### Table 6.1: A comparison of robust (m,n) threshold sharing schemes, showing the scheme type, whether the dealer or shareholders may be faulty, and whether m or n may be changed. Note that Desmedt and Jajodia [16] do not specify a phase for the initial distribution of shares of a secret.

2004

Cited by 4

### Table 2: A (2; 2) robust threshold scheme.

"... In PAGE 4: ... The bound on the size of the shares for di erent models of c-compact (k; n) threshold schemes with cheaters provided by Theorem 15 and Corollaries 16 and 20 of [5] are not correct since their derivation is based on the bound (2) which we proved to be incorrect. For instance, it is not di cult to see that the (2; 2) robust threshold scheme depicted in Table2 violates the bound provided by Theorem 15 of [5]. By plugging in the correct version of the De Soete apos;s bound given by Theorem 2.... ..."

### Table 2: A (2; 2) robust threshold scheme.

"... In PAGE 4: ... The bound on the size of the shares for di erent models of c-compact (k; n) threshold schemes with cheaters provided by Theorem 15 and Corollaries 16 and 20 of [5] are not correct since their derivation is based on the erroneous bound (2). For instance, the (2; 2) robust threshold scheme depicted in Table2 violates the bound provided by Theorem 15 of [5]. Using the corrected version of De Soete apos;s bound given by Theorem 2.... ..."

### Table 7: condition numbers of the preconditioned Galerkin sti ness matrix and mass matrix (de ned with = 1), for the generators 4;8, ~ 1;~ n and the threshold parameter = :1.

1999

Cited by 7

### Table 7: condition numbers of the preconditioned Galerkin sti ness matrix and mass matrix (de ned with = 1), for the generators 4;8, ~ 1;~ n and the threshold parameter = :1.

1999

Cited by 7

### Table 1: For the lattice N of parameter sets of orthogonal arrays with N runs, the table gives the number of dual atoms A(N), the height ht(N), the total number of nodes T (N) and the threshold function B(N).

"... In PAGE 7: ... This would be merely a lower bound on the number of dual atoms. On the other hand we know (see Table1 ) that 28 has precisely four dual atoms, between 47 and 55 nodes, and height 28. 11 2131 31 11 p1 21 6 p (b) (a) 61 Figure 2: (a) p and (b) 6.... In PAGE 8: ... If N is not of one of the above forms then it seems necessary to consider each case individually. Table1 summarizes the properties of N for some small values of N. Here A(N) denotes the number of dual atoms in N.... In PAGE 9: ... It is possible to show that the height of 24 is 25, however: no chain can be longer than 241 | 22041 | 223 | 222 | 221 | | 21 | 11 : We also do not know N for N = 28, 36, : : :. The four sequences in Table1 are Sequences A39927, A39930, A39931 and A48893 of Sloane (1999). The entries in that database will be updated as further values are determined.... In PAGE 11: ...Table1 (cont.) N A(N) ht(N) T (N) B(N) 19 1 1 2 18 20 4 20 35 11 21 1 3 5 20 22 1 3 5 21 23 1 1 2 22 24 4 7 25 119 133 18 22 25 1 7 8 24 26 1 3 5 25 27 1 15 25 26 28 4 28 47 55 15 29 1 1 2 28 30 3 5 15 29 31 1 1 2 30 32 2 42 320 29 33 1 3 5 32 34 1 3 5 33 35 1 3 5 34 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 64 7 86 3037 57 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Lemma 6.... ..."

### TABLE II CALL BLOCKING PROBABILITY AND EFFICIENT BANDWIDTH USAGE IN DIFFERENT BANDWIDTH SHARING SCHEMES

### Table 4: Computation times for secret sharing and secret recovery of an 8 KB block using the XOR secret sharing scheme

2005

"... In PAGE 6: ... In practice, XOR secret sharing can be implemented with word-wide operations for efficiency. Table4 lists the computation times during secret sharing and secret recovery for a selection of (q, q) values for XOR secret sharing. Note that XOR secret sharing is also a perfect secret sharing scheme.... ..."

Cited by 8

### Table 2 The game can be further generalized by having N, rather than two players. This game we call the discrete (L, M, N) Threshold Game. We will not give the table form of this game, since it is difficult to present the moves of more than two players in a two dimensional table. However, the rules remain exactly the same. Each player chooses a number between 1, 2, ... , M, the referee receives N bids and, if their sum is less than or equal to L, each player is paid his or her bid. In case the sum of bids exceeds the threshold L, every player receives zero payoff.

### Table 2: Comparisons of the proposed protocols Conventional challenge-response scheme Our scheme More efficient key management no yes

2006

"... In PAGE 5: ... As a result of the previous comparisons, the new scheme has proven its superiority in key management, se- curity enhancement and access rights management over conventional challenge-response protocols. Table2 gives a summary of these results. 5 Conclusions The introduction of the self-concealing mechanism can spare the requirement of a bulky database for the shared keys.... ..."