### Table 2. Operational semantics of L.

1998

"... In PAGE 14: ... The syntax of this language is obtained by extend- ing the possible prefixes of the language L with the new prefix: ::= rd(a) Also the set Label of the possible labels is extended with a new label a standing for the execution of a prefix rd(a). The operational semantics of the language L[rd] is defined by the structural congruence of Table 1 and by the SOS rules of Table2 extended with the axiom and rule of Table 3. Moreover, the side condition 6 = a must be added to the rule (8) of Table 2, because also the new label a cannot pass trough a restriction on the name a.... In PAGE 14: ... The operational semantics of the language L[rd] is defined by the structural congruence of Table 1 and by the SOS rules of Table 2 extended with the axiom and rule of Table 3. Moreover, the side condition 6 = a must be added to the rule (8) of Table2 , because also the new label a cannot pass trough a restriction on the name a. In rule (11) the execution of the rd operation does not change the TS, hence the tuple occurring in the agent Q is not removed (i.... In PAGE 17: ...The process inp(a)?P Q tests if the tuple hai is present in TS: if it is available, then it is removed and the process P is chosen, otherwise Q is executed. In order to describe this behavior in an SOS style, we add the new label :a to the set Label, and the rules of Table 4 to the ones of Table2 . In this case the side condition for the new label (i.... In PAGE 20: ... In Table 5 the semantics of the rdp primitive is defined: the action of reading the tuple hai (and the following choice of the process P) is labeled with a (axiom (16)), while when the process Q is chosen the label is :a (axiom (17)). The semantics of the language L[rdp] is defined by the axioms and rules of Table2 (plus the the side condition 6 = a; :a for the rule (8) and 6 = :a for the rule (6)), the rule (11) of Table 3 (defining the behavior of the synchronization due to the the labels a and a), the rules (14) and (15) of Table 4 (defining the behaviour of the label :a w.... ..."

Cited by 40

### Table 5 Axioms for observational equality (1) P + Q = Q + P

"... In PAGE 8: ... This auxiliary pre x is used in our axiomatization in order to transform the class of message agents in equivalent pre x forms: it is easy to prove that hai apos; a?:0. In Table5 an axiomatic characterization for the observational equality is presented. Axioms (1) and (2) state that the choice composition operator + is commutative and... ..."

### Table A4 Comparison of Estimates under Nonnormality and Bootstrapped Estimates

### Table 1. The contribution of the performance perspective in a wider Interaction Design Program

"... In PAGE 20: ...18 Table1 provocatively simplifies established and dominating tenets in human-computer interaction on the left and, on the right, proposes for each a contrasting approach derived from thinking in terms of a performance perspective. The table above summarises how the resulting provocations relate to the more general movement of humanising interactive system design.... In PAGE 20: ... Dominant tenets are usability, making an operation easy and efficient, for exam- ple, or exploiting affordances so that they can be carried out unthinkingly and making the tool disappear. On the other side of Table1 , a performance perspective aims at creating experiences where participants are more aware, think feelingly about the artefacts around them and engage in the situation in reflection or perception in action. Moreover pervasive and context-aware scenarios propose sensing systems that measure and simulate space or recognise and sense situations.... In PAGE 81: ... More importantly, the performance perspective suggested a particular temporal view on interaction, based on the concept of event, addressing a neglected granularity of analy- sis between the moment-by-moment unfolding of interaction and the longer term co- evolution of technology and practice. This perspective contributes to the debate on new human-computer interaction frame- works and to the wider program of interaction with an empirical grounding of the provo- cations in Table1 , p. 17.... ..."

