The phrase "corresponding prior" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts where you are referring to something that is related or linked to a previous item or event.
Example: "The results of the current study align with the findings of the corresponding prior research."
Alternatives: "related previous" or "matching earlier".
We see clearly that a vast majority of the sustaining probabilities are at least an order of magnitude larger than their corresponding prior probabilities.
The reconciled marginal distributions for the same variables (Figure 1 (A), marginals) are visually similar to the corresponding prior distributions.
The posterior density histograms (Figs. 2 and 3) for each combination of E(T) and SD(T) are overlaid with the corresponding prior gamma density distribution (dashed) as well as a fitted curve (black).
A comparison of inferred posterior and prior (i.e. no data) divergence times (Table 2) indicates a substantial amount of historical signal in the present alignment, as revealed by posterior estimates being generally younger and more precise than corresponding prior estimates.
The corresponding prior probabilities were respectively 0.70, 0.44 and 0.56.
The posterior distributions for these auxiliary parameters are very broad and relatively close to their corresponding prior distributions.
CellNOptR uses the experimental data and a corresponding prior-knowledge network to generate a logic model and train it to maximise the fit with the experimental measurements.
When using the adaptive LASSO approach, an additional weighting parameter δ j (j=1… N ′ ) is specified (within the range of [0,1]) to shrink the regression coefficient β ^ j and thus, support the insertion of the corresponding prior-knowledge gene-to-TF edge into the model.
We conclude by detailing the full posterior decomposition based on these components and corresponding priors.
It was verified that the distributions of effective priors were included within the distributions of the corresponding priors, discarding the existence of unexpected interactions between priors.
This suggests that within-subject dissimilarities of estimated subjective distributions are due to factors not related to the stimuli and the corresponding priors, but to inherent variability in subjects' responses.
