RANDOM model

Several different types of semi-variograms are useful. The spherical model with nugget, the random model, and the spherical model with no nugget are discussed below. 

Figure 2.1 Schematic representation of a random model catalyst surface (a) and an idealized model catalyst (b). The black dots correspond to metal particles, dotted circles to their capture...

Berggren, K.-F., and A.F. Sadreev. Chaos in quantum billiards and similarities with pure-tone random models in acoustics, microwave cavities and electric networks. Mathematical modelling in physics, engineering and cognitive sciences. Proc. of the conf. Mathematical Modelling of Wave Phenomena , 7 229, 2002. 

Poda GI, Landsittel DP, Brumbaugh K, Sharp DS, Frasch HF, Demchuk E (2001) Random sampling or random model in skin flux measurements Eur J Pharm Sci 14 197-220. 

In the equation, Yis the model output,/is the model, and (jCi,..., JCp) are random model parameters with standard error (5,..., 5p). The variance of model output is given by the Ist-order Taylor expansion ... 

Fig. 9.1.12 Cross section of the model of Pd/Pt(4/1) bimetallic nanoparticle (a) Pt-core/ Pd-shell model and (b) random model. (From Ref. 25a.)...

One way that probability p may be estimated is by statistical analysis of previous experimental data. Various spectral models could also be used to specify p. Both regular models such as that of Elsasser and random models... 

One of the early models to describe the amorphous state was by Zachariasen (1932), who proposed the continuous random network model for covalent inorganic glasses. We are now able to distinguish three types of continuous random models ... 

One should verify either conditions SI to S3 are satisfied, or subset pivotality is satisfied, before implementing a stepdown test for, otherwise, the stepdown test may not strongly control the familywise error rate. Such conditions are easier to check with a model that connects the observations with the parameters, but harder to check with a model (such as the randomization model) that only describes the distribution of the observations under the null hypotheses. Indeed, Westfall and Young (1993, page 91) cautioned that the randomization model does not guarantee that the subset pivotality condition holds. Outside the context of bioinformatics, there are in fact examples of methods that were in use at one time that violate... 

In this model, where no preference of Si-Al over Al-Al pairing is assumed, the NMR spectrum is determined by the simple probabilities of uncorrelated occupancies of the four nearest neighbors. Therefore, the peak intensities for the completely random model are independent of the details of the zeolite framework topology. They are... 

The model population is initially built by random models with a number of variables between 1 and L, and the models are ordered with respect to the selected statistical parameter - the quality of the model - (the best model is in first place, the worst model at position P) ... 

Figure 3 Cross section of the Pd/Pt(l/1) bimetallic nanoparticle models (a) modified Pt core model, (b) random model, (c) separated model, and (d) the three-dimensional picture of the modified Pt core model. (Reprinted with permission from Ref. 78. Copyright 1991 American Chemical Society.)...

With respect to the first question, we can look to a model that makes its selections randomly, with each of the five response options having equal probability of selection. We would expect such a model to match the students responses 20% of the time, simply by chance. The issue is whether the performance model does better than this random model in accounting for the students responses. We can see from Table 13.2 that the performance model exactly matched the students responses on 71% of the... 

Thus, we conclude that we would not arrive at similar results by chance. The performance model predicts student responses much better than either random model. Moreover, it can also be successfully extended beyond the original data from which its parameters were derived. Using the connection weights from the first experiment, the model gave satisfactory predictions for the second experiment as well. The structure of the model holds for additional students responding to additional test items. 

Then, for the reasons explained in the paper by Rudziriski et al. [21] we accept the random model of surface topography considering the fundamental physical question of whether the variables C are totally independent. In other words, whether the value of is correlated in a way with (i,j=0.- -,A,C) on passing from one to another site. These two models represent somewhat extreme views, and the truth probably lies somewhere in between. It is still too early to provide a definite answer for the fundamental question of which one of these two models is closer to reality. 

Then, the adsorption isotherm equation for the random model without correlation takes the form... 

---