### Table 4: Stack Primitives Essential to All Evolved Solutions

1996

"... In PAGE 18: ... From Table 3 we can identify ve primitives which are essential to the operation of all four evolved solutions and ve pairs of primitives where one or other is required. These are shown in the two halves of Table4 together with the number of runs where they were removed from the population by 21 generation equivalents (i.e.... In PAGE 18: ...emoved from the population by 21 generation equivalents (i.e. by the point where all four solutions had evolved). After the equivalent of 21 generations in 43 of 60 runs, the number of one or more of the tree-primitives shown in the left had side of Table4 had fallen to zero. That is the population no longer contained one or more primitives required to evolve a solution (like the solutions that have been found).... In PAGE 18: ... That is the population no longer contained one or more primitives required to evolve a solution (like the solutions that have been found). In 12 of the remaining 17 populations both of one or more of the pairs of primitives shown on the right hand side of Table4 had been removed from the population. Thus by generation 21 in all but 5 of 60 runs, the population no longer contained primitives required to evolve solutions like those found.... ..."

Cited by 1

### Table 1: Experimental Results of Finding Optimal Solutions

"... In PAGE 7: ... The graph is taken if it has a desired number of vertices. Table1 and Figure 13 report the results obtained when we try to find the optimal solution of the bisection problem (k=2). In this table, Avg Bk and Avg CPU are respectively the average number of backtracks performed and required CPU time to solve an instance.... ..."

### Table 2: Incremental vs scratch propagation

"... In PAGE 5: ... Emax is obtained by the sum of the maximum values of the number of precedence constraints for each resource and the number of con- straints before the scheduling algorithm starts to find a solution. Table2 and Table 3 present the perfor- Table 1: Number of time points and maximum con- nectivity for the experimental time networks Problem N Emax Cmax = Emax/N P8 130 333 2.56 P10 202 661 3.... ..."

### Table 6: Incremental Representation Requirements

2005

"... In PAGE 7: ... Specificaly, we consider the representational requirements that might be expected to handle aditional thoughts: given a new thought, how many new lexemes and concepts and ancestors might we expect to have to define in order to represent the new thought? One way to consider these requirements is by identifying the incremental ned for aditional representation terms for the 23 example Angler thoughts. Table6 presents the incremental neds for tokens, lexemes, concepts, and ancestors required to represent each of the thoughts. As indicated by the data in Table 6, the number of new terms required for each thought should be les than the number required by the preceding thoughts because later thoughts can reuse the representation terms required by prior thoughts.... In PAGE 7: ... Table 6 presents the incremental neds for tokens, lexemes, concepts, and ancestors required to represent each of the thoughts. As indicated by the data in Table6 , the number of new terms required for each thought should be les than the number required by the preceding thoughts because later thoughts can reuse the representation terms required by prior thoughts. Since this asesment is sensitive to the order by which thoughts are encountered, the data in Table 6 sumarizes 50 runs, each run considering the 23 thoughts in a random order, and then averaging over those runs, and then presenting the averaged incremental ned for each type of representation data for every other thought.... In PAGE 7: ... Since this asesment is sensitive to the order by which thoughts are encountered, the data in Table 6 sumarizes 50 runs, each run considering the 23 thoughts in a random order, and then averaging over those runs, and then presenting the averaged incremental ned for each type of representation data for every other thought. As indicated in Table6 , initialy the requirement for the ontology is substantial; however, the number of new concepts and ancestors required for each new thought diminishes quickly. In particular, the burden of providing the background knowledge required to define the ancestors is initialy quite high, but it rapidly converges to levels only slightly higher than the concepts (e.... ..."

Cited by 1

### Table 6: Incremental Representation Requirements

2005

"... In PAGE 7: ... Specifically, we consider the representational requirements that might be expected to handle additional thoughts: given a new thought, how many new lexemes and concepts and ancestors might we expect to have to define in order to represent the new thought? One way to consider these requirements is by identifying the incremental need for additional representation terms for the 23 example Angler thoughts. Table6 presents the in- cremental needs for tokens, lexemes, concepts, and ances- tors required to represent each of the thoughts. The data in Table 6 indicates the number of new terms re- quired for each thought should be less than the number required by the preceding thoughts because later thoughts can reuse the representation terms required by prior thoughts.... In PAGE 7: ... Table 6 presents the in- cremental needs for tokens, lexemes, concepts, and ances- tors required to represent each of the thoughts. The data in Table6 indicates the number of new terms re- quired for each thought should be less than the number required by the preceding thoughts because later thoughts can reuse the representation terms required by prior thoughts. Since this assessment is sensitive to the order by which thoughts are encountered, the data in Table 6 summarizes 50 runs, each run considering the 23 thoughts in a random order, and then averaging over those runs, and then presenting the averaged incremental need for each type of representation data for every other thought.... In PAGE 7: ... Since this assessment is sensitive to the order by which thoughts are encountered, the data in Table 6 summarizes 50 runs, each run considering the 23 thoughts in a random order, and then averaging over those runs, and then presenting the averaged incremental need for each type of representation data for every other thought. As indicated in Table6 , initially the requirement for the ontology is substantial; however, the number of new con- cepts and ancestors required for each new thought dimin- ishes quickly. In particular, the burden of providing the background knowledge required to define the ancestors is initially quite high, but it rapidly converges to levels only slightly higher than the concepts (e.... ..."

Cited by 1

### Table 6.3: The computational effort required to find optimal solutions to even-parity prob- lems for various techniques with p = .99.

2006

### Table 6.5: The computational effort required to find optimal solutions to multiplexer prob- lems for various techniques with p = .99.

2006

### Table 6.3: The computational effort required to find optimal solutions to even-parity prob- lems for various techniques with p = .99.

2006

### Table 6.5: The computational effort required to find optimal solutions to multiplexer prob- lems for various techniques with p = .99.

2006

### Table 2: Regular bids: Comparison of time (in CPU seconds) required by CASS and Casanova for finding optimal solutions. We report statisticsof the distributionacross the test set, the Qx are the x%percentiles. For Casanova, theperformance measure is the mean time for finding an optimal solution.

2000

"... In PAGE 5: ... CASS to find optimal solutions. The results are reported in Table2 . For each instance, we measured the time required by CASS to find an optimal so- lution, and estimated the time to obtain the same revenue with Casanova from an RTD constructed from 100 runs.... ..."

Cited by 69