### Table 2: Computation results of the cooperative search threads provide a more comprehensive representation of the behavior of cooperative parallel TS heuristics.

1995

"... In PAGE 7: ... They may, therefore, be used in the context of any search path to initiate intensi cation sequences. A comparison of Table 1 (section 3) and Table2 (section 7) illustrates how better informed heuristic evaluation mechanisms, based on information sharing, can improves the independent multi-thread computation. Variations in the respective degree of success of the independent threads may be observed.... In PAGE 7: ... Given that there were relatively few (300) tabu iterations allocated to the computation, threads that started with inap- propriate initial conditions could not overcome their handicap and concluded with poor local optima. Meanwhile, as show in Table2 , un t initial conditions loose rapidly their in uence when information from more successful threads overtake the control of threads with un t strategies. The results emphasize that information sharing may remedy to the problem of discrepancies in the quality of solutions found by di erent threads.... In PAGE 14: ... 7 An illustration of cooperative threads To illustrate our discussion, we present the results of an asynchronous cooperative search thread algorithm, build by setting the three design issues in the following way: Threads share their best solution ever found, by using a pool of size one; A solution from the pool is considered useful if its value is lower than the best solution of the local thread; Information exchanges take place in asynchronous mode. Table2 summarizes the performance of this algorithm. The third column (P.... In PAGE 14: ... Overall, the new algorithm improves over the IST approach for the value of the best solutions found. The results obtained for strategies S1 to S8 in Table2 show a signi cant di erence compared to those in Table 1. For 11 of the 12 problem instances, the gaps in Table 2 are lower and more uniform than the gaps in Table 1 for the independent search threads algorithm.... In PAGE 14: ... The results obtained for strategies S1 to S8 in Table 2 show a signi cant di erence compared to those in Table 1. For 11 of the 12 problem instances, the gaps in Table2 are lower and more uniform than the gaps in Table 1 for the independent search threads algorithm.... ..."

Cited by 6

### Table 4 Observed Scores for the Dimensions of Cooperation Scale (29 observations)

"... In PAGE 13: ... Observed Behaviours Quality of cooperation. In Table4 , the ratings of the observers using the Dimensions of Cooperation Scale to assess the quality of the cooperation between the students when working in groups are presented. The overall score on the scale shows the quality of the cooperation to be rated just below quot;moderate quot; (M = 1.... ..."

### Table 5: Measure of fairness in co-operation.

1998

"... In PAGE 8: ... Asymmetric co-operation implies that the smallest proxy ps in a co-operating set will have ri(ps) = 1, and the largest proxy pl will have ri(pl) = 0. Using the ri(p) metric, Table5 shows how much use it is for a server to co-operate. We observe that with symmetric co-operation, the ri(p) apos;s are uniformly low for all servers.... ..."

Cited by 23

### Table 1: Comparison between the performance of the cooperative and the non-cooperative robots. Test Total disc. reward

2007

"... In PAGE 4: ... A particularly lucky run can bring quite a large reward, while a particularly unlucky run can bring an alarmingly large penalty. This justifies the large standard deviation observed in the results portrayed in Table1 . An important aspect of the behavior just described is that it matches the one expected from a robot navigating in a sparse environment: when it gets lost, it keeps moving in a direction where a recognizable state is expectable.... ..."

### Table 4: Conditional Relative Frequencies of Cooperation|Stag Hunt (All rounds) Cheap Talk Cell Observation Cell

"... In PAGE 21: ... Notice that in every cell, in both communication and observation treatments, receivers of C signals cooperate more than receivers of D signals. Consider rst the SH cells (see Table4 ). In the SH{communication treatment, players almost always (over 97% of the time) choose C after receiving a C signal, and they usually (over 80% of the time) choose D after receiving a D signal.... ..."

### Table 5: Conditional Relative Frequencies of Cooperation|Chicken (All rounds) Cheap Talk Cell Observation Cell

"... In PAGE 23: ...0625, the smallest p{value possible when there are four sessions of each treatment) in both treatments. In the CH cells, subjects also appear to take their additional information into account (see Table5 ). In the observation treatment, subjects cooperate slightly more after receiving a C signal than after receiving a D signal (59.... ..."

### Table 7 Labor productivity growth in private and cooperative enterprises regression results. Number of observations 216

### Table 1: Overall comparison of TCK tests and MTC (MultithreadedTC) implementation

"... In PAGE 2: ... Our evaluation also demonstrates that MultithreadedTC can ex- press all the strategies used in the TCK tests and is often more precise and expressive, especially for tests that do not require a timing dependency. Table1 gives an overview of the comparison, including the observation that Multithread-... ..."

### Table 3: Average cooperation frequencies in the classical and quantum games for each experiment. In addition to the percentage of cooperation outcomes, we also show, as a fraction, the number of times a player cooperated and the total number of opportunities for cooperation (i.e., twice the number of games played during the experiment, which equals the product of the numbers of players and periods). The p-values give the probability cooperation rates would be at least as different as we observed by chance, assuming there was no difference between the classical and quantum games.

2006

"... In PAGE 12: ...1 Cooperation Rates: Quantum vs. Classical In all experiments, the levels of cooperation in the quantum games exceeded those of the corresponding classical games, as shown in Table3 and as pre-... In PAGE 13: ... The cooperation rates for the classical game are nonzero, even for the randomly- matched games, indicating a degree of altruistic behavior or influence of the possibility of some repeated play due to the small group size. On the other hand, the cooperation rates for the randomly-matched quantum experiments in Table3 are consistent with the game theory prediction of 50%, as indicated in Table 4. Specifically, the table also reports the two-sided binomial test of whether the cooperation rates are significantly different from what would be expected if the players have 50% probability to cooperate each time.... In PAGE 16: ... Our experiment also showed increased cooperation in repeated games. Co- operation rates in Table3 show the repeated games, both classical and quantum, give higher cooperation rates than the corresponding randomly-matched games... In PAGE 18: ... Table 6 summarizes the experiments with larger groups. In all experiments, the levels of contributions in the quantum games ex- ceeded those of the corresponding classical games, as shown in Table3 and as predicted [8].... ..."

Cited by 3

### Table 5: Binomial test for significant difference in cooperation between the first and second halves of the periods in each experiment. The p-values are the probabilities the difference in cooperation rates between the two halves would be at least as large as we observed if games in both halves had the same cooperation rate.

2006

Cited by 3