Datasets:

staghado

/

ArXiv-tables

like 2

1904.05961v3

\begin{table}[tb] % \vspace{-.0em} % \footnotesize % \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3} % \caption{Average Running Time (sec) } \label{tab:time} % \vspace{-.5em} % \centering % \begin{tabular}{r|c|c|c|c} % \hline % algorithm & Fisher's iris & Facebook & Pendigits & MNIST \\ % \hline % farthest point & $0.02$ & $0.04$ & $0.06$ & $7.27$\\ % \hline % nonuniform sampling & $0.06$ & $0.03$ & $0.19$ & $4.34$ \\ % \hline % uniform sampling & $0.001$ & $0.001$ & $0.003$ & $0.01$ \\ % \hline % RCC-kmeans & $0.04$ & $0.02$ & $0.13$ & $13.59$ \\ % \hline % RCC-kmedian & $0.05$ & $0.48$ & $1.28$ & $123.82$ \\ % \hline % \end{tabular} % \vspace{-1em} % \end{table}

1904.05961v3

\begin{table}[tb] %\vspace{-.0em} \color{blue} \footnotesize \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3} \caption{Error bound $\epsilon$ for MEB ($z=1$)} \label{tab:epsilon, z=1} %\vspace{-.5em} \centering \begin{tabular}{r|c|c|c} \hline dataset & coreset size & max relative error & $\epsilon$ \\ \hline Fisher's iris & 5 (20) & 0.0041 & 0.4127 \\ \hline Facebook & 20 (80) & 0.0044 & 49.3484 \\ \hline Pendigits & 40 (400) & 0.0027 & 691.345 \\ \hline MNIST & 400 & 8.1756 & 189130 \\ \hline HARS & 400 & & \\ \hline %LR & $\dist(p_l, p_n^T x_{1:d-1} + x_d)^2$ & weighted sum \\ %\hline \end{tabular} %\vspace{-.5em} \end{table}

1904.05961v3

\begin{table}[tb] %\vspace{-.0em} \color{blue} \footnotesize \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3} \caption{Error bound $\epsilon$ for MEB ($z=2$)} \label{tab:epsilon, z=2} %\vspace{-.5em} \centering \begin{tabular}{r|c|c|c} \hline dataset & coreset size & max relative error & $\epsilon$ \\ \hline Fisher's iris & 5 (20) & 0.0097 & 0.6424 \\ \hline Facebook & 20 (80) & 0.0345 & 7.0248 \\ \hline Pendigits & 40 (400) & 0.0023 & 26.2934 \\ \hline MNIST & 400 & 8.1726 & 434.8897 \\ \hline (new data) & & & \\ \hline %LR & $\dist(p_l, p_n^T x_{1:d-1} + x_d)^2$ & weighted sum \\ %\hline \end{tabular} %\vspace{-.5em} \end{table}

1904.05961v3

\begin{table}[t] { %\small \footnotesize %\color{blue} \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3} \caption{Original Machine Learning Performance (cost for MEB, $k$-means, PCA; accuracy for SVM and NN)} \label{tab:original cost} %\vspace{-1em} \centerline{ \begin{tabular}{r|c|c|c|c|c} \hline problem & Fisher's & Facebook & Pendigits & MNIST & HAR\\ \hline MEB & 2.05 & 7.65 & 18.06 & 90.43 & 60.26 \\ \hline $k$-means & 84.54 & 853.67 & 2.00e+05 & 4.98e+07 & 2.86e+06 \\ \hline PCA & 1.94 & 197.19 & 910.79 & 1.73e+04 & 4.46e+05 \\ \hline SVM/NN\footnotemark & 100\% & 89.36\% & 99.33\% & 87.01\% & 78.01\% \\ %\hline %NN & & & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular} } } \vspace{.5em} \end{table}

1904.05961v3

\begin{table}[t] { %\small \footnotesize \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3} \caption{Average Running Time (sec) (`FP': farthest point, `NS': nonuniform sampling, `US': uniform sampling, `RS': RCC-kmeans, `RN': RCC-kmedian) } \label{tab:time} %\vspace{-1em} \centerline{ \begin{tabular}{r|c|c|c|c|c} \hline algorithm & Fisher & Facebook & Pendigits & MNIST & HAR \\ \hline FP %farthest point & 1.62 & 3.00 & 2.53 & 21.69 & 25.92 \\ \hline NS %nonuniform samp. & 0.019 & 0.027 & 0.095 & 7.42 & 0.69 \\ \hline US %uniform samp. & 2.10e-04 & 4.60e-04 & 3.80e-04 & 0.01 & 0.0013 \\ \hline RS %RCC-kmeans & 0.0083 & 0.011 & 0.042 & 18.76 & 1.46 \\ \hline RN %RCC-kmedian & 0.028 & 0.30 & 0.40 & 100.64 & 12.39 \\ \hline \end{tabular} } } \vspace{.5em} \end{table}

