### Table 1: Dimensions of Complexity in Models

"... In PAGE 5: ... Yet, it sits with other constraint system explanations at a high level of complexity in the framework, as will be seen. Table1 presents four dimensions of complexity in models: Un- derlying Causality, Relational Causality, Probabilistic Causality, and Emergent Causality. Relative to these dimensions, the causal expla- nations that people offer for everyday events are simple in several senses.... ..."

### Table 1. Complexity of Model Checking.

1998

Cited by 6

### Table 1. Complexity of Model Checking.

### Table 1: Complexity of model checking for default logic

1999

"... In PAGE 4: ... The above property and Theorem 6 also imply p 2- completeness of model checking for prerequisite-free dis- junctive default theories. In Table1 we summarize the complexity results de- scribed in this section. Each column of the table corre- sponds to a di erent condition on the conclusion part of default rules.... In PAGE 6: ... From the computational viewpoint, it turns out that Liberatore and Schaerf apos;s notion of model checking is harder than the one presented in this paper. In fact, comparing Table1 with the results reported in [Liber- atore and Schaerf, 1998], it can be seen that our for- mulation of model checking is computationally easier in almost all the cases examined, with the exception of nor- mal and supernormal default theories, for which the com- plexity of the two versions of model checking is the same. 6 Conclusions In this paper we have studied the complexity of model checking in several nonmonotonic logics.... ..."

Cited by 1

### Table 2. Accuracies and complexity of the models on the mutagenicity dataset

2005

Cited by 3

### Table 2. Accuracies and complexity of the models on the mutagenicity dataset

### Table 5. Three measures for the complexity of model checking

### Table 3 Summary table of results of logistic regression modelsa

"... In PAGE 8: ... Because the P-levels of the tests of effects va did not differ much between the two analyses (see footnote 2), only analyses of models without individual parameters are reported. The models are principally the same as those considered in Experiment 1 and, accord- ingly, the interpretation and the discussion of the re- sults shown in Table3 and Table 4 run parallel to those in Experiment 1. Concentrating first on the results of the OFF-LINE task, the incorporation of a main effect of orientation in Model III did not result in an improvement of fit.... In PAGE 8: ... Possible interpretations of this asymme- try are delayed until Section 5, where all three experi- ments are discussed. To finish the discussion of the results of the OFF- LINE task, Table3 further shows that the average response bias was significantly different from 0.5, but effects angle bias, angle deviation (Model II), and the second order interaction (Model V) were not.... ..."