of the particular value at each time instance, and this allows the error to be divided by a denominator, thus lowering the error level in computation.
In relation to the multiple formulation data obtained from successfully solved LPs, the error level caused by the proposed model was calculated.
Although the error (~10 cm at most) which can be mainly produced by the long-wavelength noise correction is possibly included in each interferogram, the displacement field seems to be little affected by the postseismic deformation exceeding the measurement error level.
The approximation error level is influenced by the amplitude of disturbances.
The total error level g is given by the following: delta =biglVert g^{delta }-gbigrVert =sqrt{ frac{1}{M+1}sum_{i=1}^{M+1} bigl(g^{ delta }(x_{i} -g(x_{i} -ggr)^{2}}. Figure 1 shows the numerical results of (k=2), (varepsilon =0.001), (varepsilon =0.01), respectively.
Although DPLSQ-HS is much faster than DPLSQ-TV, it has a drawback: the accuracy and time point error were worse than those by DPLSQ-TV, especially, when the observation error level was large.
The relative error level and absolute error level are computed by e_{r}=frac{sqrt{sum f-f^{mu,delta}=frac{sqrt{sum f-f^{mu}}} quad text{and}quad e_{a}= sqrt{frac{1}{(M+1)}sumbigl(f-f^{mu,delta}bigr)^{2}}.
Errors associated with DBH and HT growth were similar to error levels obtained by other growth studies in the region using nonlinear mixed effects models (Russell et al. 2011; Russell 2012; Russell et al. 2014) and are consistent with error levels commonly observed in many growth and yield studies (e.g., Ek and Monserud 1979; Bragg 2003; Weiskittel et al. 2011a).
