### Table 1: DFA exact results

2004

"... In PAGE 6: ...5%. These results can be verified against the exact results obtained using brute force algorithms in Table1 and Table 2. 3 Sampling and prediction The formulae established for n = 2, 3 offer the exact values of PD (2, p), PD (3, p), PN (2, p), PN (3, p) , for any p = 2, 3, .... In PAGE 10: ... Using the first 13 values from Table 10, we obtain the results for the NTPS predictor g in Table 11. Using the first 13 values and the supplementary 11 values from Table1 0, we get the results in Table 12. As we can see, the difference between the percentage obtained by generating samples and the one computed using the NTPS predictor is again less than 1.... In PAGE 11: ... The results are presented in Table 7 and Table 10. Note that the statistics is very close to those in Table1 and Table 2, respectively. For most of them, the difference is less than 1%.... In PAGE 18: ...Table1 0: The number of NFAs accepting the empty language using randomly generated samples No. n p Total number of NFAs NFAs accepting non-empty lan- guages NFAs accepting non-empty lan- guages Non-empty per- cent 1 3 2 22500 18906 3594 84.... In PAGE 19: ...Table1 1: Comparative results for NFA NTPS predictor using 13 knots Number of NFAs Percent of NFAs NTPS No n p Total number of NFAs tested recognizing at least one word recognizing at least one word g(n, p) estimated empty percent Precision 1 6 8 22500 22161 98.490% 99.... In PAGE 19: ...000 0.000 0 Table1 2: Comparative results for NFA NTPS predictor using 24 knots Number of NFAs Percent of NFAs NTPS No n p Total number of NFAs tested recognizing at least one word recognizing at least one word g(n, p) estimated empty percent Precision 1 4 7 22500 21121 93.870% 92.... ..."

### Table 2. DFA exact results

"... In PAGE 10: ... Obviously, the number of automata grows exponentially with a3 and a7 (a3 a7 a1 a33 a40a67 a7 for DFAs and a67 a7 a26 a1 a5a14a7 for NFAs). The method was used for the values presented in Table2 and Table 4. One can see... In PAGE 11: ... The results are presented in Table 7 and Table 10. Note that the statistics is very close to those in Table2 and Table 4, respectively. For most of them, the difference is less than 1%.... In PAGE 11: ... The programs were run on a PC Pentium 4 1.6A with 64 MB memory, for more than 1 week to obtain the results in Table2 and Table 4. The size of memory was not important since every time we store only one automaton and no swapping of data is used.... ..."

### TABLE IV. EXACT RESULTS FOR EXAMPLE OF FIGURE 13

1978

Cited by 29

### Table 5. Exact Results for the solution of the PDE (6)

2006

"... In PAGE 18: .... Bertsimas, C. Caramanis The true results, as computed by Maple 6.0, are reported in Table5 . We ran the algorithm for various levels of N and K.... ..."

### Table 31: Differences exact results/results got with statistical coefficients

"... In PAGE 45: ... Table31... ..."

### Table 5: Performances of each of the three heuristics compared to the exact result (40

"... In PAGE 21: ... In particular, HYB2 returns the optimal value in all the cases for Buchnera aphidicola, in 5 out of the 11 cases for Haemophilus in uenzae, and in 9 out of the 11 cases for Wigglesworthia glossinidia brevipalpis. -Table 2 should go here- -Table 3 should go here- -Table 4 should go here- A more global view at the respective performances of heuristics ILCS, IILCS and HYB2 is given in Table5 . In this table, for each of the 40 exact results we have obtained, and for each heuristic H, we provide the ratio IC(H) IC(OPT), where IC(H) is the number of common intervals returned by H and IC(OP T ) is the exact number of common intervals.... In PAGE 22: ...88% of the optimal number. - Table5 should go here- -Figure 3 should go here- These results come as a surprise, because, despite being extremely simple and fast, IILCS appears to be extremely good on this dataset. HYB2 works even better on this dataset, but its main drawback is that we have no guarantee on its execution time.... ..."

Cited by 2

### Table 1: Exact results vs. Brownian bridge, N = 100

2004

### Table 4: Comparison of Exact and Approximation results for ALL

1996

"... In PAGE 9: ...he average error is 7.2% and the standard deviation is 4.91. Similar results are tabulated in Table4 for AllBFs. The average error for DR is about 5.... ..."

Cited by 2

### Table 3: Comparison of Exact and Approximation results for METAL

1996

Cited by 2