Efficiency Comparison Clause Samples

Efficiency Comparison. The results of the efficiency comparison between SGPAKE and PL-GAKA are illustrated in Table 3. Since this paper focuses on the cloud meeting and improves SGPAKE in the cloud meeting, we compare PL-GAKA with SGPAKE. For the Exponentiation evaluation, SGPAKE requires 4(2a ) because of two modular exponential computations for generating session keys. According to the properties of cloud meetings, the participant list can be determined before PL-GAKA starts, so the heavy work can be well prepared, and the computation cost can be finished from an offline computation. Table 3. The efficiency comparison between SGPAKE and PL-GAKA. Password Maintenance Yes No Exponentiation Yes No Key Calculation Modular Exponentiation Extented Choatic Map For the efficiency of the session key calculation process, PL-GAKA considers the extended chaotic map, which is a lightweight calculation compared with the modular exponential computation. Thus, PL-GAKA requires less computation time to generate a session key than that of SGPAKE. On the other hand, the meeting member does not require a password to verify the identity in PL-GAKA, so the password maintenance mechanism is not necessary in Pl-GAKA, but it is required in SGPAKE. Putting the above together, PL-GAKA is more efficient than SGPAKE in terms of key generation and the user maintenance.
View SourceView Similar (2)
Efficiency Comparison. Compared with similar KA protocols, the proposed KA protocol in this paper has many advantages. The comparison results are shown in Table 2. The protocols in Refs. [21,29] are based on bilinear pairings, which are time consumption as one pairing operation is about 11110 multiplications in finite field F3163. Then, the main operation in these protocols is point multiplication, and the proposed KA protocol utilizes the least point multiplication computation. Moreover, the proposed KA protocol only needs one-time information transmission, which can save half the time burden of the information authenticated in the session key agreement phase compared with one-round protocols. Although the KA protocol in Ref. [29] is also one-pass, it needs bilinear pairings, which are the time consumption operations.
View Source

Related to Efficiency Comparison

  • PRODUCTIVITY The Union shall place no limitations upon the amount of work which an Employee shall perform during the working day and there shall be no restrictions imposed against the use of any type of machinery, tools or labour saving devices.

  • Revenue Metering The Connecting Transmission Owner’s revenue metering will be located on the generator side of the 115kV breaker at the ▇▇▇▇▇ Solar Collector Substation and will consist of: • three (3) combination current/voltage transformer (“CT/VT”) units (manufacturer and model ABB/▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ KXM-550, GE Grid Solutions KOTEF ▇▇▇.▇▇, or other equivalent specified by Connecting Transmission Owner); and • one (1) revenue meter. The ratios of the CTs and VTs will be provided by Connecting Transmission Owner upon its review of the Interconnection Customer’s design documents. (Note: Connecting Transmission Owner’s revenue metering CTs and VTs cannot be used to feed the Interconnection Customer’s check meter.) SERVICE AGREEMENT NO. 2556

  • Energy Efficiency The contractor shall comply with all mandatory standards and policies relating to energy efficiency which are contained in the energy conservation plan issued in compliance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (Pub.L. 94-163) for the State in which the work under this contract is performed.

  • Mileage Measurement Where required, the mileage measurement for LIS rate elements is determined in the same manner as the mileage measurement for V&H methodology as outlined in NECA Tariff No. 4.

  • Profitability The Board reviewed detailed information regarding revenues received by ▇▇▇▇ under the Agreement. The Board considered the estimated costs to ▇▇▇▇, and pre-tax profits realized by ▇▇▇▇, from advising the DWS Funds, as well as estimates of the pre-tax profits attributable to managing the Fund in particular. The Board also received information regarding the estimated enterprise-wide profitability of DIMA and its affiliates with respect to all fund services in totality and by fund. The Board and the Fee Consultant reviewed ▇▇▇▇’s methodology in allocating its costs to the management of the Fund. Based on the information provided, the Board concluded that the pre-tax profits realized by ▇▇▇▇ in connection with the management of the Fund were not unreasonable. The Board also reviewed certain publicly available information regarding the profitability of certain similar investment management firms. The Board noted that, while information regarding the profitability of such firms is limited (and in some cases is not necessarily prepared on a comparable basis), DIMA and its affiliates’ overall profitability with respect to the DWS Funds (after taking into account distribution and other services provided to the funds by ▇▇▇▇ and its affiliates) was lower than the overall profitability levels of most comparable firms for which such data was available. Economies of Scale. The Board considered whether there are economies of scale with respect to the management of the Fund and whether the Fund benefits from any economies of scale. The Board noted that the Fund’s investment management fee schedule includes fee breakpoints. The Board concluded that the Fund’s fee schedule represents an appropriate sharing between the Fund and DIMA of such economies of scale as may exist in the management of the Fund at current asset levels.