### Table 2. The multicast communication models of sequential tree, binomial tree, and chain tree where k is number of nodes in the group.

1996

"... In PAGE 7: ... Given a multicast algorithm, tmhold and tmcast of the algorithm can be estimated from thold and tend. Table2 contains the multicast communication models of the three multicast trees. Note that these parameters can be measured by using ping and ping-pong benchmarks as mentioned in [12].... ..."

Cited by 28

### Table 5. The twelve option values calculated by the binomial tree method Month Option Value ($) Month Option Value ($)

"... In PAGE 5: ... The values of the remaining options with different maturities can be found by constructing a different binomial tree for each option and working backwards through each tree in a similar fashion. The twelve option values calculated by using the binomial tree method are given in Table5 . The total value of having the option to cross train for twelve months is found to be $118,128.... In PAGE 5: ... The total value of having the option to cross train for twelve months is found to be $118,128. When the values in Table5 are compared with the values in Table 4, we can see that the values obtained from binomial lattice approach are very close to the values obtained from the Black- Scholes formula. 0896 .... ..."

Cited by 1

### Table 2: Comparison of the three algorithms for the k-item scatter problem. (For the Binomial Tree formula, we assume that P is a power of 2.)

"... In PAGE 9: ... It is easy to improve it by sending all the items destined for the same processor as a long message of k items instead of sending k separate ones. The running time of this algorithm, which we call the Simple Long-Message algorithm, is also given in Table2 . Although the new algorithm is significantly faster than the Short-Message algorithm for k gt; 1 items, it is still not optimal.... ..."

### Table 1 Assumptions for node sizes (in bytes) for the binomial spanning tree, the binary trie, and the LC trie

2004

### TABLE 2 A comparison of absolute root mean squared errors for a Monte Carlo, binomial trees and the QUAD method for Asian options QUAD RMSE MC RMSE BIN RMSE

in Extending

### Table 2 Total memory requirement in Kbytes for the binomial spanning tree, the binary trie, and the LC trie with fill factorZ0.5

2004

### Table 3.3: European Put Prices Corresponding to Di erent Step Sizes T=M. From Table 3.3 we note the option prices from the trinomial tree for each M equal the corresponding price from the binomial tree with the number of subintervals being 2M. This is consistent with our speci c choice of the parameters for the trinomial tree.With the same parameters as in the above example, we can compute the approx- imate prices of the corresponding American put option. The results are shown in the Table 3.4.

### TABLE 1 A comparison of absolute root mean squared errors for a Monte Carlo, a tree method (either binomial or trinomial) and QUAD method for complex path-dependent op- tions

in Extending

### Table 2: Timing for One Trade of the Parallel Option Pricing Models on Various Platforms Platform Machine EUS AMS Speedup

1994

"... In PAGE 15: ...2.3 Performance Analysis The timings for one trade of the parallel option models on various models is given in the Table2 . Note: The timing data is measured when the level of binomial tree is 17.... ..."

Cited by 2

### Table 3: Predicted performance of the three algorithms for the k-item scatter problem for P = 1024. The parameters are for the simpli ed LogGP model.

"... In PAGE 6: ... The running time for the Binomial Tree algorithm is given in Table 2. Table3 shows the predicted running times of the three algorithms discussed so far for two sets of pa- rameters. For comparison the table includes the single-item optimal algorithm described in the following section.... ..."