### Table 2. Results of the In-Situ Calibration with Various Improvement Techniques.

"... In PAGE 8: ...Further attempts to improve the accuracy associated with the interior-orientation parameters were tried by solving (,) xy00 as additional unknowns, including only one distortion-correction parameter K1, in photogrammetric mapping by the iterative least-squares adjustment scheme. Results of various combinations of techniques are summarized in Table2 . The L-constraints were applied to each case listed in Table 2 even though they do not have significant effect on the solutions.... In PAGE 8: ... Results of various combinations of techniques are summarized in Table 2. The L-constraints were applied to each case listed in Table2 even though they do not have significant effect on the solutions. Additional techniques applied to the cases of Table 2 are: (1) the P-constraints, (2) the P-constraints and a range-limit for (,) xy00, (3) the P-constraints and C-constraints, (4) the C-constraints and a range-limit for (,) xy00, and (5) the P- constraints, C-constraints and a range-limit for (,) xy00.... In PAGE 8: ... The L-constraints were applied to each case listed in Table 2 even though they do not have significant effect on the solutions. Additional techniques applied to the cases of Table2 are: (1) the P-constraints, (2) the P-constraints and a range-limit for (,) xy00, (3) the P-constraints and C-constraints, (4) the C-constraints and a range-limit for (,) xy00, and (5) the P- constraints, C-constraints and a range-limit for (,) xy00. When the C-constraints were applied, the value of the principal distance was given as c = 62 5394 .... In PAGE 8: ... The (,) xy00 obtained from iterative solutions are always fallen right on the preset range-limit when it is applied. Therefore, the values of (,) xy00 listed in Table2 were computed by Eqns. 7 in order to be consistent with that shown in Table 1(a).... In PAGE 8: ...able 2 were computed by Eqns. 7 in order to be consistent with that shown in Table 1(a). Two important findings must be addressed. First, the results of Case 1 in Table2 are exactly the same as that of Case 3 in Table 1(a). Although their approaches are different, their procedures are mathematically identical.... ..."

### Table 3. Algorithm comparison that branch-and-bound algorithms are augmented with the ability for backtracking non-chronologically in the presence of conflicts that re- sult from bound conditions. In addition, we have established con- ditions for reducing the size of bound conflict explanations, which further elicits non-chronological backtracking. Preliminary results obtained on several instances of the Binate Covering Problem indicate that the proposed techniques are indeed effective and can be significant for specific classes of instances, in particular for instances of covering problems with sets of constraints that are hard to satisfy.

2000

"... In PAGE 5: ... A more efective pruning can also be observed, with an increase in the number of non-chronological backtracks and larger jumps in the search tree. Finally, in Table3 we can observe the results of several other al- gorithms on the same set of instances. Clearly, lp solve [3] (a generic Integer Linear Programming solver) is unable to solve almost all in- stances given the time limit.... ..."

Cited by 1

### Table 2: Several orbits problems

"... In PAGE 6: ... 4.3 RESULTS ON SEVERAL ORBITS PROBLEMS Table2 presents the results on the subset of several orbits problems (same presentation than for table 1). Concerning these problems : RDS fails on all problems except 1502, because of the high arity constraint (an anytime version would be able in fact to deliver solutions); BFBB performs a little better than RDS, but becomes limited by the size of the problems (extra computing time may improve results); DFBB because of its anytime capabilities, is able to produce solutions for all problems, but with a low quality compared to TS or even GR.... ..."

### Table 1: Tight bounds on the anticipation of encoders for several (d; k)-RLL constraints.

"... In PAGE 24: ...Speci c examples In the examples below, we study three constraints, for which we obtain tight lower bounds. Our results are summarized in Table1 . The table also lists references to encoders that attain our bounds.... In PAGE 28: ...5, as it appears in [4], can be modi ed and extended to show that the (AG; n)-approximate eigenvector x in the theorem also satis es the bound kxk na. When this additional condition is taken into account, then the results in Table1 can be obtained also from this extension of the theorem. Nevertheless, Example 6.... In PAGE 29: ... = a = 2. In other words, Theorem 2.5 does not rule out anticipation 2 in this example. 4 quot;3 2 1 2 Figure 12: Graph H for Example 6.4 7 Conclusion In this work, we presented lower bounds on the anticipation of encoders for input-constrained channels|in the general case and in three particular cases of practical value that are summa- rized in Table1 . We also demonstrated the universality of the state-splitting algorithm with respect to encoders with nite anticipation: every nite-state encoder with nite anticipation can be obtained by state-splitting operations, followed by a reduction of states.... ..."

