Maximum Likelihood Estimation Sample Clauses

Maximum Likelihood Estimation. Maximum likelihood estimation allows for appropriate treatment of the binary out- −(x −φ ) φ1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Maximum Likelihood Estimation. Estimation for finite mixture models is typically done via the Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm due to its easy implementation and stable convergence [54, 53]. In the EM framework, estimation of ψ for a finite mixture model can be approached as an incomplete-data problem. More specifically, the observed data vector, y = 1 n (yT , . . . , yT )T , can be viewed as incomplete because the component-label vectors, 1 n c z = (zT , . . . , zT )T , are unknown. Thus, the complete-data vector is given by y = (yT , zT )T . It follows that the complete-data log-likelihood is given by: ∑ ∑

Related to Maximum Likelihood Estimation

  • Estimate The Engineer shall independently develop and report quantities necessary to construct the contract in standard State bid format at the specified milestones and Final PS&E submittals. The Engineer shall prepare each construction cost estimates using Estimator or any approved method. The estimate shall be provided at each milestone submittal or in DCIS format at the 95% and Final PS&E submittals per State’s District requirement.

  • Volume Estimate The estimated volumes of timber by species designated for cutting under B2.3 and expected to be cut under Utilization Standards are listed in A2. If Sale Area Map indicates that there are incom- pletely Marked subdivisions, the objective of Forest Ser- vice shall be to designate for cutting in such subdivisions sufficient timber so that Sale Area shall yield the ap- proximate estimated volume by species or species groups stated in A2. However, the estimated volumes stated in A2 are not to be construed as guarantees or limitations of the timber volumes to be designated for cut- ting under the terms of this contract. Volume adjustments shall not be made under this Section after there is modification for Catastrophic Dam- age under B8.32.

  • Cost Estimates If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%) of CITY’s stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY.

  • Cost Estimating The Model may be used to develop cost estimates based on the approximate data provided and conceptual estimating techniques (e.g., volume and quantity of elements or type of system selected).

  • Reasonable Suspicion Testing The Employer may, but does not have a legal duty to, request or require an employee to undergo drug and alcohol testing if the Employer or any supervisor of the employee has a reasonable suspicion (a belief based on specific facts and rational inferences drawn from those facts) related to the performance of the job that the employee:

  • FLORIDA CONVICTED/SUSPENDED/DISCRIMINATORY COMPLAINTS By submission of an offer, the respondent affirms that it is not currently listed in the Florida Department of Management Services Convicted/Suspended/Discriminatory Complaint Vendor List.

  • Cost Estimate An estimate of the total project cost including but not limited to direct expenses, indirect expenses, land cost, and capital expenses.

  • Justification and Anticipated Results The Privacy Act requires that each matching agreement specify the justification for the program and the anticipated results, including a specific estimate of any savings. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(o)(1)(B).

  • Penalty Determination H&SC section 39619.7 requires CARB to provide information on the basis for the penalties it seeks. This Agreement includes this information, which is also summarized here. The provision of law the penalty is being assessed under and why that provision is most appropriate for that violation. The penalty provision being applied in this case is H&SC section 42402 et seq. because IIT sold, supplied, offered for sale, consumer products for commerce in California in violation of the Consumer Products Regulations (17 CCR section 94507 et seq.). The penalty provisions of H&SC section 42402 et seq. apply to violations of the Consumer Products Regulations because the regulations were adopted under authority of H&SC section 41712, which is in Part 4 of Division 26. The manner in which the penalty amount was determined, including aggravating and mitigating factors and per unit or per vehicle basis for the penalty. H&SC section 42402 et seq. provides strict liability penalties of up to $10,000 per day for violations of the Consumer Product Regulations with each day being a separate violation. In cases like this, involving unintentional violations of the Consumer Products Regulations where the violator cooperates with the investigation, CARB has obtained penalties for selling uncertified charcoal lighter material in California. In this case, the total penalty is $7,500 for selling uncertified charcoal lighter material in California. The penalty in this case was reduced because this was a strict liability first-time violation and IIT made diligent efforts to cooperate with the investigation. To come into compliance, IIT no longer offers Safegel BBQ & Fireplace Lighting Gel Fire Starter for commerce in California. Final penalties were determined based on the unique circumstances of this matter, considered together with the need to remove any economic benefit from noncompliance, the goal of deterring future violations and obtaining swift compliance, the consideration of past penalties in similar negotiated cases, and the potential cost and risk associated with litigating these particular violations. The penalty reflects violations extending over a number of days resulting in quantifiable harm to the environment considered together with the complete circumstances of this case. Penalties in future cases might be smaller or larger on a per ton basis. The final penalty in this case was based in part on confidential financial information or confidential business information provided by IIT that is not retained by CARB in the ordinary course of business. The penalty in this case was also based on confidential settlement communications between CARB and IIT that CARB does not retain in the ordinary course of business. The penalty also reflects CARB’s assessment of the relative strength of its case against IIT, the desire to avoid the uncertainty, burden and expense of litigation, obtain swift compliance with the law and remove any unfair advantage that IIT may have secured from its actions. Is the penalty being assessed under a provision of law that prohibits the emission of pollution at a specified level, and, if so a quantification of excess emissions, if it is practicable to do so. The Consumer Product Regulations do not prohibit emissions above a specified level, but they do limit the concentration of VOCs in regulated products. In this case, a quantification of the excess emissions attributable to the violations was not practicable.

  • Preliminary Cost Estimates The Engineer shall develop a preliminary cost estimate using the Average Low Bid Unit Price. The Engineer shall estimate the total project cost including preliminary engineering, final engineering, right-of-way (ROW) acquisition, environmental compliance and mitigation, construction, utility relocation, and construction engineering inspection (CEI).

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.