Equally, these penetrances could be precisely modeled using the parameterization of Example 4, with parameters (α, R1, R2, S1, and S2) taking the values (0.8, 0.5, 0.25, 0.75, and 0.25).
Then these penetrances could be precisely modeled using the parameterization of Example 3, with parameters (α, R1, R2, S1, and S2) taking the values (0.05, 2, 4, 3, and 4).
While the approach proposed by Vajda et al. worked very well for their example with 5 parameters, it becomes infeasible for models with considerably more parameters.
A simulation example with practical parameters is provided to illustrate the effectiveness of the developed method.
For example, with the parameters in Tables 1 and 2, the resonance frequencies are at 1.3 kHz and 923 Hz for the shunt compensator and for the series compensator, respectively.
However, it can be decreased by reducing p. In typical applications, for example with the parameters given in Table1 and used in[9], we have K S ≈ 0.035, which satisfies such condition.
In our example with the parameters from (39), it turns out that the optimal solution is simply BANG/BANG-BOUNDARY (17), that is, the terminal cost (varphi v_{2})) has no effect on the solution of (51).
For example, with model parameters as in Fig. 5B, W could be maintained in a high state (with fluctuations) given a cycle time of 24 hrs and an active cycle fraction as low as 0.06.
For example, with these parameters, the high GMS region improves from 0%to63.7%7% along chr22, compared to 65.1% for Illumina-like and 67.4% for PacBio EC-like.
This includes the technically sophisticated statistical model, which appears to have been carefully done and carefully tested (for example, with a parameter sensitivity analysis).