### Table 1: Some choices for the loss function Q[y; c]. (p) is the dispersion function, discussed in section 5.

"... In PAGE 2: ... Two choices of particular interest are misclassi cation error Q1[y; c] = 8 lt; : 0 c = y if 1 c 6 = y. (1) and squared error Q2[y; c] = Xk (yk ? ck)2 (2) Some other choices for Q are given in Table1 and Section 5. We assume that the observations xi = (ti; yi) in the training set are a random sample from some distribution F , x1; x2; ; xn i:i:d: F; (3)... In PAGE 5: ... The following result shows that PE satis es a Pythagorean-type equality. Lemma 1: For the error measures in Table1 and others satisfying the conditions given in section 5, Bias(C) = PE(C0; CA) = PE(Y; CA) ? PE(Y; C0) (13) Hence the bias of C is the excess in prediction error of the aggregated predictor CA over the ideal predictor C0. The proof is given in section 5.... ..."

### Table 1: Some choices for the loss function Q[y; c]. (p) is the dispersion function, discussed in section 6.

"... In PAGE 2: ... This de nition generalizes the two-class de nition given in Efron (1978), and must be re ned to handle the case where the maximum of c is not unique: see section 6. Other popular choices for Q are squared error Q2[y; c] = Xk (yk ? ck)2 (2) and multinomial deviance or cross-entropy Q3[y; c] = ?2 Xk yk log ck: (3) These are summarized in Table1 and discussed further in Section 6.... In PAGE 6: ... The following result shows that PE satis es a Pythagorean-type equality. Lemma 1: For the error measures in Table1 and others satisfying the conditions given in section 6, Bias(C) = PE(C0; CA) = PE(Y; CA) ? PE(Y; C0) (13) Hence the bias of C is the excess in prediction error of the aggregated predictor CA over the ideal predictor C0. The proof is given in section 6.... ..."

### Table 2. Axioms for choice and asynchronous parallel composition.

"... In PAGE 12: ...Exp(hA; fi) = recx: 0 @ X i2f1;:::;ng ai:Exp(hAi; gi) 1 A for a new variable x, automata Ai = (Q; ; nf (q0; a; q) j a 2 ; q 2 Q g; qi) over XA [ fxg and function g extending f such that g(x) = q0. Note that we have implicitly used the fact that the operator + is commutative and associative, up to bisimulation (see the equations in Table2 ). Note also that the second rule is actually not needed: we added it just to associate a nite process to an acyclic automaton.... In PAGE 13: ... Let P, Q be nite processes. Then the languages of JPK and JQK coincide i the normal forms of P and Q are equated by using the ACI axioms of + (see Table2 ) and the axiom a:P + a:Q = a:(P + Q): Once more, note how the equation can be interpreted as a left to right rewrit- ing rule, obtaining for each process a further reduced normal form. It is important to realise that this axiom could not be simply added to the set of equations in Tables 2 and 3, since critical pairs would arise because it is not compatible with the distributivity of eager parallel composition.... ..."

### Table 2: The Transition Rules

"... In PAGE 11: ... After presenting the transition rules, we de ne the behavior of a process from our language, and then we establish some key results about the set of behaviors of each process. The angelic transition rules are stated in Table2 . It should be noted that we use the arrow ! to denote transitions in our system, as opposed to the footed arrow 7! which we used to denote rewrites.... ..."

### Table 4: Alternative semantics de nition using possible transformations. P m1m2 ?! P hP; M [ m1i ?! hP; M [ m2i (8m1 : P m1m2 ?! P) : m1 6 M ^ P ?! P0

"... In PAGE 11: ... Instead, rules (8) and (9) describes the passive transformations for programs composed using the sequential composition operator. The possible transformations can be used to introduce a new de nition for the alternative semantics introduced above: in fact, Table4 shows how the labeled transition system (Program,Label,?!) can be used to obtain the operational semantics of Table 2.c 5 Observational Equivalences In the previous section we have introduced a labeled transition system which describes the possible transformations that a program can generate: this sys- tem is used in this section to introduce some new observational equivalence relations.... ..."

### Table 1: Logical symbols of rst order logic. p q :p p _ q p ^ q p ! q p $ q

1997

"... In PAGE 3: ... (\t quot; symbolizes true, \f quot; symbolizes false) A rst order language may also includes constants and function symbols. Table1 summarizes the logical symbols of rst order logic, and Table 2 is a truth table for the logical connec- tives. Here are some examples of expressions in FOL.... ..."

Cited by 3