Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A decision rule is admissible (with respect to the loss function) if and only if no other rule dominates it; otherwise it is inadmissible. Thus an admissible decision rule is a maximal element with respect to the above partial order.
Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that added behavior that "shocks the conscience" into tests of what violates due process clause of the 14th Amendment. [1]
Nevertheless, admissibility of rules is known to be decidable in many modal and superintuitionistic logics. The first decision procedures for admissible rules in basic transitive modal logics were constructed by Rybakov, using the reduced form of rules. [12] A modal rule in variables p 0, ... , p k is called reduced if it has the form
In decision theory, a decision rule is said to dominate another if the performance of the former is sometimes better, and never worse, than that of the latter. Formally, let δ 1 {\displaystyle \delta _{1}} and δ 2 {\displaystyle \delta _{2}} be two decision rules , and let R ( θ , δ ) {\displaystyle R(\theta ,\delta )} be the risk of rule ...
Admissible decision rule, in statistical decision theory, a rule which is never dominated; Admissible rule, in logic, a type of rule of inference; Admissible heuristic, in computer science, is a heuristic which is no more than the lowest-cost path to the goal; Admissible prime k-tuple, in number theory regarding possible constellations of prime ...
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), was a 1969 United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that police officers arresting a person at his home could not search the entire home without a search warrant, but that police may search the area within immediate reach of the person without a warrant. [1]
Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that for testimonial statements to be admissible under the forfeiture exception to hearsay, the defendant must have intended to make the witness unavailable for trial.
California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), [1] was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a federal "harmless error" rule must apply, instead of equivalent state rules, for reviewing trials where federally-protected rights had been violated.