The performance of RF models ranged from good (CRRI, RTI) to moderate (HRT).
The r2 values of the matrix-based linear regression prediction models ranged from 0.9933 to 0.9986.
These models ranged from the simple Norton creep law to rather sophisticated unified equations and continuum damage mechanics (CDM) models.
The design floods for the study watersheds that were estimated by the selected hydrologic models ranged from 68.3 to 132.1% of those estimated by the Rational method.
Our 6 alternative models ranged from a standard cost-prediction model with 4 variables (ie, traditional model features), to our largest enhanced model with 1053 non-traditional model features.
For instance, in the recent round of incentives announced by G.M., rebates on 2003 models ranged from $2,000 to $4,000, compared with $1,000 to $2,000 on newer models; the list of eligible 2003 vehicles was far longer than the list of 2004 models.
The accuracy of the models ranged from over 80% of the cells correctly classified by the vegetation transition probability model and rule-based model to about 55% correctly classified by the vegetation state probability model.
Root mean square errors with subject-specific knee joint models ranged from 2.2±1.2° to 6.0±3.9° for knee rotations and from 2.4±1.1 mm to 4.3±2.4 mm for knee displacements in healthy and OA subjects, respectively.
Overlap in the predictor variables selected by the DESIGN and PURPOSIVE tree models ranged from only 20%to38%8%, indicating the classification trees fit the two evaluated survey forms on different sets of predictor variables.
The AUCs for personalized models ranged from 0.679 to 0.953 Mean=0.8266, SD=0.085), significantly higher than chance (p<0.0001) and the 0.714 AUC for the generic model (p=0.002).
According to Table 5, the (∆q) values of isotherm models ranged from 3.544 to 15.215.
