Vertex error

Flexible optimal descriptors have been defined as specific modifications of adjacency matrix, by means of utilization of nonzero diagonal elements (Randic and Basak, 1999, 2001 Randic and Pompe, 2001a, b). These nonzero values of matrix elements change vertex degrees and consequently the values of molecular descriptors. As a rule, these modifications are aimed to change topological indices. The values of these diagonal elements must provide minimum standard error of estimation for predictive model (that is based on the flexible descriptor) of property/activity of interest. 

Note While a ring is being drawn, only the fixed vertex and the vertex accompanying the mouse in its movements can be fused with pre-existing atoms. If you try to fuse any other of the ring s atoms, an error message will appear. 

It can be seen instantly that the mixture with the largest uncertainty in the composition of the mixture is present when all of the components have equal fractions (xj = X2 = x = 1/3), because of the large area within the ellipse. Contrary, a mixture near a vertex of the triangle, has a much smaller area inside the drawn ellipse. This indicates that the uncertainty in the mixture composition is considerable smaller here. Finally, when the composition of a mixture reaches a vertex the uncertainty will be zero (the mixture consists in this case only of one component, so no compositional errors are possible). 

If the most inconvenient response value appears in the new vertex which is then rejected, the simplex is returned to the initial point, and we call this simplex swaying, Fig. 2.53C. We may avoid this simplex swaying by returning to the initial vertex and rejecting the vertex that is the second in a sequence of inconvenient response values. If even then we do not reach a satisfactory result, we again return to the initial vertex and reject the third one. In practice, we may be faced with false simplex movement to optimum as a consequence of large error of experiment. In most cases, however, we should not pay great attention to an error of experiment since it... 

The effect of experimental error on the efficiency of simplex optimization is reduced if the number of the factor increases. Caused by error of experiment, a simplex movement to optimum may turn into a circle, which is called simplex circling. In such cases we suggest a replication of experiment, and then the movement to optimum is either continued or terminated. The cause of simplex circling may be both error of experiment and achieved optimum, Fig. 2.53D. With a large number of factors, to get a more reliable estimate whether optimum has been reached, it is necessary to continue movement to optimum until the number of simplexes with the same vertex does not surpass the value ... 

The numerical evaluation of this vertex expression proved to be difficult in particular for low Z. To overcome this, the terms containing one interaction with the external nuclear binding potential were also separated and calculated in a semianalytical way. A detailed discussion of the problem and the procedure to solve it is given in [27], numerical details can also be found in [40]. For 12C5+, we end up with a total contribution of gsE, wf, red. + 9se, ve. = 2.289 607 7(5) x 10-3 where the error again represents the numerical uncertainty. This contribution contains also the g factor of the free electron and is therefore by far the largest from all diagrams in Fig. 1. 

There are many elaborations that have been developed over the years. One of the most important is the k + 1 rule. If a vertex has remained part of the simplex for k + 1 steps, perform the experiment again. The reason for this is that response surfaces may be noisy, so an unduly optimistic response could have been obtained because of experimental error. This is especially important when the response surface is flat near the optimum. Another important issue relates to boundary conditions. Sometimes there are physical reasons why a condition cannot cross a boundary, an obvious case being a negative concentration. It is not always easy to deal with such situations, but it is possible to use step 5 rather than step 4 above under such circumstances. If the simplex constantly tries to cross a boundary either the constraints are slightly unrealistic and so should be changed, or the behaviour near tire boundary needs further investigation. Starting a new simplex near tire boundary with a small step size may solve tire problem. 

The search is terminated when a satisfactory result has ben obtained, or when either of the following happens (a) The reflections do not give any further improvement. Use the best vertex to specify the preferred conditions, (b) The responses of the vertices of the last simplex are all similar and assumed to be within the noise level of the experimental error. Use the average of these settings to specify the preferred conditions. 

At this point it is appropriate to turn to the model of the AU55 cluster/ recalling the Chini magic numbers .f The number of Pd atoms found in cluster 6 matches this well, within experimental error. The number of metal atoms in the five-layer 12-vertex solid, icosahedron or cuboctahedron is 1 -I- 12-I-42-I-92-t- 162-I-252 = 561 atoms (see Schemes 1 and 2). Therefore, molecule 6 can be represented by the model (idealized) formula Pd56iphen6o(OAc)i8o (Fig. 3). 

Rule A- If the same vertex is maintained in p+1 simplexes (hke the U and W vertexes in Fig. 8.2b), we should make another measurement of the response corresponding to this vertex before constructing the next simplex. If the first response value has been too high because of experimental error, it is improbable that this phenomenon will repeat itself in the second determination if the error is random. The new response will probably be lower, and the vertex will be eliminated from the simplex. If, on the contrary, the response remains high, then it is probable that we are really close to the maximum point, and the vertex will be deservedly retained in the simplex. In the simplex movement shown in Fig. 8.2b we should, according to this rule, perform new runs at the U and W points to confirm if the responses at these vertexes are as high as those measiu-ed in the first determination. 

In order to treat the Hex-Z geometry of FBR cores more accurately, effort to develop a neutron transport code based on an improved nodal method was continued. In the previous version of the nodal code, the radial transverse leakage on node boundaries was assumed to be distributed uniformly, which generates some truncation errors. This year, a new treatment for the radial transverse leakage was introduced to the code by adopting a second order polynomial expansion of the flux at the node vertex point. A benchmark test of an FBR core showed the new nodal method can predict the keff within errors of 0.02%dk/k, on the other hand, the previous treatment has errors of 0.1%dk/k. 

Do not misapply the Frost circle device. The most common error is to forget to inscribe the circle with the vertex of the appropriate polygon down. This requirement is hard to remember because at this level of discussion this point is arbitrary— there is no easy way to figure it out if you don t remember the proper convention. 

On the other hand, the F-xtended Schafli or vertex symbol notations have been around for a while, but are not in universal use, probably because the assignments are cumbersome to do by hand and prone to errors. 

---