### Table 4 Bit parity average phenotypic diversity.

2006

"... In PAGE 19: ... The populations are effectively equivalent in terms of phenotypic diversity for the first 100 generations, but then begin to diverge, with cultural learning increasing its phenotypic diver- sity level and maintaining a higher level throughout the rest of the experiment. Table4 shows the average, maximum and mini- mum diversity values for both populations taken over the entire experiment. It is clear from these figures that cultural learning produces a higher level of pheno- typic diversity and is capable of higher maximum and minimum diversity values.... ..."

Cited by 4

### Table 1 Bit parity average genotypic diversity.

2006

"... In PAGE 16: ... While the difference is not large, it is significant and shows that cultural learning is con- tributing to population diversity, something which may help explain its higher level of overall fitness. Table1 shows the average, maximum and minimum diversity values for both populations, taken as an aver- age over the whole experiment set. Again, it shows that cultural learning is generating a higher level of average genotypic diversity.... ..."

Cited by 4

### Table 5: A 2-diverse ta-

"... In PAGE 5: ... 4.1 Global Recoding The derivation of credibility is better illustrated with the example as shown in Table5 which is a global recoding of Table 4 to achieve 2-diversity. In Table 4, fHIVg is the only sensitive value set and the goal is 2-diversity.... In PAGE 9: ... Therefore, for l repeated occurrences of an s proportion, the probability that any one belongs to a QID-EC in V is only 1=l(= 1=m). Generation of Two Tables - Bucketization Conventional anonymization methods produce a single gen- eralized table T as shown in Table5 . Recently [23] proposed to generate two separate tables from T with the introduction of an attribute called GID that is shared by the two tables.... ..."

### Table 5: A 2-diverse ta-

"... In PAGE 5: ... 4.1 Global Recoding The derivation of credibility is better illustrated with the example as shown in Table5 which is a global recoding of Table 4 to achieve 2-diversity. In Table 4, fHIVg is the only sensitive value set and the goal is 2-diversity.... In PAGE 9: ... Therefore, for l repeated occurrences of an s proportion, the probability that any one belongs to a QID-EC in V is only 1=l(= 1=m). Generation of Two Tables - Bucketization Conventional anonymization methods produce a single gen- eralized table T as shown in Table5 . Recently [23] proposed to generate two separate tables from T with the introduction of an attribute called GID that is shared by the two tables.... ..."

### Table 2: Comparison of the optimal number of chunks, for guaranteed bounds.

1999

"... In PAGE 13: ... In the remainder of this section, we highlight our results analyzing and comparing the effects of applying the various methods in Table 1, and determining the optimal number of chunks. Table2 summarizes our analysis on the use of Chebychev for Equation 2 in conjunction with various values for p, with and without chunking. This table shows, for various desired confidences p, the optimal choice for the number of 5If k is even, take either of the two medians.... In PAGE 14: ... The bounds are shown for Chebychev (known ) . Alternatively, as in Table 1, we can obtain bounds for Chebychev (estimated ) by plugging in ^ for in Table2 , where ^ is computed over all the sample points, not just those in one chunk. We can also obtain bounds for Chebychev (conservative) by plugging in (MAX ? MIN)=2 for .... In PAGE 14: ...1) on the ineffectiveness of chunking when analyzed using bounds whose dependency on k is the kth root of the no chunking bounds. Although we indicated above that one can obtain bounds for Chebychev (conservative) by plugging in (MAX ? MIN)=2 for in Table2 , this bound is strictly worse than the Hoeffding bound for all probabilities at which chunking is useful for Chebychev (conservative). For example, for :76 lt; p :99, the Hoeffding bound with no chunking is smaller than any Chebychev (conservative) bound obtained with or without chunking.... In PAGE 15: ... Within the general chunking framework, we proposed and explored a number of alternative procedures for reporting an estimate and an error bound based on the chunks. Our results (see Table2 ) showed that for confidence probabilities above 96%, the best bounds are obtained by taking a small number of chunks and applying Chebychev (known ) or Chebychev (estimated ) to the chunk estimators and reporting the median of these estimators. For smaller probabilities, the best bounds are obtained by reporting an overall estimate ignoring the chunks (which is equivalent to taking an average of the chunk estimators6), and then either applying Hoeffding for guaranteed bounds (see Table 3), applying Chebychev (estimated ) for large sample bounds, or using the chunk estimators for empirical bounds.... In PAGE 20: ... The bar expands with increasing chunks but always includes the real answer. Finally, we also plot the median, which as shown in Table2 leads to tighter guaranteed bounds when the desired confidence is above 96%. Since we use a lower confidence bound (90%) in this case, we do not plot the error bar for the median.... ..."

