|
|
@@ -422,6 +422,7 @@ $0.1$.
|
|
|
\label{res_gen4}
|
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
|
|
|
|
+\subsubsection{Stability}
|
|
|
Once again we investigated the stability
|
|
|
of the algorithm with regards to the number of iterations. Once again we
|
|
|
restricted the window between 80 and 180 points were curves are split.
|
|
|
@@ -438,7 +439,7 @@ like we get before.
|
|
|
\label{gen_iter}
|
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
|
|
|
|
-\section{Results}
|
|
|
+\section{Results and conclusions}
|
|
|
Eventually we made extensive experiments to compare the three previously
|
|
|
presented heuristics. The parameters chosen for the heuristics have been
|
|
|
chosen using the experiments conducted in the previous sections
|
|
|
@@ -484,11 +485,10 @@ same for each heuristic}.
|
|
|
\label{wrap4z}
|
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
|
|
|
|
-\section{Conclusion}
|
|
|
|
|
|
\section*{Acknowledgments}
|
|
|
We would like to thank Magnus Wahlstrom from the Max Planck Institute for Informatics
|
|
|
-for providing an implementation of the DEM algorithm [DEM96].
|
|
|
+for providing an implementation of the DEM algorithm.
|
|
|
We would also like to thank Christoff Durr and Carola Doerr
|
|
|
for several very helpful talks on the topic of this work.
|
|
|
Both Thomas Espitau and Olivier Marty supported by the French Ministry for
|
espitau