### Table 1: Complexity of probabilistic reasoning under coherence.

"... In PAGE 15: ..., 1-conjunctive). Our complexity results are compactly summarized in Table1 . It turns out that deciding g-coherence, g- coherent consequence, and tight g-coherent consequence are complete for NP, co-NP, and BWC8, respectively, while computing tight intervals under g-coherent entailment is BYC8C6C8-complete.... ..."

### Table 5: Complexity of reasoning under the compositional approach

1993

Cited by 6

### Table 4: Complexity of reasoning under the non-compositional approach

1993

Cited by 6

### Table 11: The underlying assumptions and the reasons for them in the baseline model for ~ 0 2 ! ~ 0 1.

"... In PAGE 36: ... (~ 2 ~ 0 2 production dominates over ~ 1 ~ 0 2 due to the larger ~ W content of the ~ 2 .) The restrictions in Table11 were imposed, and the value of was varied, which has the e ect of scaling the sparticle masses. Events are required to pass the 6Et gt; 40 GeV selection (two events pass in the data).... In PAGE 37: ... If the decay proceeds to these particles, we will observe our signature, but with a larger cross section and more activity in the event due to the cacade decays, compared to the direct production of ~ 2 ~ 0 2. The squark and gluino masses are scaled together as indicated in Table11 while the lower{lying masses are xed at MN1 ? = 80 GeV, M~ 0 2 M~ 2 M2 = 110 GeV, and M~ t = 85 GeV. The strong cross sections are calculated at NLO using the PROSPINO program [58] which has the e ect of increasing the cross section by approximately 30%.... ..."

### Table 3: Tight conclusions under naive probabilistic default reasoning and reference-class reasoning.

2000

"... In PAGE 17: ...4 Benchmark Examples We now analyze the behavior of 0-, 1-, CSBY BC-, and CSBYBD-entailment in our benchmark examples. The corre- sponding tight intervals under 0-, 1-, CSBYBC-, and CSBY BD-entailment are shown in Table3 . Note that in these simple examples, 0-entailment (resp.... ..."

Cited by 3

### TABLE 4.6 Reasons for which Male and Female Juveniles (under age 17) Appeared before the Courts: 2000

2002

### Table 11: Reason for using health service for children under 5 years (n=82)

### Table 1: The Complexity of Brave Reasoning in various Extensions of Datalog with Con- straints (Propositional Case under Stable Model Semantics)

"... In PAGE 23: ...Table 1: The Complexity of Brave Reasoning in various Extensions of Datalog with Con- straints (Propositional Case under Stable Model Semantics) Table1 sumarizes the complexity results of the previous section, complemented with other results (on the complexity of programs without constraints) already known in the literature. Therein, each column refers to a speci c form of constraints, namely: fg = no constraints, s = strong constraints, w lt; = weak constraints with priorities, w = weak constraints without priorities (i.... In PAGE 23: ...riorities (i.e., W has only one component). The lines of Table1 specify the allowance of disjunction and negation; in particular, :s stands for strati ed negation [45] and _h stands for HCF disjunction [3] (see AppendixB). Each entry of the table provides the complexity class of the corresponding fragment of the language.... In PAGE 24: ...i.e., relevance can be reduced to brave reasoning on DATALOG_;:;c). 8 Considering that DATALOG_;:;c is a linguistic extension of DATALOG_;: by constraints, it turns out that constraints do add expressive power to DATALOG_;:. However, it is not the case of strong constraints, as it can be seen from Table1 . Indeed, if we look at the various fragments of the language that di er only for the presence of strong constraints, we can note that complexity is constant (compare column 1 to 2, or 3 to 4, or 5 to 6).... In PAGE 26: ... Comparing the above DATALOG_;: program with the DATALOG_;:;c version of Example 9,10 it is quite apparent the advantage that weak constraints provide in terms of simplicity and naturalness of programming. Concluding, we would like to bring reader apos;s attention to the fragment of DATALOG_;:;c with HCF disjunction and strati ed negation ((5,6) in Table1 ): it has a very clear and easy- to-understand semantics and, at the same time, allows us to express several hard problems (up to P 2 -complete problems) in a natural and compact fashion. (In our opinion, recursion through disjunction or negation makes programs more di cult to understand).... ..."

### Table 5.3: Summarized tracking results for level 1 integration. The performance is significantly decreased in comparison with the level 0 results. Although unex- pected, these results are quite reasonable under the right perspective (see text).

### Table 9 presents the probabilities of terminating the trial due to the above 8 reasons under both sampling priors. Finally, as in section 5.1, we can present the probabilities of 20

"... In PAGE 28: ...016 0.000 Table9 : Distribution of stopping decisions when joint criteria (i), (ii), or (v) are considered. Stopping Stopping Decision Time 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total 1 0.... ..."