Cited by 116

### Table 2: Comparison of the optimal number of chunks, for guaranteed bounds.

1999

"... In PAGE 13: ... In the remainder of this section, we highlight our results analyzing and comparing the effects of applying the various methods in Table 1, and determining the optimal number of chunks. Table2 summarizes our analysis on the use of Chebychev for Equation 2 in conjunction with various values for a182 , with and without chunking. This table shows, for various desired confidences a182 , the optimal choice for the number of 5If a44 is even, take either of the two medians.... In PAGE 14: ... The bounds are shown for Chebychev (known a165 ) . Alternatively, as in Table 1, we can obtain bounds for Chebychev (estimated a165 ) by plugging in a164 a165 for a165 in Table2 , where a164 a165 is computed over all the sample points, not just those in one chunk. We can also obtain bounds for Chebychev (conservative) by plugging in a29 MAX a90 MINa32 a10 a14 for a165 .... In PAGE 14: ...1) on the ineffectiveness of chunking when analyzed using bounds whose dependency on a24 is the a24 th root of the no chunking bounds. Although we indicated above that one can obtain bounds for Chebychev (conservative) by plugging in a29 MAX a90 MINa32 a10 a14 for a165 in Table2 , this bound is strictly worse than the Hoeffding bound for all probabilities at which chunking is useful for Chebychev (conservative). For example, for a22 a4 a143 a76 a182 a80 a22 a190a148a190 , the Hoeffding bound with no chunking is smaller than any Chebychev (conservative) bound obtained with or without chunking.... In PAGE 15: ... Within the general chunking framework, we proposed and explored a number of alternative procedures for reporting an estimate and an error bound based on the chunks. Our results (see Table2 ) showed that for confidence probabilities above 96%, the best bounds are obtained by taking a small number of chunks and applying Chebychev (known a165 ) or Chebychev (estimated a165 ) to the chunk estimators and reporting the median of these estimators. For smaller probabilities, the best bounds are obtained by reporting an overall estimate ignoring the chunks (which is equivalent to taking an average of the chunk estimators6), and then either applying Hoeffding for guaranteed bounds (see Table 3), applying Chebychev (estimated a165 ) for large sample bounds, or using the chunk estimators for empirical bounds.... In PAGE 20: ... The bar expands with increasing chunks but always includes the real answer. Finally, we also plot the median, which as shown in Table2 leads to tighter guaranteed bounds when the desired confidence is above a190a145a143 a149 . Since we use a lower confidence bound (a190a148a23 a149 ) in this case, we do not plot the error bar for the median.... ..."

Cited by 116

### Table 3: architectural choices and diversity characteristics

1997

"... In PAGE 17: ... But if we con ne the decision strategy to a simple `majority of 3 apos; vote, then we can directly compare the system performances when the three versions are selected totally at random from the ` at apos; 15 system and when the three are selected, at random, one from each of the 5-version subsets. In Table3 some comparative results are given12. The nal column in the table gives the average CFD value of the three versions sets in a 3 5 system.... In PAGE 18: ... And conversely very low values of these measures would indicate that new versions, ap- propriately generated, could be used to signi cantly enhance system performance. diversity within and between sets We have shown ( Table3 ) that a consideration of the relative magnitudes of diversity within and between versions sets can indicate... ..."

Cited by 18

### Table 8: Medical conditions leading to aircraft diversion

2006

"... In PAGE 20: ... Of the remainder, 95 flights were diverted and 161 continued on to their planned destination. Table 7: Flight outcome Operation type Number Percentage of total Diversion 95 33% Continuation 161 57% Not specified 28 10% Total 284 100% Table8 shows the medical conditions that lead to a diversion. It is clear from this table that the more serious the on-board medical emergency, the greater the likelihood of an aircraft diversion.... ..."

