Exact(6)
The percent error between the inverted fluid density/velocity and the computed fluid density/velocity for gas, live oil, and brine is almost 0% for cases 1 and 2. The same approach was also applied to synthetic seismic traces representing the Arab formation of Saudi Arabia within a range of porosities.
The percent error between the inverted fluid density and velocity and the computed fluid density and velocity for gas, live oil, and brine is almost 0% for cases 1 and 2. The percent error for Arab formation for different porosity is given in Table 10, where the maximum percent error we have is 1%.
Accuracy is expressed as the percent error between the assay-determined value and the assigned value for that serum.
The percent error between the assigned value and the assay-determined value was 6.5%, as determined from independent analyses by three individual operators.
The similarity factor f2 is used to compare the difference and the difference factor (f1) measures the percent error between two curves over all time points.
The percent error is computed as the de novo synthesis (green dots), fission (red dots), and fusion (blue dots) rate constants are varied to tune the mean organelle abundance from
Similar(54)
The relative average error test was performed by calculating the absolute percent error between the calculated and the measured value using the following expression; varepsilon = left| {frac{{{text{Measured}} - {text{calculated}}}}{text{Measured}}} right| times 100.
We also extracted the relative percent error between the field plot sampling estimated ACD and the model ACD, and graphed this against each stratum on a hectare-by-hectare basis (Fig. 7).
The average percent error between both techniques was 2% over the physiological range of 35%-100% oxygenation.
The mean percent error between in silico and in vitro data was 12% for high and 8% for low NUTRIENT, which was within the targeted 15% range.
The mean absolute percent error between the DLW and respirometric methods was 8.04% using the one-pool model and was slightly better than that with the two-pool model.
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