Since A-optimal design reduces the overall spread of the posterior distribution, while the proposed method reduces the observable trajectory variance, we should also consider the posterior size in a fair comparison.
Schmandt and Galán observe that, remarkably, the variance of the observable state (the membrane conductance) is almost identical in the reduced and the unreduced system.1 While the approximate process does not faithfully reproduce all aspects of the full process, it reproduces those features relevant to the neurophysiologist as well as to the larger biological system in which it is embedded.
Also, heterogeneity in TS mainly affects averages and variances in the observable infection characteristics when environmental contamination is low, whereas heterogeneity in TD and TR shows their impact on infection characteristics in all simulated environments (Table 2).
Schmandt and Galán argue that suppressing the fluctuations associated with transitions not directly affecting the observable state decrease their contribution to the variance of the observable state occupancy, while increasing the contribution of the direct transitions to the same variance.
Figure 1 shows that regardless of the value of η (within a range which gives a mean on the observable scale between 1.60 and 2.20), the variance on the observable scale was always higher for the L + than for the ++ genotype.
The variance component DI that leads to the observable FA values, then varies between 1 and 0.5.
The approximated model variances (tilde{sigma }_{(1)}^2) and (tilde{sigma }_{(2)}^2) for the observables (varvec{Gamma }^{(1)}) and (varvec{Gamma }^{(2)}) bear a good resemblance and are very similar to the calculated theoretical variance (tilde{sigma }_{(0)}^2) which corresponds to the observable (varvec{Gamma }^{(0)}).
Values in columns ++ and L + correspond to the output of the threshold model: thresholds (τ1- τ3), mean and variance of the underlying variable and the resulting mean and variance (μobs, σobs) of the litter size percent (%LS1 - %LS4+) on the observable scale.
Once students engaged in the observable classroom behaviors, it was a relatively strong predictor of their academic achievement, explaining about 23% of the variance.
Most of the observable differences are cosmetic.
