### Table 2 compares the total number of Pareto points obtained for each example with a configurable cache, to the number obtainable using a fixed 4-way associative cache. The importance of these additional Pareto points will become quite clear in subsequent sections. One import feature of Pareto points is that a minimum energy solution, for any given time constraint, will always be a Pareto point.

"... In PAGE 3: ... Table2 : Configurable cache increases the Pareto points and hence the power/performance tradeoff granularity. To summarize, a platform with both configurable voltage and cache provides for more tradeoffs between power and performance.... ..."

### Table 5: Global minimum energies of terminally blocked peptides using the RRIGS solva- tion model. The amino end group is speci ed as N{Acetyl{amino; the carboxyl end group is speci ed as Carboxyl{CONHCH3. The total energy, ETOT , is provided along with the contributions from hydration, EHY D, nonbonded interactions (including hydrogen bonding), ENB, electrostatic interactions, EES, and torsion, ETOR.

1998

"... In PAGE 26: ...became either {sheet{like or {helical. Without exception the ! angles for the RRIGS global minimum energy solutions in Table5 were within the [160,200] range. The remaining analysis in this section refers to the constrained (!) minima.... ..."

Cited by 6

### Table 1: Minimum transient energy design of the add1b circuit using AMPL [5] Given delay Linear Programming solution (all other variables are 0) No. of Max. IO delay at

1999

"... In PAGE 5: ... Since the minimum IO delay is 6 units, no solution is possible for maxdel lt; 6. For other values of maxdel, the solutions are shown in Table1 . When maxdel = 6 is speci ed, we require two bu ers.... In PAGE 5: ... The average power is determined by normaliz- ing the per-vector activity averaged over a large number of random vectors (10,240 for our estimates) simulated in the event-driven mode. Table 2 gives the peak and aver- age power estimates for the three optimized cases of the add1b circuit (shown in boldface in Table1 .) The esti- mates are comparative to two reference cases, which cor- respond to the original bu er-less circuit.... ..."

Cited by 7

### Table 19: Energy contributions at global minimum solutions of solvated decaglycine. The NH2 and {COOH end groups were used for the MSEED example, while the CH3CO{ and {NHCH3 end groups were used for the RRIGS example. The total energy, ETOT , is provided along with the contributions from hydration, EHY D, nonbonded interactions (including hy- drogen bonding), ENB, electrostatic interactions, EES, and torsion, ETOR.

1998

Cited by 6

### Table 1: Bounds and global minimum potential energies 8 N 24

1992

"... In PAGE 18: ... Then, by switching to a local optimization algorithm the global minimum potential energy structures were found. All these results are summarized in Table1 where EL; EU correspond to the lower and upper bounds on the global minimum energy E and Iter is the total number of iterations for obtaining the bounds. It should be noted that the provided lower and upper bounds include the best reported solutions for 8 N 24.... In PAGE 19: ... At the same time, the lower bounds exclude most of the local optimum structures and concentrate the search in the domain of the best structures. As it can be seen from Table1 within a few iterations excellent lower bounds are generated that eliminate almost all the sub{optimal con gurations. 9 Conclusions In this work a global optimization approach was introduced for nding the global minimum potential energy con guration of small Lennard{Jones microclusters.... ..."

Cited by 19

### Table 16: Dihedral angles at the global minimum energy conformation of leu{enkephalin, using the MSEED model for hydration.

1998

"... In PAGE 42: ... The values of the 24 dihedral angles, resulting in a global minimum energy of -263.14 kcal/mole, are given in Table16 . This solution was found after 1131 iterations and 5,597 seconds (HP-C110).... ..."

Cited by 6

### Table 12: Dihedral angles at the global minimum energy conformation of met{enkephalin, using the MSEED model for hydration.

1998

"... In PAGE 38: ...he centroids of the Phe and Tyr aromatic rings.. The values of dihedral angles correspond- ing to the global minimum energy of -283.76 kcal/mole are given in Table12 . Locating this solution required 1033 iterations and 5,082 seconds (HP-C110).... ..."

Cited by 6

### Table 1: The energies for the three images.

"... In PAGE 7: ... example, in the tsukuba image, the global minimum also misses half of the video camera and erroneously fills in the thin structure holding up the lamp. Table1 compares the global minimum of the energies for the three images to those found using Graph Cuts and belief propagation. It can be seen that the Graph Cuts solution is closer to the global minimum but always higher.... ..."

### Table 21: Solutions for Example 6, global solution postulated

1995

"... In PAGE 22: ... Notice that as one proceeds down the column (tray 2 is at the top of the column), the cpu times and number of iterations increase, indicating that the most di cult trays lie at the lower end of the column. Table21 shows the results when the solution corresponding to a global minimum of the Gibbs free energy function is used to generate the tangent plane distance function. The global solutions on all ve trays are LLV solutions.... In PAGE 22: ... The stability test for the ideal vapor phase obviously yields a nonnegative global solution in all cases. Therefore, because the only phase types considered are ideal vapor and liquid phases that can be described by the UNIQUAC equation, this means that it can be de nitively asserted that the solutions shown in Table21 are the equilibrium ones. Note that the fathoming rate remains high.... ..."

Cited by 18

### Table 11: Comparison of hydration energies for Ac{Ala4{Pro{NHMe. The rst column refers to the hydration model used in the function evaluations, which are performed at the global solutions given in the second column. The total energy, ETOT , is provided along with the contributions from hydration, EHY D, nonbonded interactions (including hydrogen bonding), ENB, electrostatic interactions, EES, and torsion, ETOR.

1998

"... In PAGE 35: ...096 from the RRIGS global minimum structure. This di erence is also illustrated by comparing energy contributions for the MSEED and RRIGS global minimum structures, as given in Table11 . In addition, a number of func- tion evaluations were performed at the global solution of the other hydration model and the unsolvated global minimum.... ..."

Cited by 6