### Table 2: 3-partition for Unweighted Graphs

1999

Cited by 20

### Table 3: 4-partition for Unweighted Graphs

1999

Cited by 20

### Table 4.5.2: Bisection for Unweighted Graphs

### Table 4.5.4: 4-partition for Unweighted Graphs

### TABLE 2. Computational results on unweighted random graphs

1997

Cited by 2

### TABLE 2. Computational results on unweighted random graphs

1997

Cited by 2

### Table 1: Experimental results on unweighted random graphs G(n; p)

1993

"... In PAGE 9: ... When reporting the CPU time, however, we have not reported the sum of the running time for the three trials. Our results are summarized in Table1 . The algorithm was run in various \modes quot;, each of which is described below: RLA (edges) only: only randomized local approximations on edges are per- formed.... ..."

Cited by 2

### Table 2, where row \1 quot; indicates the complexity of nding a tree spanner (with minimum weight if G is weighted). The complexity of quasitree spanner problems on weighted digraphs and unweighted digraphs is the same as that of tree spanner problems on weighted graphs and unweighted graphs respectively.

1995

"... In PAGE 37: ... Table2 : The complexity status of tree spanner problems Note that the tree 3-spanner problem on unweighted graphs and the quasitree 3-spanner problem on unweighted digraphs remain open. We conjecture that the tree 3-spanner problem on unweighted graphs is NP-complete; if true it would imply the NP-completeness of the quasitree 3-spanner problem on unweighted digraphs.... ..."

Cited by 47

### Table 1 Performance of LDR, PBH, and other competing heuristics on unweighted DIMACS graphs (part I).Entries that correspond to the best result for a given graph are boldfaced.

2002

Cited by 7

### Table 2 Performance of LDR, PBH, and other competing heuristics on unweighted DIMACS graphs (part II).Entries that correspond to the best result for a given graph are boldfaced.

2002

Cited by 7