### Table 3. \Clusters quot; of common combinations of assumptions.

1996

"... In PAGE 12: ... This section identi es and characterizes these \clusters of assumptions, quot; as a prelude to suggestions for some degree of convergence in the next section. The clusters are summarized in Table3 . The most controversial part is probably our classi cation of the goals.... ..."

Cited by 46

### Table 1: Characteristics of Two-Stage Selection Pro- cedures that use Common Random Numbers (CRN) Assumption for CRN

### Table 19. The architectural assumptions of the middle-tier, COM and their minimal common upper element (the resulting architecture).

"... In PAGE 13: ...Table19 . The architectural assumptions of the middle-tier, COM and their minimal common upper element (the resulting architecture).... In PAGE 126: ... COM. From Table19 - The architectural assumptions of the middle-tier, COM and their minimal common upper element (the resulting architecture).-, we can see that the baseline middle-tier architecture and the COM architecture differs in two aspects, i.... ..."

### Table 17. The architectural assumptions of the data-tier, the Clustra DBMS and their minimal common upper element (the resulting architecture).

"... In PAGE 12: ...able 16. Measured values for client-tier COTS products. ............................................................... 94 Table17 . The architectural assumptions of the data-tier, the Clustra DBMS and their minimal common upper element (the resulting architecture).... ..."

### Table 1: A comparison of some recent text localization algorithms: application flelds and main assumptions about characters and/or text features. An assumption which is common to all the works but is not included in this Table is the requirement of an high contrast between characters and their local background.

### Table 2: Model Assumptions Violated by the Crusher Platform

2007

"... In PAGE 9: ... To make the equations of motion tractable, most models make several assumptions. Table2 enumerates most of the assumptions that common physics- based models make and explains why they are violated by the Crusher platform. The numerous violations of these assumptions make Crusher an ideal platform for deriving a forward vehicle model from empirical evidence.... ..."

### Table 3. Comparison context assumptions

"... In PAGE 15: ...o be compared, Attiya et al. apos;s and Chandra amp; Toueg apos;s general (i.e. not binary)consensus must be analyzed under common hypotheses. Thus, merging the failure constraints of Table 2 and assuming equivalent maximal system delays and time-outs, we obtain the set of constraints resumed in Table3 . We compare Attiya et al.... In PAGE 16: ... ?. Therefore, Attiya et al. apos;s consensus extension for arbitrary values is upperly bounded by TAtt apos;s cons F( t-out + + c) + 2( + c). Hence : TAtt apos;s cons 2 O( F( t-out + + c) ) Chandra amp; Toueg apos;s general consensus On the other hand, let apos;s consider Chandra amp; Toueg apos;s algorithm under the assumptions of Table3 . Since F n ? 1, Ns n ? 1 and considering equation of Lemma 4, it follows that the maximal number of rounds that can be executed is R = Ns + Nf + 1 = F + 1.... In PAGE 16: ... Since F n ? 1, Ns n ? 1 and considering equation of Lemma 4, it follows that the maximal number of rounds that can be executed is R = Ns + Nf + 1 = F + 1. From Theorem 1, we have (R) = (F ? 1) [(n + 11) c + 2 ( + c)] + F t-out + + c and therefore : TC amp;T apos;s cons 2 O( F( t-out + + c) ) As we can see, under the restrictions of Table3 (mostly inherited from Attiya et al. apos;s timing-based model), both algorithms have an execution time upper bound in O( F( t-out + + c) ).... ..."

### Table 2 A common formalization of availability is to define it as the relation between mean-time-to-failure and mean-time-to- repair. The assumption is basically that a system is either up or is being repaired and therefore the total elapsed time is the sum of MTTF and MTTR. Availability can then be defined as:

1997

Cited by 10

### Table 1. Parametric categories and corresponding example assumptions in those cat- egories.

"... In PAGE 4: ... In the example of a scalability study, the number of processors used and the input problem size is varied, and empirical performance results are compared with expected results, based on baseline com- parisons. In each of these parametric studies, we have identified eight common categories of parameters, listed in Table1 , along with example parameters for each category and an example of a known assumption, or expert knowledge, about a parameter in that category that could be helpful in analyzing the performance... ..."