"... In PAGE 5: ... The approaches to learning requirements are easily distinguished by how they define cond. Table1 displays three different ways of encoding the condition imposed by verb approve to the nominal the law in the expression to approve the law. Requirement conditions of the pairs in Table 1 represent three descriptive levels for the linguistic information underlying the nominal expression the law when it appears to the right of the verb approve.... In PAGE 5: ... Table 1 displays three different ways of encoding the condition imposed by verb approve to the nominal the law in the expression to approve the law. Requirement conditions of the pairs in Table1 represent three descriptive levels for the linguistic information underlying the nominal expression the law when it appears to the right of the verb approve.1 The properties np, doc, and law are situated at different levels of abstraction.... ..."

"... In PAGE 2: ...Table1 shows, Polaris describes the exact behavior of x86 instruction set without the detailed architecture such as pipelining, superscalar instruction pairing, multiple func- tional units and cache. Representing a higher abstraction level in Polaris allows us to produce a reference model with very few bugs and to execute at a speed more than 150 times than that of the RTL C model.... ..."

"... In PAGE 8: ... Then, we compute the rate between the number of frames in a summarized video and the number of frames in an original video. Table4 shows compression ratios of summarized videos at various levels and lengths. As seen in the Table 4, the compression ratios of the test videos range from 1.... In PAGE 8: ... Table 4 shows compression ratios of summarized videos at various levels and lengths. As seen in the Table4 , the compression ratios of the test videos range from 1.4 % (Tlen =1.... In PAGE 8: ...9) 20 % (10.0) For example, 80% of the original video is reduced by the summarization at the bottom level (see Table4... ..."

"... In PAGE 2: ... Only through the combination of objects and methods the problem solving process did occur. Table1 gives an example of the evaluation processes that occurred on various levels of concretization. During the tests, with growing experience, the test persons applied more concrete methods onto... ..."

"... In PAGE 3: ... The workflow contains 4469 jobs. Table1 gives the average runtime and the number of tasks at each level of the workflow. Table 1: Runtime and number of tasks at various levels of the Montage workflow.... In PAGE 7: ...8 job submissions per second after this point. A glance at the application workflow ( Table1 ) reveals that the first 892 jobs do not have any dependencies. The rest of the jobs in the workflow have dependencies that must be satisfied before these jobs become executable.... ..."

"... In PAGE 6: ...8 RMS error analysis A more quantitative evaluation of the error between two solutions is the standard root-mean-squared di erence of the potentials. The RMS error results from our simulations are presented in Table1 , below.... In PAGE 6: ...Table 1: RMS error percentages for various levels of model complexity and accuracy. Table1 shows the RMS error for each model relative to the solution obtained from the most accurate and complex model. Horizontally, we are decreasing the number of nodes in our model from left to right, while vertically we are ignoring structures beneath of an increasingly large volume threshold progressing from top to bottom.... In PAGE 6: ... The Matrix decomposition and cortical potential derivation stage required by far the most signi cant CPU time for each simulation, and varied from several minutes for the smaller meshes, up to an hour for the most re ned meshes.Figure 2 shows the cortical surface potential maps which resulted from the simulations in the top and bottom rows of Table1 . The most accurate solution is pictured at the top left.... ..."

"... In PAGE 11: ... All calculations have been done on the levels 3-5. Table1 shows the corre- sponding geometrical information and degrees of freedom.... ..."