Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(3)
Exact(25)
Both model versions yield errors of about 10% with LE observations.
Experimental results show that the tested commercial laser scanner, after calibration, exhibits systematic errors of about 10 μm.
Crude at first, these predictions reached their peak accuracy near the end of the 13th century, with typical timing errors of about one-fourth of an hour.
In the real world, we find large systematic biases that follow a consistent pattern and, in physically impossible environments, we can obtain reliable errors of about 180 degrees.
Similarly simulations for long-wave sky radiation interception highlighted the good predictive quality of the uniform sky solution with errors of about 1%.
Least squares fits of quadratic equations yielded approximating functions permitting to predict results of random experiments with errors of about 5%.
Similar(35)
It yielded temperatures with a total error of about 4%.
The improved PMRS method shows good performance on the remote sensing of hourly PM2.5 with an average error of about 38 μg/m3 and relative error of about 31%.
The uncalibrated two parameters filter generates instead large relative error of about 35%.
Previously published experimental data were utilized for the validation process where a maximum error of about 5.8% achieved.
That's a lot of simulations, but it still leaves a small margin of error of about 0.5 percentage points on the daily win probability estimates.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com