### Table client_log will be emptied when this SQL command is executed. This technique, which allows for the arbitrary manipulation of backend database, is responsible for the majority of successful Web application attacks.

### Table 1: Statistics for six arbitrary queries.

"... In PAGE 3: ... Words synonymy information is obtained from a dictionary. Words present in the documents, but absent in the dictionary are discarded prior to clustering (see Table1 for words retention rates). As the number of dictionary terms matching document words increases, the loss of information in our document representation decreases since fewer words are discarded from the analysis.... In PAGE 5: ... In our experiments, the number of terms retained in the resulting document representation was usually half of the number of words in the original document. Statistics for six arbitrary queries are presented in Table1 . The last column contains the number of distinct synonym groups present in all 200 documents retrieved in response to the corresponding query.... ..."

### Table 3: Continuous Response Standard Errors of Group Di erences. The sample size, sample mean, and sample standard deviation corresponding to the jth group (j = 1; 2; ; J) are denoted, respectively, nj; xj; and tj. Choose an arbitrary sample size n0.

"... In PAGE 6: ...somewhat ad-hoc (see Table3 ), namely, Choose an arbitrary sample size n0 (e:g:; n0 = 10), and (a) use the sample-speci c standard deviation for all groups having n gt; n0, (b) use the pooled standard deviation for n = 1 (no other possible choice!), and (c) interpolate between these values for 1 n n0. 2.... ..."

### Tables 1 and 2 show overall averages on reachability, response traffic per node and total traffic per node for 100 and 500 node graphs respectively. For reachability, the tables list the average number of all nodes reached from an arbitrary node (column 3), and average number of undistinguished nodes reached from an undistinguished node (column 4). The response (and hence total) traffic computation assumes that the responses trace the request path backwards. These results (and others not shown here) point to a number of interesting conclusions about the network under consideration.

### Table 1: Mean Response (Privacy Concern)

"... In PAGE 4: ... 4. RESULTS Table1 gives the mean responses for each of the twelve groups, with indication of significance when the response obtained is statistically different from response in the control group. Dichotomization around an arbitrary point was sometimes used to simplify descriptive analysis by reducing the 7-point scale of relative sentiment to a simple yes/no Boolean variable.... ..."

### Table 1. Possible solutions for M-channel LPPRFB with lters of arbitrary lengths Li = KiM + .

1997

"... In PAGE 9: ... For odd value of M, using a similar argument, we arrive at the conclusion that the total length of all the lters is an odd multiple of M. p The results from Theorem 1, Theorem 2 and Corollary 1 are summarized in Table1 . S stands for symmetric lters; A stands for antisymmetric lters.... In PAGE 9: ... Type A system has even-length lters with di erent symmetry polarity while Type B system has odd-length lters with same symmetry. This can be con rmed using Table1 . Type A system belongs to the rst row (M = 2, and = 0).... In PAGE 10: ... This calls for LPPUFB (GenLOT) with arbitrary-length lters. From the second entry of Table1 , we know that odd-length even-channel GenLOT does not exist. If all lters have the same odd length and M is even, then is odd and Ki = K.... In PAGE 10: .... Km+1 is invertible. For paraunitary systems, Km+1 is orthogonal. From the rst row of Table1 , there are M2 symmetric and M2 antisymmetric lters in even- length even-channel LPPUFB. It can easily be shown that the same approach in [1] (propagating the pairwise time-reversed property) can be applied here to obtain the following factorization for... In PAGE 12: ... The readers can verify that this form of E0(z) allows the rst polyphases to have one order more than the remaining M ? polyphases. Also, since there must be M2 symmetric and M2 antisymmetric lters according to Table1 , S00 and A00 have the same number of rows. The corresponding coe cient matrix P0 with each lter apos;s impulse response arranging row-wise is: P0 = 1 p2 quot; S00 S01 S01J S00J A00 A01 ?A01J ?A00J # : (17) In order for E0(z) to be paraunitary, P0 has to satisfy the following time-domain constraint [6], with hi(n) being its rows: 1 X n=?1 hj(n) h k(n ? `M) = (`) (j ? k): (18) In matrix notation, it is equivalent to E0(z) e E0(z) = I, i.... ..."

