The ECM method produces slightly less PAPR reduction gain because unlike conventional SLM, it uses the same phase shift for W contiguous set of subcarriers in each cluster.
In addition, the proposed method produces slightly higher PSNR value than other least square methods [9, 20] only except a few cases of capacities on two of the test images such as Lena and Pepper.
Results also show that the ECM method produces slightly less PAPR reduction performance compared with conventional SLM, particularly when the OFDM signal consists of a smaller number of subcarriers.
For Illumina, the differences were less marked with the vsn method producing slightly lower inter-platform correlations.
For both the subsample and the 2-sample strong IV scenarios, the SUR/delta method, sequential regression, Fieller's theorem, and the Bayesian method produced very similar confidence intervals, with the bootstrap method producing slightly wider confidence intervals.
Thus we opted to map carbon using Model 1 in Table 1, even though delineation methods produce slightly more accurate predictions.
On the 2324 alloy, very little difference was observed between the load-reduction and CPCA test methods, although the CPCA test method consistently produced slightly lower thresholds or slightly faster crack-growth rates.
The exact method produced a slightly higher risk estimate, but not with any clinical significance given that there had been no events.
The proposed method without the HFM produced slightly better results than Jung et al.'s; however, it also did not provide satisfactory detection results.
In this paper, we employed the decomposition method proposed in [2], which produced slightly better performances for face recognition than the method proposed in [9].
