<p>The simulation is based on two conditions, 25%–75% condition and 10%–90% condition, respectively.</p
<p>System throughput performance (a)-(c) when there are 10 users/km and (d)-(f) when there are 15 us...
Performance comparison of the proposed model and the state-of-the-art methods on DS2.</p
<p>Comparison between simulated and estimated transmission rates using the exKF and BME-SIR methods....
Simulation results of global throughput performance; Q = 1024 (Q = 10 for ISO18000-6C).</p
Simulation results of global throughput performance; Q = 512 (Q = 9 for ISO18000-6C).</p
Simulation results of global throughput performance; Q = 2048 (Q = 11 for ISO18000-6C).</p
Comparative model performance: High complexity choices, base rate of comparison: 25%.</p
Comparative model performance: Low complexity choices, base rate of comparison: 50%.</p
<p>Comparison between simulated results of three different models and experimental data for 5 wt-% e...
<p>The simulations for different number of pilot symbols <i>N</i><sub><i>p</i></sub> were performed....
<p>Comparison of the performance of our models with that of LACE, assuming a 25% intervention rate.<...
Comparison between present simulation results and Miaskowski et al. and Suleman et al.’s simulation ...
<p>UKF simulation performance: Comparison between generated states and measured states.</p
<p>Comparison of the treating performance among different model test solutions (pH = 7.05±0.25).</p
Comparing performance of the proposed methods built with different number of individual models.</p
<p>System throughput performance (a)-(c) when there are 10 users/km and (d)-(f) when there are 15 us...
Performance comparison of the proposed model and the state-of-the-art methods on DS2.</p
<p>Comparison between simulated and estimated transmission rates using the exKF and BME-SIR methods....
Simulation results of global throughput performance; Q = 1024 (Q = 10 for ISO18000-6C).</p
Simulation results of global throughput performance; Q = 512 (Q = 9 for ISO18000-6C).</p
Simulation results of global throughput performance; Q = 2048 (Q = 11 for ISO18000-6C).</p
Comparative model performance: High complexity choices, base rate of comparison: 25%.</p
Comparative model performance: Low complexity choices, base rate of comparison: 50%.</p
<p>Comparison between simulated results of three different models and experimental data for 5 wt-% e...
<p>The simulations for different number of pilot symbols <i>N</i><sub><i>p</i></sub> were performed....
<p>Comparison of the performance of our models with that of LACE, assuming a 25% intervention rate.<...
Comparison between present simulation results and Miaskowski et al. and Suleman et al.’s simulation ...
<p>UKF simulation performance: Comparison between generated states and measured states.</p
<p>Comparison of the treating performance among different model test solutions (pH = 7.05±0.25).</p
Comparing performance of the proposed methods built with different number of individual models.</p
<p>System throughput performance (a)-(c) when there are 10 users/km and (d)-(f) when there are 15 us...
Performance comparison of the proposed model and the state-of-the-art methods on DS2.</p
<p>Comparison between simulated and estimated transmission rates using the exKF and BME-SIR methods....
DOI
Add to ORKG