### Table 5: Scatter Search. Dynamic versus static list

"... In PAGE 14: ... The dynamic strategy changes RefSet very quickly and usually produces good solutions in short times, while the static strategy can be slower but usually produces better solutions. Table5 shows the results obtained with both strategies on the Albaida and Madrigueras instances for different values of k (number of solutions in RefSet selected for quality) and l (number of solutions in RefSet selected for diversity). As it can be seen from the tables, the static strategy always outperforms the dynamic one, while running times are quite similar.... ..."

Cited by 1

### TABLE IV PERFORMANCE OF SEARCHING IN DYNAMIC TOPOLOGIES AS A FUNCTION OF THE RATE OF CHANGES.

### TABLE IV PERFORMANCE OF SEARCHING IN DYNAMIC TOPOLOGIES AS A FUNCTION OF THE RATE OF CHANGES.

### Table 11: Performance of searching in dynamic topologies as a function of the rate of changes.

2005

### Table 8: E ciency of Pseudo Dynamic Search

1995

Cited by 3

### Table 5.13. Exhaustive Search for Static and Dynamic Load Balancing.

### Table 4: Performance Comparison: Number of Policies for each Agent. Horizon Brute Force Search Dynamic Programming Algorithm 1 (2,2) (2,2)

2005

"... In PAGE 35: ...escribed in Section 1.1.1. Table4 illustrates the possible improvements in practice. For the horizon 4, the dynamic programming algorithm produces less than 1% of the number of policy trees produced by the brute force algorithm.... ..."

Cited by 3

### Table 2. Dynamic symmetry breaking for LP with CP search control

2004

"... In PAGE 3: ... Then the birth constraint states that either a56 a37a34a82a57 is alive or one of the elements of a52a65a9a34a58a67a66a68a59a20a12a111a110a112a109 is alive: a110a113a56 a37 a57 a44 a72 a73 a37a78a74 a57a76a74a106a77a80a79a50a114 a56 a37a75a74 a57a83a74 a110 a72 a73 a37a78a74 a57a76a74a106a77a80a79a50a81 a73 a37a34a82a57a107a77a11a115a116a114 a56 a37a75a74 a57a76a74a85a84 a94 (3) One of these constraints is defined for every subset S, which is ap- proximately a52 a69 constraints. Table2 compares this LP formulation with no symmetry, and the same formulation with the integration of SBDS and GAP-SBDS. Table 2.... ..."

Cited by 3