The problem here that both the query likelihoods [MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] are the same values.
As mentioned in the above concept, we propose a LinkBased Language Model (LBLM) which considers the keyword likelihoods of neighboring pages connected by hyperlinks.
We can also compare our best method with a baseline method not considering the query likelihoods of neighboring Web pages mentioned in Section 2.
A second implication of proposition 13 is that for a fixed [delta], as the sample size increases, the absolute value difference between the likelihoods increases linearly with the sample size.
These two results, the linearity of the difference of the likelihoods on [delta] and the sample size, emphasize the usefulness for practitioners of the bound in proposition 13.
Figure 6.2.1 plots the absolute value difference between the likelihoods of the exact and the approximated model |L([y.sup.T]; [gamma]) - [L.sub.j] ([y.sup.T]; [gamma])| as a function of [delta] for our sample.
Absolute Performance of Parsimony and Maximum Likelihood in the Bacteriophage Phylogenies
When identical models were applied to each of the four-taxon phylogenies, the performance of likelihood and minimum-evolution-distance methods only differed when branch lengths were highly unequal (shown for three models in [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 6 OMITTED]).
In the highly unequal treatment, the strongest bootstrap support for an incorrect resolution of the basal polytomy ranged from only 20% to 34% under the likelihood criterion, but ranged from 52% to 64% under the minimum-evolution criterion.
First, there is some tension between the similarity likelihood ratio (2) and the match-binning ratio (5).
A juror who implicitly thin in terms of likelihood ratios, and who is not apprised of A(w), might treat A(w) as if its value were 1, and weigh the evidence as if its probative value were given by the following "P only" likelihood ratio:
The likelihood of each topology under the null hypothesis (that host and parasite topologies are identical) is calculated assuming the constraint that the same topology underlies both host and parasite sequences, but with the other parameters (e.g., v, [Kappa], and [Alpha]) optimized independently for hosts and parasites.
The likelihood ratio for a test of congruence between host and parasite topologies will always be less than or equal to one because the alternative hypothesis is more general than the null hypothesis.
A different pattern is shown by the likelihoods for the antigen recognition sites (ARS) of these genes.
This algorithm also makes it possible to test through alternate trees and to determine how their relative likelihoods are changed with and without selection.