### Table 2. Search Space Properties

2004

"... In PAGE 9: ... Among the benchmarks there are four kernels: advect3d, lud, mm, vpenta and two full ap- plications: swim and mgrid. Table2 lists the applied transformations and the dimensions of the search space for each application. The total number of points... ..."

Cited by 8

### Table 1. Dimension of search spaces.

"... In PAGE 3: ... We used the min- imized lexicon and language model WFSTs. Table1 shows the dimension of the search spaces. We observe that the network ob- tained with tail-sharing algorithm has only 5% more states and 3% more edges than the minimum, and we also observe a huge reduc- tion on the size of the network relative to the previous version.... ..."

### Table 2: Search space size for multiprocessor irregular con gurations Processors Search Space Used Problem Search Space

1996

"... In PAGE 10: ... Thus the total number of di erent con gurations possible using this represen- tation is approximately (4n)!=((2n)!22n4!n). Table2 under the heading Search Space Used, gives the size of this search space for a n processor con guration for a number of di erent values of n. These search spaces will contain n! occurrences of any single optimal con guration, since they have assumed that the numbering of the n processors is unique.... ..."

Cited by 2

### Table 1. Two search spaces

"... In PAGE 4: ... In case II, the query motif (denoted as an ex- tended regular expression) is M(Xf2; 9g)=chg( gt; ; 0)@(Xf7; 36g)=hdp kd(15; gt;; 0:9)@(LjV jI)(Aj SjTjV jI)(GjAjS)C, which represents a proba- ble lipoprotein signal sequence from the bacterial genome. We search the motif against a search space with small sequences but large sequences number (see Table1 ). Since the size of the real protein sequence file is only 2.... ..."

### Table 1: Growth of search spaces.

2001

"... In PAGE 4: ... Larger values for nR are generally not possible as even nR = 40 already took up to a few seconds on average for the com- putations from OPT (on a 400 MHz Pentium-II processor). That OPT is increasingly expensive to compute can be seen when observing that the average size of the space of covers SO(n) searched by OPT for a CDC with n steps is recursively defined as (corresponding to the operation of the algorithm) (5) A comparison of SO(n) with ST(n), the size of the space of tight covers, for some example values of n is given in Table1 . This is intended to give an illustration of how much is saved by OPT when compared to a total enumeration of tight covers.... ..."

Cited by 3

### Table 1: Growth of search spaces.

2001

"... In PAGE 4: ... Larger values for nR are generally not possible as even nR = 40 al- ready took up to a few seconds on average for the computations from OPT (on a 400 MHz Pentium-II processor). That OPT is increasingly expensive to compute can be seen when observing that the average size of the space of covers SO(n) searched by OPT for a CDC with n steps is recursively defined as (corresponding to the operation of the algo- rithm) (7) A comparison of SO(n) with ST(n), the size of the space of tight covers, for some example values of n is given in Table1 . This is intended to give an illustration of how much is saved by OPT when compared to a total enumeration of tight covers.... ..."

Cited by 3

### Table 1: Growth of search spaces.

"... In PAGE 4: ... Larger values for nR are generally not possible as even nR = 40 al- ready took up to a few seconds on average for the computations from OPT (on a 400 MHz Pentium-II processor). That OPT is increasingly expensive to compute can be seen when observing that the average size of the space of covers SO(n) searched by OPT for a CDC with n steps is recursively defined as (corresponding to the operation of the algo- rithm) (7) A comparison of SO(n) with ST(n), the size of the space of tight covers, for some example values of n is given in Table1 . This is intended to give an illustration of how much is saved by OPT when compared to a total enumeration of tight covers.... ..."

### Table 1: Search Space Complexity.

1991

"... In PAGE 9: ... Figure 1 illustrates this three-pronged approach. Despite the deceptive appearance, the graph is drawn to scale based on the numbers in Table1 . The diagram shows the number of pieces on the board (vertically) versus the logarithm of the number of positions (base 10) with that many pieces on the board (horizontally).... ..."

Cited by 15

### Table 3: The size of the search space

2002

Cited by 2