### Table 1: Comparison between SBIS and the heuristic-based algorithm before the phase-assignment stage when only one candidate bu er size is allowed. Delay times are computed using Elmore delay.

"... In PAGE 6: ... It also inserts bu ers such that no unbu ered serial chain of pass tran- sistors exceeds a xed threshold. Table1 compares SBIS with such a heuristic-based algorithm. In this test, we only allowed one candidate bu er size since the heuristic-based algorithm does not have bu er- sizing capability.... ..."

### Table 3 lists the performance of six heuristic-based tree-decomposition methods on the 178 residue interaction graphs generated from 178 test proteins used by SCWRL [27]. This table indicates that both the minimum-degree and the minimum-discrepancy methods are the best. Using these two methods, all the residue interaction graphs can

2005

"... In PAGE 9: ...rach for the thirty CASP6 test proteins. test protein t0200 t0201 t0202 t0203 t0204 t0205 t0206 t0207 t0208 t0209 top template 1hp1a 1unnc 1ko7a 1rxxa 1guqa 1h0xa 1mv3a 1h75a 1k77a 1i78a test protein t0210 t0211 t0212 t0213 t0214 t0215 t0216 t0217 t0218 t0219 top template 1j58a 1gvna 1fw9a 1ukfa 1nwaa 1vjqa 1iruf 1i60a 1hz4a 1h2ka test protein t0220 t0221 t0222 t0223 t0224 t0225 t0226 t0227 t0228 t0229 top template 1nvta 1dnya 1o60a 1nox 1jx7a 1n7ha 1c7qa 1mq0a 1qapa 1ml8a Table3 . Tree width distribution of different tree-decomposition methods on the 178 test proteins used by SCWRL.... ..."

Cited by 5

### Table 3. Makespan for Two Heuristics Based on Different Scheduling Frequency Scheduling

2003

"... In PAGE 10: ... 6. Makespan for two heuristics based on different scheduling frequencies Table3 and Fig. 6 show the comparison of the makespan of Min-Min and the QoS guided Min-Min for different scheduling frequencies including online mode.... ..."

### Tables 1 and 2 compare bounds obtained from sequential knapsack re- laxations to zLP and zIP, for randomly generated 0{1 knapsack problems with wj and pj independently uniformly distributed on f1; 2; : : : ; W g for j = 1; 2; : : : ; n. The bound zBS uses an expansion sequence determined by a linear-time heuristic based on the optimal solution to the linear program- 6

1994

Cited by 1

### Table 1. Minimum number of sensors required to cover 100% of the field using the Min-Cover ILP approach and a greedy heuristic based approach.

2003

"... In PAGE 5: ... B. Min-Cover Results Table1 presents a sampling of results for networks with the number of sensors ranging from 50 to 700 nodes. For each instance, the third column of the table contains the average number of sensors in the mini- mum cover solution for 100 randomly generated net- works using the Instance Generator.... ..."

Cited by 8

### Table 5.1 Results of some of the test runs 5.2 Query Optimization Time The Figures 5.1 and 5.2 depict the query optimization times of the optimizers for linear and star queries respectively. From these gures, it is clear that the heuristic based optimizer greatly reduces the optimization time. The explanation for this behavior is two fold: 1. The number of joins enumerated by the heuristic based optimizer for a path expression of length N is 3*(N-1). In procedure 4.2 we rst generate N-1

1995

Cited by 7

### Table 2. Comparisons of the accuracies of three heuristic-based ensembles by the sign test and the paired two-tail t-test

"... In PAGE 6: ... When the p-value is underlined then the corresponding distribution test gives negative result.1 Table2 represents statistics for comparison of SCR to CM and CR between the accuracies of the initial ensembles and the nal ensembles. Table 2.... In PAGE 7: ...but non of them were statistically signi cant. As can be seen from Table2 SCR initial ensemble results in higher accuracy with 8 data sets than both CM and CR, and the di erence between SCR and CR over all data sets is statically signi cant. The comparisons of individual data sets shows that SCR results in higher accuracy than CM with 3 data sets according to the sign test and with 5 data sets according to the t-test.... ..."

### Table 2. Performance of the heuristics based on priority rule tested (P-SGS)

### Table 3. Performance of the heuristics based on priority rule tested (S-SGS)

"... In PAGE 7: ...he same average deviation (40.8%). The remaining priority rules have significant worse results than the one previously analysed. Table3 shows the performance of the priority rules tested when the S-SGS is used. The mean ordering is similar to the one reported for the P-SGS.... ..."