### Table 1: Percent of Bits Correctly Recovered Scale Man. Lena

1999

"... In PAGE 4: ... The following table presents the percent of bits correctly recovered when we attempt to decode the mark after the image has undergone several possi- ble attacks. Table1 contains the results of the decod- ing process after the image has been scaled and when the image has been rotated. Figure 1: Marked Images of Mandrill and Lena.... ..."

Cited by 29

### Table 12: Results of a data analysis of the temperature derivative of the susceptibility @ =@Knn for the three models, where all system sizes L 6 were employed and an additional correction to scaling was included in the scaling formula.

"... In PAGE 13: ...n Eq. (28). Just as in the analysis of the spin{spin correlation function, the residuals for all three models indicated the presence of an additional correction to scaling ~b2Ly0 , which indeed follows from the discussion in the previous subsection. Table12 shows the results of an analysis at the critical points listed in Table 6, where this additional correction was included. All system sizes L 6wereused.... In PAGE 14: ... This implies an additional error margin of 0:003 for yt.Formodels 1 and 3, there is a reasonable agreement between the amplitudes a1 and a2 as shown in Table 11 and those in Table12 . The di erences are explained from the approximations in the scaling formulae.... ..."

### Table 1. Proportions of correct balance scale predictions by the addition and critical dimension rules

1994

"... In PAGE 20: ...These proportions correct are presented in Table1 . At most levels of problem size and torque difference, both rules generated perfectly correct predictions, i.... In PAGE 20: ...ifference, both rules generated perfectly correct predictions, i.e., proportions of 1.00.7 It is only at very low torque differences that these two rules falter a bit. ============ Table1 ============ 7.3.... ..."

Cited by 13

### Table 11: Results of a data analysis of the susceptibility for the three models, where all system sizes L 5 were employed and an additional correction to scaling was included in the scaling formula.

"... In PAGE 13: ... This allowed us to include system sizes L 5 for all three models. The results, which are presented in Table11 , are consistent with those obtained in the previous analysis. Now, the errors also include the margins due to the uncertainty in y0.... In PAGE 14: ... This implies an additional error margin of 0:003 for yt.Formodels 1 and 3, there is a reasonable agreement between the amplitudes a1 and a2 as shown in Table11 and those in Table 12. The di erences are explained from the approximations in the scaling formulae.... ..."

### Table 11. Results of a data analysis of lhe susceptibility K for the three models, where all system sizes L gt; 5 were employed and an additional correction to scaling was included in the scaling formula.

1995

Cited by 1

### Table 14. Results of a data analysis of the derivative of the quantity Q with respect to the nearest-neighbour coupling K, for models 2 and 3, where the leading correction to scaling has been omitted.

1995

Cited by 1

### Table 14: Results of a data analysis of the derivative of the quantity Q with respect to the nearest-neighbor coupling Knn for models 2 and 3, where the leading correction to scaling has been omitted.

"... In PAGE 14: ... We expect this to work especially well for models 2 and 3, where the irrelevant eld is notably smaller than in the rst model. Indeed, we have obtained accurate and consistent results for the models 2 and 3, as shown in Table14 . These results, together with those presented in Table 13, lead us to our nal result, yt =1:587 (2).... ..."

### Table 3: Critical parameters for several dilutions. We also show the computed corrections to scaling exponent !, the t quality and the range of lattice sizes used (crossings from L1 ? La 2 to L1 ? Lb 2).

### Table 1: Row 2: percentage of points for which a charac- teristic scale is detected. Row 3: percentage of points for which a correct scale is detected with respect to detected points. Row 4: percentage of correct / total.

2001

Cited by 180

### Table 1: Row 2: percentage of points for which a charac- teristic scale is detected. Row 3: percentage of points for which a correct scale is detected with respect to detected points. Row 4: percentage of correct / total.

2001

Cited by 180