Cited by 2

### Table 1. Possible solutions for M-channel LPPRFB with lters of arbitrary lengths Li = KiM + .

1997

"... In PAGE 9: ...Table1 . S stands for symmetric lters; A stands for antisymmetric lters.... In PAGE 9: ... Type A system has even-length lters with di erent symmetry polarity while Type B system has odd-length lters with same symmetry. This can be con rmed using Table1 . Type A system belongs to the rst row (M = 2, and = 0).... In PAGE 10: ... This calls for LPPUFB (GenLOT) with arbitrary-length lters. From the second entry of Table1 , we know that odd-length even-channel GenLOT does not exist. If all lters have the same odd length and M is even, then is odd and Ki = K.... In PAGE 10: .... Km+1 is invertible. For paraunitary systems, Km+1 is orthogonal. From the rst row of Table1 , there are M2 symmetric and M2 antisymmetric lters in even- length even-channel LPPUFB. It can easily be shown that the same approach in [1] (propagating the pairwise time-reversed property) can be applied here to obtain the following factorization for our paraunitary polyphase matrix: E(z) = S KK?1 (z) KK?2 (z) K1 (z) K0(z) (11)... In PAGE 12: ... The readers can verify that this form of E0(z) allows the rst polyphases to have one order more than the remaining M ? polyphases. Also, since there must be M2 symmetric and M2 antisymmetric lters according to Table1 , S00 and A00 have the same number of rows. The corresponding coe cient matrix P0 with each lter apos;s impulse response arranging row-wise is: P0 = 1 p2 quot; S00 S01 S01J S00J A00 A01 ?A01J ?A00J # : (17) In order for E0(z) to be paraunitary, P0 has to satisfy the following time-domain constraint [6], with hi(n) being its rows: 1 X n=?1 hj(n) h k(n ? `M) = (`) (j ? k): (18) In matrix notation, it is equivalent to E0(z) e E0(z) = I, i.... ..."

Cited by 2

### Table 3 compares the quantitative results as given above for both languages. The gures can be interpreted as follows: With an average of 21.9% of the other subjects giving the same response as an arbitrary subject, the variation among subjects is much smaller in English than it is in German (8.7%). This is re ected in the simulation results, where both gures (12.6% and 6.9%) have a similar ratio, however at a lower level. This observation is con rmed when only stimuli with low variation of the associative re- sponses are considered. In both languages, the decrease in variation is in about the same order of magnitude for experiment and simulation. Overall, the simulation results are somewhat better for German than they are for English. This may be surprising, since with a total of 33 million words the English corpus is larger than the German with 21 million words. However, if one has a closer look at the texts, it becomes clear, that the German corpus, by incorpo- rating popular newspapers and spoken language, is clearly more representative to everyday language.

1993

"... In PAGE 8: ...9% 19.8% subject is given by no other subject Table3 : Comparison of results between simulation and experiment for English and German. Notes: ) little response variation is de ned slightly di erent for English and German: in the English study, only those 27 stimulus words are considered, whose primary response is given by at least 500 out of 1008 subjects.... ..."

Cited by 5

### Table 1. Parameters used in the model (see Figure 1 and Equations 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). Generic values are used for calculating the generic curves in the figures (dashed blue lines). The range shows the minimum and maximum values obtained from all fits presented here. Notes: the smallest of the values at CR and CE is arbitrarily assigned to CR; for Cm, the value reported by Hornstein et al. (2004) was used; for simplicity, the time constants C1 and C2 were taken as equal; tdelay is an overall delay of the response, partly attributable to various diffusional delays distributed over the various model stages. au = arbitrary unit.

in A

"... In PAGE 10: ... Although the generic model predictions differ quantitatively from the data and fitted curves shown, they possess all the qualitative character- istics of H1 responses. The fits to individual cells are obtained for parameter values that differ only modestly from the generic values ( Table1 ). This would not be the case if the fits were the result of overfitting with an unrealistic model.... In PAGE 10: ...nd C2 = 6.3, Ch = 7.0, 1S = 4.7, 1L = 450, wS = 0.22, Cp,max = 18, cp = 0.34, Ip = j21, ch = 0.41, and Ih = j17. Units are given in Table 1, and parameters that were not mentioned are used at their generic values ( Table1 ). The dashed blue lines show the result using generic values for all parameters.... ..."