### Table 4-6: Existence of guaranteed bandwidth

"... In PAGE 33: ...IST-1999-10077-WP3.1-NTU-3102-PU-R/b0 Second trial integration report During the validation tests, parameter values for the AC algorithms should be configured ac- cording to Table4 -1. PRA1 rho1Egress: 0.... In PAGE 33: ...01 TCL5: 0.01 Table4 -1 Parameter values for AC validation tests ... In PAGE 38: ...IST-1999-10077-WP3.1-NTU-3102-PU-R/b0 Second trial integration report Traffic class Rho PQ weight WFQ weight P_loss RTT TCL1 1 0,1 TCL2 1 0,81 1,00E-04 TCL3 0,7 0,03 0,31 TCL4 1 0,03 Table4 -2: Parameters used during measurements 4.... In PAGE 38: ... The results are presented in the following table. Traffic Class Guaranteed BW Reservation size Calculated # Measured # Failure reason TCL 1 0 10 k 102 102 Q1 TCL 2 0 50k / 25k 18 18 Q1 TCL 3 0 150k 1 1 Q2 TCL 4 0 10k / 5k 34 34 Q3 Table4 -3: Reservations without guaranteed bandwidth Calculated and measured numbers of the reservations are equal for all traffic classes. In the second test guaranteed bandwidth is set to test specification values for each traffic class and maximum reservations are made to classes one class at the time The results are presented in Table 3.... In PAGE 38: ...4. Traffic class Guaranteed BW Reservation size Calculated # Measured # Failure reason TCL 1 100k 10k 32 32 P2 TCL 2 250k 20k / 10k 41 41 P1 TCL 3 150k 150k 1 1 P2 TCL 4 100k 10k / 5k 22 22 P3 Table4 -4: Reservations with guaranteed bandwidth Also with guaranteed bandwidth values the expected and measured numbers of the reserva- tions are equal. 4.... In PAGE 39: ...IST-1999-10077-WP3.1-NTU-3102-PU-R/b0 Second trial integration report Traffic class Guaranteed BW Reservation size Calculated # Measured # Failure reason TCL 1 100k 10k 32 32 P2 TCL2 250k 20k / 10k 25 25 P2 TCL3 150k 150k 0 0 P2 TCL4 100k 10k / 5k 15 15 P3 Link utilisation 76,37 % Traffic class Guaranteed BW Reservation size Calculated # Measured # Failure reason TCL 2 250k 20k / 10k 41 41 P1 TCL1 100k 10k 11 11 Q1 TCL3 150k 150k 0 0 Q2 TCL4 100k 20k / 10k 8 8 P3 Link utilisation 72,95 % Traffic class Guaranteed BW Reservation size Calculated # Measured # Failure reason TCL 3 150k 150k 1 1 Q3 TCL1 100k 10k 13 13 P2 TCL2 250k 20k / 10k 25 28 P2 TCL4 100k 10k / 5k 21 22 P3 Link utilisation 88,09 % Traffic class Guaranteed BW Reservation size Calculated # Measured # Failure reason TCL 4 100k 10k / 5k 22 22 P3 TCL1 100k 10k 12 11 P3 TCL2 250k 20k / 10k 26 26 P3 TCL3 150k 150k 1 1 Q2 Link utilisation 83,69 % Table4 -5: Maximum reservation to first traffic class Comparing the theoretical and measured values we can conclude that in most cases the ad- mission control works exactly as specified. However in some cases small deviation from the calculated values was noticed.... In PAGE 41: ....2.5.6 Scenario 4: Minimum reservations In this scenario minimum reservation was done in three traffic classes and then the unallo- cated bandwidth is reserved to one traffic class. Traffic class Guaranteed BW Reservation size Reservation # (calculated) Failure reason TCL 3 220k 150k 1 TCL 2 250k 50k / 25k 5 TCL 4 100k 10k / 5k 10 TCL 1 100k 10k 11 (11) P2 Link utilisation 59,57 % Traffic class Guaranteed BW Reservation size Reservation # (calculated) Failure reason TCL 3 220k 150k 1 TCL 1 100k 10k 10 TCL 4 100k 10k / 5k 10 TCL 2 250k 50k / 25k 10 (10) Q2 Link utilisation 83,01 % Traffic class Guaranteed BW Reservation size Reservation # (calculated) Failure reason TCL 3 220k 150k 1 TCL 1 100k 10k 10 TCL 2 250k 50k / 25k 5 TCL 4 100k 10k / 5k 22 (22) P3 Link utilisation 70,31 % Traffic class Guaranteed BW Reservation size Reservation # (calculated) Failure reason TCL 1 100k 10k 10 TCL 2 250k 50k / 25k 5 TCL 4 100k 10k / 5k 10 TCL 3 220k 150k 1 (1) Q2 Link utilisation 58,59 % Table4 -7: Minimum reservations for three traffic classes In this scenario the theoretical number for the reservations was equal to the measured values. The link utilisation was in same cases little lower because admission control is little conserva- tive.... In PAGE 42: ... BW Reserv. # (cal/meas) Failure reason er3eli er4eli 