### Table 1: Preprocessing times for the 3D grid using three different method; 1) GPU acceleration and occlusion queries to only compute the ambient occlusion in each cell, 2) GPU acceleration computing occlusion cones, and 3) ray tracing with 256 rays per cell with Monte Carlo sampling

2006

"... In PAGE 15: ... For all our scenes, a grid resolution of 323 was used. Table1 shows the run-times. For comparison purposes, we have also included one very large model of 1M triangles.... ..."

Cited by 4

### Table 1: Model-based segmentation and visualization

"... In PAGE 8: ... As a simple example, colors and transparencies of such objects should be selected such that contrasts are easily perceived and all relevant objects are sufficiently visible. Comparison of Model-based Segmentation and Visualization In Table1 , we compare information used for model-based segmentation and visualization. Table 1: Model-based segmentation and visualization... ..."

### Table 2: Graph sequence information and running time [sec.]. The last two columns show average incremental lay- out time for one graph. Total running times for the CPU only and GPU accelerated variant of the algorithm are shown.

"... In PAGE 6: ... Our algorithm was implemented using C++, Cg and OpenGL. Table2 gives information about the graph se- quences and running times. As can be seen in the table, our GPU implementation provides a signi cant speedup of up to 8 compared to the CPU.... ..."

### Table 4 ARMD trial

2007

"... In PAGE 17: ...ared. For the observed, partially incomplete data, GEE is supplemented with WGEE. Further, a random-intercepts GLMM is considered, based on numerical integration. The GEE analyses are reported in Table4 and the random-effects models in Table 5. For GEE, a working exchangeable correlation matrix is considered.... In PAGE 19: ... The advantage of having separate treatment effects at each time is that particular attention can be given at the treatment effect assessment at the last planned measurement occasion, that is, after one year. From Table4 it is clear that the model-based and empirically corrected standard errors agree extremely well. This is due to the unstructured nature of the full time by treatment mean structure.... In PAGE 20: ... The results for the random-effects models are given in Table 5. We observe the usual relationship between the marginal parameters of Table4 and their random-effects counterparts. Note also that the random-intercepts variance is largest under LOCF, underscoring again that this method artificially increases the association between mea- surements on the same subject.... ..."

### Table 2. Optimal views based on model-based reconstruction.

2004

"... In PAGE 5: ... Based on an average reconstruction time of 30 sec- onds, this search takes about 45 hours. The results are presented in Table2 which shows the optimal views for K = {1,2,3,4,5} and the correspond- ing minimum average reconstruction errors (refer to Table 1 Figure 7. Reconstruction errors for all view con- figurations with 4 cameras (K = 4) ranked by magnitude of ensemble error.... In PAGE 5: ... Figure 7 shows the errors of all combinatorial view configurations for the case K = 4, ranked in ascending order of error. Each er- ror bar represents the subjects standard deviation for that configuration (the first error bar corresponds to the optimal configuration and is the subject standard deviation listed in Table2 ). Other plots for K = 1,2,3 and 5 are quite sim- ilar in nature, all showing a well-defined minimum with the subject variation (error-bars) being lowest for the best configuration (left most) and highest for the worst (right most).... In PAGE 5: ... Using the same search strategy, we now evaluate the visual hull constructions ob- tained from the given subset of silhouette images and com- pare them to the ground truth. Table 3 shows the optimal views for K = {2,3,4,5} and the corresponding error val- ues (same format as in Table2 except that the visual hull from a single silhouette (K = 1) has no finite volume and... In PAGE 6: ... There are a few dif- ferences but these are somewhat misleading. The best view configurations in Table2 are marked in Figure 8 with ar- rows. We note that our model-based optimal views have al- most the same errors as the best views chosen with visual hull method and are always in the first plateau or top quar- tile that includes the key profile view #10.... ..."

