### Table 2: NP Interpretation (+b)

### Table 1: Preliminary comparative analysis of the binomial and Black-Scholes models.

1999

"... In PAGE 6: ... First, we intend to compare the binomial and the Black-Scholes models in terms of their major assumptions and strengths. (See Table1 .) For example, an apparent strength of Black-Scholes is its computational simplicity; it has a closed-form solution.... ..."

Cited by 21

### Table 2 Multinomial Logit and Binomial Logit Estimates British Election - 1987

1998

"... In PAGE 8: ... To control for factors cited in other works on British elections, we include variables which control for region, class, and other demographic e ects. In Table2 we present estimates of this model speci cation modi ed for multinomial logit and binomial logit. The issue positions are operationalized as individual-speci c: they are the voter apos;s stated position on each issue, rather than the distance from the voter to the party.... In PAGE 9: ...[ Table2 Here] Cursory inspection of Table 2 shows that the estimated coe cients for each respective pair-wise comparison are, though not actually identical, statistically indistinguishable across the multinomial logit and binomial logit estimates. Multinomial logit and binomial logit do not produce identical estimates of the coe cients in the samples; the multinomial logit estimator is working with more data than either of the two separate sets of binomial logit estimates.... In PAGE 9: ...[Table 2 Here] Cursory inspection of Table2 shows that the estimated coe cients for each respective pair-wise comparison are, though not actually identical, statistically indistinguishable across the multinomial logit and binomial logit estimates. Multinomial logit and binomial logit do not produce identical estimates of the coe cients in the samples; the multinomial logit estimator is working with more data than either of the two separate sets of binomial logit estimates.... In PAGE 9: ... But the point is that they produce consistent estimates of the same parameters. Thus while the multinomial and binomial logit estimates in Table2 are not identical to each other, occular examination of them is convincing evidence that they are awfully close to each other. As an estimation technique multinomial logit should be preferred to binomial logit because it is more e cient, but this simply means that it will approach the true parameters more quickly than will binomial logit.... In PAGE 11: ... We do not have a great deal to say about these estimates here, except to note two points. First, the speci cation of the issue distance variables di ers from those in Table2 . Here, we specify the issue e ects as the distance between the voter and the party on each issue.... In PAGE 11: ...oints. First, the speci cation of the issue distance variables di ers from those in Table 2. Here, we specify the issue e ects as the distance between the voter and the party on each issue.8 We estimate the issue distance parameters as choice-speci c variables; that is, we estimate only one issue distance parameter for each issue, whereas in Table2 there were two estimated coe cients for each issue: representing the position of the respondent, not the distance from the respondent to party. Thus conditional logit permits a much better speci cation of the relationship between... In PAGE 12: ... The rst column of individual speci c coe cients is for Conservative relative to Alliance, the second column of individual speci c coe cients is for Labour relative to Alliance. [Table 4 Here] With both the multinomial logit estimates from Table2 and the conditional logit estimates we could compute tables of rst di erences { i.e.... In PAGE 26: ... 6. However, the standard errors in Table2 are almost identical across the multinomial logit and binomial logit estimates, suggesting that multinomial logit will have no more statistical power than successive binomial logit estimates. 7.... ..."

Cited by 17

### Table 1: Computational costs of lters. Filter FIR binomial Rec. Rec.

2002

"... In PAGE 6: ...(bottom): Scale invariance of d12(i; j; k) 5.2 Computational Cost Table1 recapitulates the previous results in oper- ations per pixel for lters g0 and g1 with the FIR (N = 9), the binomial [1; 2; 1] and 2 recursive lters (N = 3 and N = 5). This shows that a pyramid com- puted using the binomial lter has a lower cost than either the recursive lter or the direct FIR lter.... ..."

Cited by 9

### Table 2. Computation time for moment evaluation Direct Binomial Moment

2004

"... In PAGE 6: ... B. Moment Evaluation Table2 compares the computation time for direct moment evaluation and our proposed binomial moment evaluation. In direct moment evaluation, the number of the total product terms increases exponentially, thereby making the computation task quickly infeasible.... ..."

Cited by 16

### Table 1. Negative Binomial parameters for +p collisions with n 1

"... In PAGE 4: ... 3.1 The Negative Binomial ts to the number n of `all charged apos; and to that of negative and positive particles treated separately are summarized in Table1 and displayed in Fig.1, for n 1.... ..."