1 Mbit/s TCL1 100k 32 / 32 P2 / aca3eli er1eli er4eli 2 Mbit/s TCL1 100k 32 / 32 P2 / aca2eli Table4 -8: Maximum number of reservations from two sources with guaranteed BW The results show that two-step admission control works as specified. The primary access link (er2eli) has no room for additional reservations although the secondary link (er1eli) would have capacity for additional reservation.... In PAGE 42: ... BW Reserv. # (cal/meas) Failure reason er3eli er4eli 1 Mbit/s TCL1 0 40 / 40 Q1 / aca3eli er1eli er4eli 2 Mbit/s TCL1 0 41 / 41 Q1 / aca2eli Table4 -9: Maximum number of reservations from two sources without guaranteed BW The results show that two-step admission control works as specified. The primary access link (er2eli) has no room for additional reservations although the secondary link (er1eli) would have capacity for additional reservation.... In PAGE 44: ...IST-1999-10077-WP3.1-NTU-3102-PU-R/b0 Second trial integration report Egress 950 950 Table4 -10: RP initial configuration The following Table 4-11 shows the parameter settings for the RP algorithm. Parameter Amax Amin WL BlockSize Counter ReleasePeriod Value 5 1 0,9 100kbps 10 5 min Table 4-11: Parameter settings for the RP algorithm The following separation of resources per traffic class for a 10 Mbit/s link is defined as: TCL1 10% 500 kb/s 20 voice calls TCL2 15% 750 kb/s 3 * 250kb/s video TCL3 20% 1 Mb/s 2 * 500kb/s download TCL4 5% 250 kb/s 50 sessions Table 4-12: Reference load distribution among TCLs on a 10 Mbit link 4.... In PAGE 44: ...IST-1999-10077-WP3.1-NTU-3102-PU-R/b0 Second trial integration report Egress 950 950 Table 4-10: RP initial configuration The following Table4 -11 shows the parameter settings for the RP algorithm. Parameter Amax Amin WL BlockSize Counter ReleasePeriod Value 5 1 0,9 100kbps 10 5 min Table 4-11: Parameter settings for the RP algorithm The following separation of resources per traffic class for a 10 Mbit/s link is defined as: TCL1 10% 500 kb/s 20 voice calls TCL2 15% 750 kb/s 3 * 250kb/s video TCL3 20% 1 Mb/s 2 * 500kb/s download TCL4 5% 250 kb/s 50 sessions Table 4-12: Reference load distribution among TCLs on a 10 Mbit link 4.... In PAGE 44: ...1-NTU-3102-PU-R/b0 Second trial integration report Egress 950 950 Table 4-10: RP initial configuration The following Table 4-11 shows the parameter settings for the RP algorithm. Parameter Amax Amin WL BlockSize Counter ReleasePeriod Value 5 1 0,9 100kbps 10 5 min Table4 -11: Parameter settings for the RP algorithm The following separation of resources per traffic class for a 10 Mbit/s link is defined as: TCL1 10% 500 kb/s 20 voice calls TCL2 15% 750 kb/s 3 * 250kb/s video TCL3 20% 1 Mb/s 2 * 500kb/s download TCL4 5% 250 kb/s 50 sessions Table 4-12: Reference load distribution among TCLs on a 10 Mbit link 4.... In PAGE 44: ...1-NTU-3102-PU-R/b0 Second trial integration report Egress 950 950 Table 4-10: RP initial configuration The following Table 4-11 shows the parameter settings for the RP algorithm. Parameter Amax Amin WL BlockSize Counter ReleasePeriod Value 5 1 0,9 100kbps 10 5 min Table 4-11: Parameter settings for the RP algorithm The following separation of resources per traffic class for a 10 Mbit/s link is defined as: TCL1 10% 500 kb/s 20 voice calls TCL2 15% 750 kb/s 3 * 250kb/s video TCL3 20% 1 Mb/s 2 * 500kb/s download TCL4 5% 250 kb/s 50 sessions Table4 -12: Reference load distribution among TCLs on a 10 Mbit link 4.... ..."

### Table 2 Experimental results of diverse heuristics

"... In PAGE 7: ... The experiments for the network topologies shown in Fig. 6 are listed in Table2 . For each case, the three crite- ria are the maximum number of required fibers in the physical links (Wmax), the maximum node degree (Dmax), and the amount of links (FL) in the fiber topology.... In PAGE 8: ...MLCR 4 7 62 8 18 148 5 13 214 5 10 170 Joint 5 6 67 8 10 120 5 8 188 6 8 171 The results in Table2 lead to the following conclusions. (1) Considering the maximum number of required fibers (Wmax), the MLCR algorithm performs the best, and the joint algorithm has very close results.... ..."