### Table 3: Generalized Decompositions Compared to Monolithic Verification with respect to Scaling FLAVERS LTSA

"... In PAGE 6: ... While compositional analysis might be able to verify a larger system, we think verifying these properties on larger systems will not be of much use.7 Table3 shows the number of properties in each category for FLAVERS and LTSA. We consider using generalized decompo- sitions to be a potential success in verifying a larger system than monolithic verification if the property is in category 1 or 2.... In PAGE 7: ... system size increases, 10 of them are classified as failures in Ta- ble 3. Of the 13 properties where only one TA is needed to prove the property regardless of system size, 7 are classified as failures in Table3 , though 3 of these failures are in category 5 where assume- guarantee reasoning based on generalized decompositions does bet- ter than monolithic verification but assume-guarantee reasoning is not likely to be of much use since monolithic verification scales well. On the remaining 5 properties, we cannot find a pattern to de- termine whether or not assume-guarantee reasoning based on gen- eralized decompositions will perform better than monolithic verifi- cation.... ..."

### Table 4: Summary of gas station results

"... In PAGE 7: ... We looked at four properties of the gas station, described in Table 3, and considered the gas station system with 2 pumps. Table4 shows the results of assume-guarantee reasoning and monolithic verification for each property. Again, the customers col- umn gives the largest number of customers on which both assume- guarantee reasoning and monolithic verification could prove each property.... ..."

### Table 1. Comparison of observed compositions with both possibilistic, extended possibilistic and probabilistic models (all ps lt;.0005).

"... In PAGE 3: ...ramework (e.g., negative predicted values). In order to reinforce the case against Possibility Theory, those measures were withdrawn from computation of the agreement between data and the probabilistic model. Results show that the probabilistic and possibilistic models both fitted the data ( Table1... ..."

### Table 3: Gas station properties

"... In PAGE 7: ... We looked at scaling the number of cus- tomers because of limitations in the language processing front-end when scaling the number of pumbs. We looked at four properties of the gas station, described in Table3 , and considered the gas station system with 2 pumps. Table 4 shows the results of assume-guarantee reasoning and monolithic verification for each property.... ..."

### Table 3. Results of the Rover Example

2003

"... In PAGE 15: ... Table3 shows the results of using our assume-guarantee framework on this example, which took 8.... ..."

Cited by 64

### Table 10: Fixed fee versus Time and Material export contracts

"... In PAGE 5: ...xtent of offshore work. An important reason is the need for face-to-face communication. Fixed fee contracts involve greater risk taking by the vendor in contrast to cost plus or time and material contracts. From Table10 we see that 53% of the firms we surveyed indicated that their most important export project in the last 12 months was a cost plus contract. 42% of the firms had a fixed price contract for their most important export project.... ..."

### Table 2: Performance of the best decompositions for size 2 and the generalized decompositions compared to monolithic verification Best decomp. Generalized

"... In PAGE 5: ... We used this approach to evaluate the memory usage of assume-guarantee rea- soning for larger system sizes and our algorithm for generalizing decomposition from the best decomposition for size 2 is described in Appendix A. Table2 gives the performance of the best decomposition at size 2 compared to monolithic verification. It also gives the performance of the generalized decomposition compared to monolithic verifi- cation at the largest system size that such a comparison could be made.... ..."

### Table 2: Performance of the best decompositions for size 2 and the generalized decompositions compared to monolithic verification Best decomp. Generalized

"... In PAGE 5: ... We used this approach to evaluate the memory usage of assume-guarantee rea- soning for larger system sizes, and our algorithm for generalizing decomposition from the best decomposition for size 2 is described in Appendix A. Table2 gives the performance of the best decomposition at size 2 compared to monolithic verification. It also gives the performance of the generalized decomposition compared to monolithic verifi- cation at the largest system size that such a comparison could be made.... ..."

### Table 1. Probabilistic User Model

2006

"... In PAGE 4: ... In these studies, users marked 85% of formula cells on average when testing and debugging spreadsheets, often placing check-marks on cells, and rarely placing a23-marks on cells. Of the cells that users marked, users in our earlier studies made mistakes according to the probabilities given in Table1 , so for our study, we simulated user behavior based on these probabilities. The bold numbers in Table 1 highlight false positive (check on incorrect value) and false negative (a23 on correct value) oracle mistakes.... ..."

Cited by 2

### Table 2. Comparison between deterministic reasoning and probabilistic inferring with test data Deterministic Probabilistic Sequence Ground

"... In PAGE 14: ... Wc, Wp, Wt and Wz are scaling factors used for normalizing different scales between audio and motion representations. Table2 shows the detailed results for comparison performed on test data set. Again, in order to have a fair comparison and to exclude any impacts from audio-visual features or other issues, we use the same audio and motion representations proposed in Section 2 to implement the deterministic method.... In PAGE 14: ...epresentations. Table 2 shows the detailed results for comparison performed on test data set. Again, in order to have a fair comparison and to exclude any impacts from audio-visual features or other issues, we use the same audio and motion representations proposed in Section 2 to implement the deterministic method. In Table2 , the proposed HMM-based framework once again outperforms the deterministic method. Figure 9 is the detection result using deterministic method with test sequence T0, and this result demonstrates that it is quite difficult to judge highlight segments based on the deterministic method, since occurrence of likelihood peaks is very noisy.... ..."

Cited by 1