In brief, because of the underlying assumptions of significance hypothesis testing, which homogenize the behavioral data a priori and test the null hypothesis, those traditional methods cannot capture systematic subtle differences in somatosensation as these fall under different probability distributions [ 32].
The design objective is the maximization of weighted sum of the critical aerodynamic pressures under different probability density function of flow orientations.
Tables 1 and 2 show the available electricity demands and heat demands under different probability distributions; Table 3 presents some corresponding economic data; gaseous pollutants emission intensity is listed in Table 4.
Figure 2 shows the distribution of all COGs by probability of being ancestral under each model, as well as the number of ancestral COGs under different probability cutoffs.
Two main observations are as follows: After a few sensing slots, the stealthiness metric restrains itself to a constant value ψ for each given attack probability p a. Figure 5 Stealthiness under different attack probabilities.
After a few sensing slots, the stealthiness metric restrains itself to a constant value ψ for each given attack probability p a. Figure 5 Stealthiness under different attack probabilities.
Figure5 shows the evolution of the stealthiness metric, defined in (30), under different attack probabilities.
As a result, a set of curves describing the continuous relationships between storage capacities and deficit rates under different exceedance probabilities were generated as references to RHS storage design.
Based on the Weibull theory, statistical analysis was performed on the test results, and double logarithm fatigue equations for RRAC under different failure probabilities were provided, which could be used to predict the ultimate fatigue strength of RRAC.
Figure2 shows the global sensing performance at the FC under the proposed SSDF attack model, in terms of global detection error probability P e, defined as P e = P ( H 1 ) ( 1 - P d ) + P ( H 0 ) P f. (31) Figure 2 Global detection performance at the FC under different attack probabilities.
