Reduced Error Model

The reduced model determines if the actual regression model under the null hypothesis Bq + bix) is adequate to explain the data. The reduced model is 

That is, the amount that error is reduced due to the regression equation bo + b x in terms of e=y — y, or the actual value minus the predicted value, is determined. 

The difference between SSe and SSp re eiror=SSiack-of-fu SSe = SSpure error + SSiack-of-fil  

Total deviation Pure error deviation Lack-of-fit deviation 

The entire ANOVA procedure can be completed in conjunction with the previous F test ANOVA, by expanding the SSe term to include both SSpure error and SSiack-or fit- TMs procedure can only be carried out with the replication of the x values (Table 2.8). 

---

Harrell E, Lee K, Mark D. Multivariable prognostic models issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. StatMed 1996 15 361-87. 

In SIMCA the distribution of the object in the inner model space is not considered, so the probability density in the inner space is constant and the overall PD appears as shown in Figs. 29, 30 for the enlarged and reduced SIMCA models. In CLASSY, Kernel estimation is used to compute the PD in the inner model space, whereas the errors in the outer space are considered, as in SIMCA, uncorrelated and with normal multivariate distribution, so that the overall distribution, in the inner and outer space of a one-dimensional model, looks like that reported in Fig. 31. Figures 32, 33 show the PD of the bivariate normal distribution and Kernel distribution (ALLOC) for the same data matrix as used for Fig. 31. Although in the data set of French wines no really important differences have been detected between SIMCA (enlarged model), ALLOC and CLASSY, it seems that CLASSY should be chosen when the number of objects is large and the distribution on the components of the inner model space is very different from a rectangular distribution. 

Table 3.4 Percent phenol conversion X, asymptotic values of concentration computed with the detailed and the reduced kinetic models for phenol, Ca.co, and trimethylolphenol, Cpi0o> and relevant percent errors relative to the detailed model used as reference (indicated by the superscript °)...

Harrell FE Jr., Lee KL, Mark DB (1996). Multivariable prognostic models issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Statistics in Medicine 15 361-387 Hart RG (2007). Antithrombotic therapy to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. In Treating Individuals From Randomized Trials to Personalised Medicine, Rothwell PM (ed.) pp. 265-278. London Elsevier... 

The principal reason that a test set is necessary for validation is that empirical model-building methods cannot readily distinguish between noise and information in data sets, so the methods are prone to adjusting the model parameters to reduce error beyond the point warranted by the information contained in the data. This problem is called overtraining and can be countered by a variety of techniques such as descriptor reduction and early stopping, and readers interested in those topics are referred to the more detailed reviews of numerical methods cited in each of the following sections. 

In the recent years Simulated Moving Bed (SMB) technology has become more and more attractive for complex separation tasks. To ensure the compliance with product specifications, a robust control is required. In this work a new optimization bas adaptive control strategy for the SMB is proposed A linearized reduced order model, which accounts for the periodic nature of the SMB process is used for online optimization and control purposes. Concentration measurements at the raffinate and extract outlets are used as the feedback information together with a periodic Kalman filter to remove model errors and to handle disturbances. The state estimate from the periodic Kalman filter is then used for the prediction of the outlet concentrations over a pre-defined time horizon. Predicted outlet concentrations constitute the basis for the calculation of the optimal input adjustments, which maximize the productivity and minimize the desorbent consumption subject to constraints on product purities. 

Maximum likelihood (ML) estimation can be performed if the statistics of the measurement noise Ej are known. This estimate is the value of the parameters for which the observation of the vector, yj, is the most probable. If we assume the probability density function (pdf) of to be normal, with zero mean and uniform variance, ML estimation reduces to ordinary least squares estimation. An estimate, 0, of the true yth individual parameters (pj can be obtained through optimization of some objective function, 0 (0 ). ModeP is assumed to be a natural choice if each measurement is assumed to be equally precise for all values of yj. This is usually the case in concentration-effect modeling. Considering the multiplicative log-normal error model, the observed concentration y is given by ... 

Scales can be created based on a number of different theories or models. Three commonly referenced scales are the Guttman scale, Thurstone scale, and Likert-type scale. Developing questions and scales using any of these theories requires some assumptions be made. To reduce error, one measures the extent that the assumptions are met. For example, with the Likert-type scales, one needs to test that summated rating assumptions are met, or that the scale achieves maximum reliability and validity with a minimum number of questions. Other examples of assumptions are that each item can discriminate itself from a different concept (measured by a different scale) and that its properties converge with other like scale items with its own concept. One might also address the reliability of the scale scores and the features of the scale distributions. For a much more extensive discussion, see Nunnaly (1994) and for examples see papers written by Bayliss et al., Me Homey et al., and Wagner. ... 

The selection of the structural PK model and residual error models was based on the goodness-of-fit plots and on the difference in NONMEM objective function (approximately -2 x log likelihood) between hierarchical models (i.e., the likelihood ratio test). This difference is asymptomatically distributed with a degree of freedom equal to the number of additional parameters of the full compared to the reduced model. A p-value of 0.05 was chosen for one additional parameter, corresponding to a difference in the objective function of 3.84. Potential covariates were selected by univariate analysis, testing the addition of each covariate on each of the relevant PK parameters. When a set of covariates, identified by the... 