Cited by 7

### Table 9 Comparison of Actual and Model-Based GRPs

"... In PAGE 12: ... We caution the readers that the solution may not be optimal but provides a better allocation. One such allocation is reported in Table9 and depicted in Figure 5. The horizontal bar graph com- pares the improved and the actual allocation of resources (measured in total GRPs) across the dif- ferent themes.... In PAGE 12: ... Our model suggests increasing adver- tising expenditure on reconnect and reassurance ads while decreasing on the other three themes. The per- centage changes in allocation of GRPs are quite large as seen in Table9 . They range from a low of 50% to a high of 276% change.... ..."

### Table 2. Optimal views based on model-based reconstruction.

2004

"... In PAGE 7: ... Based on an average reconstruction time of 30 seconds, this search takes about 45 hours. The results are presented in Table2 which shows the optimal views for K = {1,2,3,4,5} and the correspond- ing minimum average reconstruction errors (refer to Table 1 for exact coordinates). The standard deviation of the indi- Figure 7.... In PAGE 7: ... Figure 7 shows the errors of all combinatorial view configurations for the case K = 4, ranked in ascending order of error. Each er- ror bar represents the subjects standard deviation for that configuration (the first error bar corresponds to the optimal configuration and is the subject standard deviation listed in Table2 ). Other plots for K = 1,2,3 and 5 are quite sim- ilar in nature, all showing a well-defined minimum with the subject variation (error-bars) being lowest for the best configuration (left most) and highest for the worst (right most).... In PAGE 7: ... Using the same search strategy, we now evaluate the visual hull construc- tions obtained from the given subset of silhouette im- ages and compare them to the ground truth. Table 3 shows the optimal views for K = {2,3,4,5} and the correspond- ing error values (same format as in Table2 except that the visual hull from a single silhouette (K = 1) has no fi- nite volume and is omitted). Note that a visual hull recon- struction (especially one from few images) is not a very... In PAGE 8: ... Interestingly, the first plateau corresponding to the top group is all the sub- sets which include the profile view #10 (one of the most salient). We can see marked similarities in the opti- mal views in Table2 and Table 3. For example, both methods indicate views #3 and #10 to be the most infor- mative.... In PAGE 8: ... For example, the two most salient views (#3 and #10) correspond very closely with the established (biomet- ric) standards of 3/4 view (INS photos) and profile view ( mugshot photos). We have not yet searched for K gt; 5 mainly due to the computational costs, but it appears that reconstructions do not improve significantly beyond 4-5 views (see the best errors listed in Table2 ). One can easily incorporate additional physical and operational constraints into our framework.... ..."

Cited by 7

### Table 4. Model-based reductions of the complete pathway (model statistics)

"... In PAGE 25: ... Similarly, the removal of the de- complexation of FGFR:FRS2 would only be noticeable over a very small time scale: as the rate of FRS2 and FGFR complexation is extremely fast, following the decomplexation of FRS2 and FGFR one would see the (re)complexation of FGFR and FRS2 almost immediately. Table4 gives the model statistics both for the complete model and the model obtained after applying the reductions (1), (2) and (3) both in isolation and collectively. The results show that reduction (1) - removal of Sos - yields the greatest decrease in state space of the three.... ..."

### Table 1: Simulation model based on the AMD Athlon.

2007

"... In PAGE 3: ...0 x86 Tool Set [7] for simulating our x86 binaries. The con guration is given in Table1 and based loosely on an AMD Athlon processor, as this represents a widely deployed modern desktop system, and a pipeline that is more reasonable to emulate.... ..."

Cited by 1

### Table 4. Fraction of correct models based on the LGscore

"... In PAGE 5: ... As done in the study (Elofsson, 2002) we use the less strict LGscore cutoff (10C03)to define a correct model and a more stringent cutoff (10C05) to identify models of higher quality. The percentage of models correct based on these cutoffs are shown in Table4 . Both the incremental window-based alignment methods, as well as the SW-PSSM align- ment method, are able to pick the correct models with similar degrees of accuracy.... In PAGE 5: ... Our techniques also seem to identify a higher percentage of correct models when compared with the previously studied schemes, especially PSI and SSPSI, both of which also incorporate some profile information. As seen from Table4 our methods are able to pick a larger fraction of higher quality models for the family and superfamily levels. 4.... ..."