### Table 1. Comparison of variance of esti- mated non-minimum phase zero.

2005

"... In PAGE 6: ...nd one of order ve, i.e. an over-parametrization. The result of 10000 Monte-Carlo simulations is given in Table1 . The theoretical value of the variance for the optimal input is, asymptotically in data, 0.... ..."

Cited by 2

### Table 1: Minimum Phase Durations

2005

"... In PAGE 5: ...) AF Phase Three: Only after allowing the release to run in Phase Two and performing appropriate checks do we allow it to be deployed to the world. The minimum duration of each phase per release type is summarized in Table1 . The actual time can be longer based on the nature of the release and other concurrent events.... ..."

Cited by 2

### Table 1. Quantitative Signal Recovery Comparison of the proposed algorithms

"... In PAGE 29: ... The qualitative simulation result summary is presented in Figure 7. See Table1 for a quantitative comparison. Pole-Zero Map of the Final Demixing Network Real Axis I m ag A x i s -1 -0.... In PAGE 31: ...5 3 x 104 (f) (g) Figure 8. State Space BSR for a non-minimum phase system: (a) Transmission poles-zero map for the mixing environment, (b) Environment Impulse Response, (c) Theoretical Environment Inverse, (d) Estimated Demixing Network, (e) Global Transfer Function Achieved, (f) Pole-zero map of Estimated Demixing Network (g) Convergence of MISI Performance Index A quantitative performance comparison of the (blindly) recovered communication signals using the presented BSR algorithms is provided in Table1 . For the table below, we have defined ... ..."

### Table 5.1: Maximum and minimum phase values (units in brackets).

### Table 1: Training time and symbol error rate (SER) for MLP, RBF, and MLP-RBF equalizers for the minimum phase channel Hmin(z) = 0:6963 + 0:6964z?1 + 0:1741z?2. The MLP equalizer has 8-6-1 input-hidden-output units.

1999

"... In PAGE 3: ... We use 1, 2, 4, 8, and 16 hidden units for MLP equalizers, and 10, 20, and 40 hidden units for RBF equalizers. Table1 compares six training algorithms [11] for the MLP equalizer: conjugate gradient, scaled conjugate gra- dient, quasi-Newton, Levenberg-Marquardt (LM), hybrid linear-nonlinear, and batch backpropagation. The LM algo- rithm gives the best symbol error rate vs.... ..."

Cited by 1

### Table A.1 shows the zpk (zero, phase and gain) data of the discrete process sensitivity calculated for the fourth order system of the simulations of Chapter 4. It can be seen that the SP contains one non-minimum-phase zero. This zero also becomes a zero in the L filter. The additional zero in the L filter invokes the need for two additional poles in order to correct the phase of the inverse. The two additional poles are added at high frequencies, which can be seen by the two zeros in the poles of Table A.2.

2005

### TABLE I Coefficients of an optimal complex 26-tap minimum phase digital FIR filter. The

### Table 3. Per-phase details for Click IP routing on an SMP (2 and 4 CPU). Note that the 4 CPU case has an over-subscribed PCI bus at the minimum phase forwarding rate.

2002

"... In PAGE 8: ... The 4 CPU SMP model yields an MLFFR of 543K packets per second, as compared to a measured value of 500K packets per second. The per-phase details are shown in Table3 . The 2 CPU case is normal; the MLFFR is equal to the minimum phase forwarding rate.... ..."

Cited by 15

### Table 3. Per-phase details for Click IP routing on an SMP (2 and 4 CPU). The Max Rate result is a column minimum, not a sum. Note that the 4 CPU case has an over-subscribed PCI bus at the minimum phase forwarding rate.

"... In PAGE 16: ... Note that the 4 CPU case has an over-subscribed PCI bus at the minimum phase forwarding rate. The per-phase details prior to contention analysis are shown in Table3 . The 2 CPU case involves no over- subscribed channels, therefore the MLFFR is equal to the minimum phase forwarding rate.... ..."