First, the three groups will be compared in order to verify that there are no significant differences among them at baseline to confirm they are comparable after randomization.
Therefore, and will be compared in Section 6 under equivalent noise reduction performance conditions.
Therefore, 2 × 8 values will be compared in each t-test.
Moreover, sums of PIXEL energies will be compared in order to assess relative contributions from certain groups of interactions.
Advantages and disadvantages of different scan paths will be compared in terms of sampling uniformity and distortion.
Obviously, the two versions correspond to those of TMGA1, and their performances will be compared in the experiments.
The developed approach will be compared in simulations with relative positioning using a single antenna at each spacecraft (standard LAMBDA) and a vectorial bootstrapping approach.
Besides the ZF precoder presented in Section 3.2, the following advanced precoders are considered and will be compared in the simulations: The regularized channel inversion precoding [9].
The results will be compared – in terms of the required number of iterations and the computation time – with an existing accelerated initial stiffness method, the non-accelerated initial stiffness method and the Newton Raphson tangent stiffness method.
The measured ruth depths and the shear strength from triaxial testing, for the same samples, the simulated ANSYS FE will be compared in order to verify accuracy of model to complete the mechanistic empirical study suggested by AASHTO.
It is a commonly used measure (e.g., [11] [14]), but numerous alternatives exist and will be compared in future work, such as differential expression indices expressed in terms of z-scores or log p-values, or combining the differential expression level and its statistical significance.