B. Using Reduced Chemistry Models in Multidimensional Simulations without Introducing Error... 

The challenge is to construct reduced chemistry models which are fast to evaluate, yet which still satisfy the error tolerance Eq. (13). One effective approach to this is the Adaptive Chemistry method (Schwer et al., 2003a, b), where different reduced chemistry models are used under different local reaction conditions. For example, in the 1—d steady premixed flame studied by Oluwole et al. (Oluwole et al., 2006), six different reduced chemistry models were used, and the full chemistry model only had to be used at about 20% of the grid points, Fig. 14. 

C. Constructing Reduced Chemistry Models Satisfying Error Bounds Over Ranges... 

Fig. 15. Computed temperature field for a radially-symmetric partially-premixed methane-air laminar jet flame. The left-hand side shows the temperature field computed using the full chemistry simulation, and the right-hand side shows the temperature field computed using a set of reduced chemistry models that satisfy the error control constraints.

Theoretical predictions are risky. Therefore for almost all such prediction experimental validation is required. Nevertheless, often the models can indicate appropriate ways for validation or further experiments. These experiments can be expected to be time-consuming, and expensive. Furthermore, the protein actually needs to be available for the suggested experiments. All of this limits the applicability of experimental validation. Therefore, it is mandatory to reduce errors as much as possible and to indicate the expected error range via computer-based predictions. This is not a trivial problem for structure prediction, though. An estimation of the performance and accuracy of the respective methods can be obtained from large scale comparative benchmarking, from successful blind predictions and from a community wide assessment experiment (CASP [109, 229]/ CAFASP [283]). These are addressed in turn in the following ... 

A straightforward relativistic ab initio AE calculation might appear to be the most rigorous approach to a problem in electronic stmcture theory, however, one has to keep in mind that the methods to solve the Schrodinger equation used in connection with both the AE Hamiltonian and the ECP VO model Hamiltonian usually also rely on approximations, e.g., the choice of the one- and many-particle basis sets, and therefore lead to more or less significant errors in the results. In some cases the introduction of ECPs even helps to avoid or reduce errors, e.g., the basis set superposition error (BSSE), or allows a higher quality treatment of the chemically relevant valence electron subsystem compared to the AE case. 

In conclusion, despite the indication of the test point 7, going from a quadratic to a reduced cubic model does not improve the model. There is a substantial and statistically significant lack of fit of the model to the data. The probability that the lack of fit is due to random error is less than 0.1 %. Values of the F ratio are therefore calculated using the pure error mean square. 

One reason for the significant lack of fit is the considerable variation (more than 3 orders of magnitude) of the solubility over the domain, while the experimental standard deviation is only 8%. It is not surprising that such a simple relationship as a reduced cubic model is insufficient. Examination of the predicted and experimental data shows that almost all the lack of fit is concentrated in the 3 test points. Since they contribute least to the estimations of the model coefficients, it is these points that would normally show up any deviation from the model. In particular, it is seen that the solubility at point 8, with 66.7% water content, is overestimated by a factor of 2.4. For the other test points the error is 33% or less. This is still very high compared to the pure error. 

Three-dimensional models offer more realism, at least apparently, but with the cost of greater complexity, a more limited number of simulations, and a higher probability of crucial regional errors in the base solutions, which may compromise direct, quantitative model-data comparisons. Ocean GCM solutions, however, should be exploited to address exactly those problems that are intractable for simpler conceptual and reduced dimensional models. For example, two key assumptions of the 1-D ad-vection-diffusion model presented in Figure 2 are that the upwelling occurs uniformly in the horizontal and vertical and that mid-depth horizontal advection is not significant. Ocean GCMs and tracer data, by contrast, show a rich three-dimensional circulation pattern in the deep Pacific. 

Recall that, in ANCOVA, the model has an ANOVA portion and a regression portiOTi. The covariant is the regression portion. Hence, we have a b or slope for the covariate, which is b = 0.9733 (Table 11.8). This, in itself, can be used to determine if the covariate is significant in reducing overall error. If the b value is zero, then the use of a covariate is not of value in reducing error, and ANOVA would probably be a better application. A 95% confidence interval for the (3 value can be determined. 

The next step employs quantitative models of human performance and technology to reach an applied decision that best satisfies the required resources if sufficient resources are available. If sufficient resources are not available, additional performance and skill resources need to be obtained to complete the task, or the task requirements need to be reduced. Quantitative models of human performance include MHP, THERP, and ERM. Using the MHP, the human processing parameters needed for each task operation are identified. The time values assigned to each parameter are used to compute task time estimates. This approach is limited to estimating performance in terms of time. THERP maps operations to the tasks included in human reliability databases to estimate human error probabflities. The ERM provides a framework for specifying performance and functional capacities at the resource level. It is the only model that (1) incorporates aU required dimensions of performance and skills and (2) uses consistent modeling constructs across tasks, humans, and machines. 

---