### Table 6. The inference rules for a129

2001

"... In PAGE 10: ... The category Petri is a full subcategory of dZPetri. As for PT nets, we can define the behavior of ZS nets by means of a step rela- tion a136 B , defined by the inference rules in Table6 . An auxiliary relation a137 B is introduced for modeling transaction segments.... ..."

Cited by 12

### Table 1: The type of answer required and the inference algorithm used in the CPRM model. Here MAP stands for Maximum A Posteriori estimation, F for ltering, S for smoothing, R for reachability, and P for predictive inference. , indicates sequential application. The symbol I represents a speci c intervention into the CPRM net- work (Pearl 2000) as speci ed by the hypothetical con- dition. Computing reachability after the intervention is given by RI.

### Table 2. Solar tachocline parameters inferred by Genetic Forward Modeling

"... In PAGE 18: ... All solutions make use of the three splitting coe cients a1, a3 and a5. Table2 lists the four best- t aspherical parameters (note that rc(0 ) rc0 and w(0 ) w0), as well as rc( ) and w( ) at latitudes of 60 , for ease of comparison with Table 1. As before these GFM solutions were run over 5000 generations and further re nement to tolerance 10?6 using the downhill simplex method.... In PAGE 18: ... It is noteworthy that the GFM-1 and GFM-2 solutions both have a 2 that is slightly |but signi cantly| smaller than the spherical tachocline solution of x5.2, whose parameters are listed at the bottom of Table2 as GFM-0. The most striking feature in Table 2 is that the two better solutions (on the basis of their 2) are slightly prolate, i.... In PAGE 18: ...s that the two better solutions (on the basis of their 2) are slightly prolate, i.e., rc1 gt; 0 so that rc increases with latitude. Moreover, both the equatorial radius and degree of prolateness agree very well with the results obtained by SOLA and RLS, as can be seen by comparing the GFM-1 and 2 solutions of Table2 to the corresponding values of rc listed in Table 1. The statistical signi cance of this results can be ascertained by constructing 2-isosurfaces about the best- t solution and establishing con dence regions (see, e.... In PAGE 31: ...2), and the second (thick lines) to the 9-parameter aspherical solution (x5.3, GFM-1 in Table2 ). Full parameter values for the latter are c = 432:0, eq = 439:1, c1 = ?53:31, c2 = ?59:83, c3 = 23:72 (all in nHz times 2 ), rc0 = 0:694, rc1 = 0:028, w0 = 0:039, w1 = ?0:029 (all in R ).... In PAGE 31: ...3. The solid dot is the 9-parameter best- t aspherical solution (GFM-1 in Table2 ), and the diamond is the 8-parameter GFM-2 solution . Panel (a) shows a net error correlation between the parameters de ning the latitudinal variation of the tachocline central radius (see eq.... ..."

### Table 2: The models of causal inference.

"... In PAGE 3: ... The information collected about factual and causal uncertainty was then used to parameterise various models of causal inference, in order to see if the inferences participants made could be predicted. Models of Causal Inference The models of causal inference investigated are listed in Table2 . The probabilistic model defines the normative method of inferring the probability of an effect given information about a related cause.... ..."

### Table 3: Inference results for the 20-dimensional regulatory net using linear weight matrices and S-Systems. The table gives the overall number of different network solutions found, the number of runs in which the true system has been found, the ratio of hits, the number of runs, and the averaged fitness value. Model Algorithm Solutions Hits Hit ratio Average fitness

### Table 2: Equivalence Inference.

"... In PAGE 3: ... Equivalence is infered using either WordNet lookups (syn- onyms) or shallow string comparison (lemma/stem compar- ison, abbreviation recognition and Edit-Distance similarity). Table2 provides examples for each technique. Table 2: Equivalence Inference.... ..."

### Table 1: Comparison of genuine and inferred Inter- net2 subnets

"... In PAGE 5: ...2 Verifying Inferred Internet2 Subnets Among the 176 subnets identifled in the collected topol- ogy, 116 subnets are part of the Internet2 backbone topology that we can verify. Table1 compares the genuine subnets and subnets inferred from the collected data. First column indicates the number of each =x subnet in the genuine topol- ogy.... In PAGE 5: ... Finally, n/o indicates the number of genuine subnets whose IP addresses are not observed in the collected path traces. There are two types of mismatches in the Table1 . First, some subnets appear to be smaller than they are.... ..."

Cited by 1

### Table 1: Inference results for the 5-dimensional regulatory net using linear weight matrices and S-Systems. The table gives the overall number of different network solutions found in the optimization process. The next two columns give the number of runs in which the true system has been found and the ratio of hits and number of runs. Additionally, the averaged fitness value of the best individuals of all runs is given. Model Algorithm Solutions Hits Hit ratio Average fitness

"... In PAGE 5: ...he 5-dimensional network shown in Fig. 1. Each of these artificial regulatory systems was then simulated to gain data sets and inferred by the four different algorithms. Table1 gives the statistics for each model and optimiza- tion algorithm. Listed in the table are the overall number of different network solutions found, the number of runs in which the true system has been found, the ratio of hits, the total number of runs, and the fitness value averaged over the best individuals.... ..."