### Table 1: Tight bounds on the anticipation of encoders for several (d;; k)-RLL constraints.

"... In PAGE 24: ...Speci c examples In the examples below, we study three constraints, for which we obtain tightlower bounds. Our results are summarized in Table1 . The table also lists references to encoders that attain our bounds.... In PAGE 28: ...5, as it appears in [4], can be modi ed and extended to showthat the (A G ;;n)-approximate eigenvector x in the theorem also satis es the bound kxk n a . When this additional condition is taken into account, then the results in Table1 can be obtained also from this extension of the theorem. Nevertheless, Example 6.... In PAGE 29: ... = a =2. In other words, Theorem 2.5 does not rule out anticipation 2 in this example. 4 quot; 3 2 1 2 Figure 12: Graph H for Example 6.4 7 Conclusion In this work, we presented lower bounds on the anticipation of encoders for input-constrained channels|in the general case and in three particular cases of practical value that are summa- rized in Table1 . We also demonstrated the universality of the state-splitting algorithm with respect to encoders with nite anticipation: every nite-state encoder with nite anticipation can be obtained by state-splitting operations, followed by a reduction of states.... ..."

### Table 1 a Conservative confidence bounds on volume for the synthetic phantom Confidence threshold Lower bound (%) Upper bound (%) Width %

"... In PAGE 8: ... (15) V 99% is exaggerated, and the width of the confidence ground bounds in this case is unreasonably high. The values in The additional smoothness of surface representations is Table1 should be compared to the width of the confidence bound to reduce the uncertainty area, when compared to bounds using the simplex mesh (36.70%) and tGB patches the one based on voxels.... In PAGE 8: ...1. Several confidence thresholds were used, and distribution for the volume, from which bounds and other the results are shown in Table1 . Note that these confi- useful information can be derived.... ..."

### Table 9. RMSE for general bounding clique sizes with different clique bounds. Lower is better.

in Approved by:

2005

"... In PAGE 7: ...able 8. RMSE comparison of all approximate algorithms. Lower is better.................. 82 Table9 . RMSE for general bounding clique sizes with different clique bounds.... In PAGE 97: ... In this case, no edges need to be deleted to reach the bound, so the bounding clique sizes algorithms perform just like LS. RMSE for General Bounding Clique Sizes Discussion: Finally, consider the RMSE values for the general bounding clique sizes algorithms (with clique bounds of 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 12) in Table9 . Most of the results in ... ..."

### Table 10 Improving the LP bound for MIPLIB instances augmented with strong cuts

"... In PAGE 34: ... For technical reasons, we disabled all cut classes that lead to fractional coefficients. Table10 shows the results for the instance p0201, where GUB cover cuts and cover cuts were applied. It also shows the results for the instance p0548, where only clique cuts were applied.... ..."

### Table 10: Improving the LP bound for MIPLIB instances augmented with strong cuts

2004

"... In PAGE 29: ... For technical reasons, we disabled all cut classes that lead to fractional coefficients. Table10 shows the results for the instance p0201, where GUB cover cuts and cover cuts were applied. It also shows the results for the instance p0548, where only clique cuts were applied.... ..."

### Table 9: Capacity bounds for (M, 0, k) constraints

2006

"... In PAGE 87: ...2 Numerical Results for Asymmetric (M, 0, k) Constraints In Tables 9 and 10, we show the numerical computation of the bounds for some choices of the 2-D constrained parameters. Table9 shows the computation of the bounds for the symmetric case. The bounds are tight for increasing values of k.... ..."