### Table 14. Stability analysis: Reducing the number of

2003

"... In PAGE 13: ... In contrast, in the next section, we consider the case where a peak may be incorrectly identified as a slow-exchanging peak, thereby disallowing a correct assignment from consideration. As shown in Table14 , NVR is quite robust to a reduced set of slow-exchanging peaks; ac- curacies above 90% are reported when 50% of the slow-exchanging peaks are discarded. Corrupting the amide exchange data Finally, we tested the effect of corrupted amide- exchange data.... ..."

### Table 2. The best attainable stability percentages (a) for the 17 layouts. The stability rules 1 and 2 hold simultaneously. Stability percentages are for the worst box of the layout. Problem Stability Transformations 1 14.29 2,10,12 2 0

"... In PAGE 9: ... (If the layout was not a guillotine-cut, then the first three of these suffice.) Table2 shows the best value of the stability percentage (a) obtained among the transforms. Here the original layout is compared to all different transformations of it.... In PAGE 9: ... (The same is true for the Tables 3 and 4, also.) The results of Table2 are for the best layout pairs considered, and they show the maximal a- value for which the box-binding rule 1 is still valid for all boxes. Here we let the stability per cent be 0 if the box touches only one box at the next lower level.... ..."

### Table 2. Total flux for Problem 1

2000

"... In PAGE 14: ... Table2 . Total flux for Problem 1 (cont.... ..."

### Table 1: How all constraints for the disjunctions on all fractional variables are partitioned among tight and non-tight constraints.

1998

"... In PAGE 9: ... This measure will be defined as follows: (M6) M6 qBNi BP 1 iff constraint i in term q has a negative reduced cost in the intersection cut basis. In Table1 we present observations about the number of tight constraints contributing to the lower term B4dx AK 0B5, the upper term B4dx AL 1B5 or does not contribute in the intersection cut (by contributing we mean having a non-zero multiplier, in this case in the (CLP2) basis having the intersection cut as its solution). For the non-tight constraints we count how many constraints are violated at a lower point x1BNj but not an upper, at an upper point x2BNj but not a lower, violated at both, or is not violated at all.... ..."

### Table 1. Stability

"... In PAGE 7: ...lateral stability and merging were very sensitive to adhesions. Any adhesion, at the tip, shaft, or base, appeared to suffice to prevent lateral movement of that portion of the filopodium, simply by tethering the filopodium to the substrate ( Table1 ). Loss of lateral stability was most common among filopodial pairs supporting veils, consistent with the advancing veil exerting a force to bring filopodia together.... ..."

### Table 1 Stability and convergence characteristics of the implicit operators with the Roe

"... In PAGE 20: ...Table1 , a summary of the maximum allowable CFL number, and the num- ber of iterations and the CPU time required for the sixth-order residual reduc- tion is presented. For these results, the Roe scheme was used in the explicit operator.... In PAGE 21: ... The two implicit operators based on the Roe scheme, which is less dissipative than the van Leer scheme in the explicit op- erator, were under severe stability restrictions for both bump ow cases. The behavior of the implicit operator based on the van Leer scheme was similar to that of the two operators based on the Roe scheme presented in Table1 . This again indicates that the performance of the implicit operators based on con- sistent linearization methods, in which the same splitting scheme is employed for both implicit and explicit operators, becomes signiflcantly degraded, as the ow problems get stifier due to the presence of the shock wave, no matter what splitting scheme is used.... In PAGE 30: ... Table1 : Stability and convergence characteristics of the implicit operators with the Roe scheme in the explicit operator. Table 2: Stability and convergence characteristics of the implicit operators with the van Leer scheme in the explicit operator.... ..."

### Table 2. The success rates (i.e. fraction of tries that found a solution) for various SLS algorithms running on the reduced test sets

2002

"... In PAGE 10: ...umber of successful tries (i.e. tries that found a solution) for each algorithm. For WalkSAT and Novelty each try was cut off after 100000 flips, for the GSAT based algorithms, we chose a cutoff value of 20 times the number of variables in the corresponding SAT problem. Table2 shows the fraction of successful tries for each algorithm. On the hardest test set only WalkSAT yielded reasonable results.... ..."

Cited by 2

### Table 2. The success rates (i.e. fraction of tries that found a solution) for various SLS algorithms running on the reduced test sets

2002

"... In PAGE 10: ...ul tries (i.e. tries that found a solution) for each algorithm. For WalkSAT and Novelty each try was cut off after 100000 flips, for the GSAT based algorithms, we chose a cutoff value of 20 times the number of variables in the corresponding SAT problem. Table2 shows the fraction of successful tries for each algorithm. On the hardest test set only WalkSAT yielded reasonable results.... ..."

Cited by 2

### Table 2. The success rates (i.e. fraction of tries that found a solution) for various SLS algorithms running on the reduced test sets

2002

"... In PAGE 10: ...f successful tries (i.e. tries that found a solution) for each algorithm. For WalkSAT and Novelty each try was cut off after 100000 flips, for the GSAT based algorithms, we chose a cutoff value of 20 times the number of variables in the corresponding SAT problem. Table2 shows the fraction of successful tries for each algorithm. On the hard- est test set only WalkSAT yielded reasonable results.... ..."

Cited by 2

### Table 6 Results for the Phase Stability Problem

"... In PAGE 22: ... These problems are taken from McDonald and Floudas (1995) and have been solved by them using the GLOPEQ package (McDonald and Floudas, 1994). The results are shown in Table6 . It can be seen that for most of the problems, the GOP algorithm performs very well when compared to the specialized code in GLOPEQ, which is a package specifically designed for phase equilibrium problems.... ..."