### Table 3: Methodologies and Requirements

1999

"... In PAGE 12: .................... 2-40 Table3... In PAGE 85: ...1.3 Discussion of Current Availability of Tools Table3 below gives an overview of how the methodologies reviewed in this report meet the... In PAGE 86: ...classification of compliance with the requirements is subjectively based on the examples provided in the available literature. From Table3 it is clear that there is no single methodology available which satisfies all the requirements. Also, it is not clear that the data used in the quantification process would be credible to a significant portion of the technical community for any methodology.... ..."

### Table 1 Methodological Lessons _________________________________________________________________________________

"... In PAGE 19: ... Literally dozens of these references have been published as part of this series, and many of them have entailed reports of informative RT data. Their prevalence in the present chapter provides substantial inspiration for our first two methodological lessons ( Table1 ): Now is the hour, and reaction time is of the essence! Formulation of EPIC Computational Models Proceeding further on the basis of EPIC, we formulate explicit computational models of multiple-task performance in terms of complementary production-rule sets, which specify the operations of EPIC apos;s cognitive processor. First, for each task at hand, a distinct set of production rules that perform the task with the architecture apos;s various components must be written.... In PAGE 49: ... Conclusion Reviewing the lessons that our computational modeling of human multiple-task performance has taught us, we see that they fall into several subcategories.Among the methodological lessons ( Table1 ), some concern attitudes and intellectual orientations that theorists should adopt while seeking a practical unified theory of cognition and action (e.... ..."

### Table 2: Methodologies in the three cognitive modelling activities

"... In PAGE 5: ... It is interesting to note that even though the field of application and the cognitive processes modelled differ across the studies, similar methods are found for the cognitive modelling activities (see Table 2). Table 1: Purpose and context of modelling in the three example domains Domain Area Cognitive process Level of expertise Physics problem solving switches of representations novice Medical problem solving development of expertise novice expert Acciden tology knowledge acquisition multiple expertise expert Table2 summarises the methodologies used across the three domains (techniques of elicitation, representation and validation). The popular method of think-aloud is useful for both physics and medical problem solving as well as for knowledge acquisition in accidentology.... ..."

### Table 1. Level and Methodology of Integration

"... In PAGE 5: ... Agent- based integration utilizes contextual meta-knowledge represented in the form of facts and rules while workflow-based integration utilizes procedural knowledge represented in the form of process models. Because user interface level integration is a technique for opening up legacy systems, this level may participate equally within both methodology categories (see Table1 ). In our work, the focus on cross- infrastructure interaction has led us to adopt a brokered approach.... ..."

### Table 1. Verification results

2004

"... In PAGE 11: ... Note that spin carries out a step- by-step execution, allowing the inspection of code and variables in every step. The size of the state space produced by this model is shown in Table1 (row safety in concrete model). Note that the state space increases exponentially with the number of floors in the lift.... In PAGE 16: ... 15, with this transformation the error NoMove is not present in either the abstract model or, using Theorem 1, the concrete model. The benefits of using the abstract formula to discard this error are sum- marized in Table1 and Fig. 19.... In PAGE 16: ... Now the verification result for the abstract formula is valid , which ensures (using Theorem 1) that the con- crete model satisfies the property. Again, the benefits of verifying with this method are shown in Table1 and Fig. 19.... ..."

Cited by 2

### Table 2. Proof verification

2003

"... In PAGE 5: ... Table 2. Proof verification Table2 gives data about proof verification. The Verification time column shows the time taken by Proof_verification2.... In PAGE 6: ... (For the rest of the conflict clauses we computed the number of resolutions exactly. So we believe the lower bounds shown in Table2 are close to the real sizes.) The Confl.... In PAGE 6: ... It is not hard to see that with the exception of a few instances conflict clause proofs are smaller than resolution graph ones. (In Table2 we estimate only the initial size of a resolution graph. That is we do not take into account that, as it was mentioned in Section 5, the size of the resolution proof grows during proof verification.... In PAGE 6: ...onfl. cl. proof size (in thou- sands of literals) Ra- tio % bounded model checking, SAT-2002 [18] fifo8_200 379,992 71,971 18 fifo8_300 987,840 118,132 11 fifo8_400 4,581,450 335,752 7 Table 3. Growth of resolution proof size The size of the largest proof of Table2 (formula 7pipe) was 257 Mbyte and so we were able to verify the proof on the computer with 640 Mbytes of memory. On the other hand, the corresponding resolution graph proof contained 435 million nodes and so the resolution graph would take more than 2 Gbytes of memory (assuming that on average one needs 5 digits to label a node of the resolution graph).... ..."

Cited by 22

### Table 2. Proof verification

"... In PAGE 5: ...44 103,556 41.5 Table2 gives data about proof verification. The Verification time column shows the time taken by Proof_verification2.... In PAGE 5: ... (For the rest of the conflict clauses we computed the number of resolutions exactly. So we believe the lower bounds shown in Table2 are close to the real sizes.) The Confl.... In PAGE 5: ...It is not hard to see that with the exception of a few instances conflict clause proofs are smaller than resolution graph ones. (In Table2... In PAGE 6: ... cl. proof size (in thou- sands of literals) Ra- tio % bounded model checking, SAT-2002 [18] fifo8_200 379,992 71,971 18 fifo8_300 987,840 118,132 11 fifo8_400 4,581,450 335,752 7 The size of the largest proof of Table2 (formula 7pipe) was 257 Mbyte and so we were able to verify the proof on the computer with 640 Mbytes of memory. On the other hand, the corresponding resolution graph proof contained 435 million nodes and so the resolution graph would take more than 2 Gbytes of memory (assuming that on average one needs 5 digits to label a node of the resolution graph).... ..."

### Table 6. QSPR Models Compared to the Methodology from Table 1a

1998

"... In PAGE 6: ... This suggests that those scales specifically measure interactions involving hydrogen bond acceptor properties of solvents and can be used for choosing appropriate electron pair donor solvents. In Table6 , all the scales are listed once more together with the descriptors involved in the QSPR equations. For each of the scales the main physico-chemical phenomena suggested by the descriptors are listed together with the comparison to the ideas of the authors.... ..."

### Table 2: A layered model of research methodology Layer Examples Worldviews

"... In PAGE 10: ...June, 1994 Given these layers, we cannot limit the study of research methodology to a particular level of ab- straction and refer to the models of research methodologies as layered models. Table2 depicts the three layers each with several examples. Not all the combinations of worldviews and research heuris- tics have been practiced or are meaningful.... In PAGE 15: ... These perspectives are some combinations of worldviews and research heuristics and are not just worldviews.7 Examples of these combinations that follow Table2 are (note that some examples could be placed in multiple combinations): Scientism|Formal methods: logic as presented in (Genesereth and Nilsson, 1987). Note that by removing the introductory chapter of this book, the techniques described in it can serve well a practicist|formal method perspective.... ..."

### Table 1. IT Evaluation Methodologies Addressing Intangibles

"... In PAGE 6: ... MOMC methods are still in their infancy, but have already spawned a great deal of interest amongst researchers (Sylla and Wen, 2002). Table1 provides a summary of the methods discussed, including their focus and comments addressing their strengths and weaknesses. There is an emerging body of literature from the field of knowledge management that might have some relevance in evaluating BI.... ..."