1904.05961v3

\begin{table}[tb] % \vspace{-.0em} % \footnotesize % \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3} % \caption{Average Running Time (sec) } \label{tab:time} % \vspace{-.5em} % \centering % \begin{tabular}{r|c|c|c|c} % \hline % algorithm & Fisher's iris & Facebook & Pendigits & MNIST \\ % \hline % farthest point & $0.02$ & $0.04$ & $0.06$ & $7.27$\\ % \hline % nonuniform sampling & $0.06$ & $0.03$ & $0.19$ & $4.34$ \\ % \hline % uniform sampling & $0.001$ & $0.001$ & $0.003$ & $0.01$ \\ % \hline % RCC-kmeans & $0.04$ & $0.02$ & $0.13$ & $13.59$ \\ % \hline % RCC-kmedian & $0.05$ & $0.48$ & $1.28$ & $123.82$ \\ % \hline % \end{tabular} % \vspace{-1em} % \end{table}

2301.01542v1

\begin{table}[t] \caption{Average test accuracy across clients for different datasets in the settings when $N_{\text{hist}} /N = 50\%$.} \label{tab:ratio_estimation_exp} % \vskip 0.15in \begin{center} \begin{small} \begin{sc} \begin{tabular}{ l | c c c c } \toprule \textbf{Dataset} & $D$ & $G$ & $B$ & $d$ \\ \midrule Synthetic & $1.9$ & $0.4$ & $0.7$ & $21$ \\ CIFAR-10 & $1.0$ & $5.5$ & $2.3$ & $3,353,034$ \\ CIFAR-100 & $1.0$ & $4.7$ & $4.6$ & $3,537,444$ \\ FEMNIST & $5.9$ & $12.9$ & $3.5$ & $867,390$ \\ Shakespeare & $2.6$ & $1.4$ & $6.1$ & $226,180$ \\ \bottomrule \end{tabular} \end{sc} \end{small} \end{center} % \vskip -0.1in \end{table}

1908.04909v1

\begin{table}[h] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|}\hline & TP & FP & FN & TN & ACC & MCC & FPR \\\hline \textbf{model A} & 900 & 500 & 100 & 8500 & 94.0\% & 0.73 & 5.6\% \\\hline \textbf{model B} & 350 & 100 & 650 & 8900 & 92.5\% & 0.49 & 1.1\% \\\hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \caption[Two candidate models]% {Performance of models A and B. TP is true positives; FP is false positives; FN is false negatives; TN is true negatives; ACC is accuracy; FPR is false positive rate. Compared to model B, model A has better MCC, but worse FPR.} \label{ex_data_tab} %\vspace{-20pt} \end{table}

1908.04909v1

\begin{table}[h] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{ | c |c | c | } \hline \textbf{Target} & \textbf{Predicted False} & \textbf{Predicted True} \\ \hline \textbf{False} & 146,956 & 5,562 \\ \hline \textbf{True} & 22,963 & 10,721 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \caption{Confusion Matrix - Validation Data - Default Model} \label{donors_tab2} % \vspace{-20pt} \end{table}

1908.04909v1

\begin{table}[h] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{ | c | c | c | } \hline \textbf{Target} & \textbf{Predicted False} & \textbf{Predicted True} \\ \hline \textbf{False} & 147,417 & 5,101\\ \hline \textbf{True} & 13,650 & 20,034 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \caption{Confusion Matrix - Validation Data - "Best" Model} \label{donors_tab3} % \vspace{-20pt} \end{table}

2304.14853v1

\begin{table}[H] \centering \caption{$p$-values for Sleep States using TDA} \begin{tabular}{| c | c | c | c | c |} \hline \textbf{EEG Band} & NREM1 & NREM2 & NREM3 & REM \\ \hline Delta Band & 0.000 & 0.001 & 0.000 & 0.040 \\ \hline Theta Band & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 \\ \hline Alpha Band & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 \\ \hline Beta Band & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 \\ \hline Gamma Band & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:sleep_state_p_value_pl} \end{table}

2308.15992v3

\begin{table}[h] \setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{0cm} \setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.2cm} \caption{Comparison of Existing Surveys on Cryptocurrency and DeFi Fraud. It covers target platforms, classification method, taxonomy through project life cycle, detail on-chain pattern exploration, AI detection models analysis, DeFi vs. CeFi fraud comparison, and discussion of challenges and future opportunities for each paper. For those classifying by detection methods, fraud taxonomy and on-chain patterns are not applicable (N/A) to them.} \centering \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{% \begin{tabular}{|m{4cm}<{\centering}|m{3.3cm}<{\centering}|m{3cm}<{\centering}|m{1.3cm}<{\centering}|m{1.4cm}<{\centering}|m{1.3cm}<{\centering}|m{1.4cm}<{\centering}|m{1.7cm}<{\centering}|} \hline \textbf{Paper} & \textbf{Platforms} & \textbf{Classification} & \textbf{Project life cycle} & \textbf{On-chain Patterns} & \textbf{AI Methods} & \textbf{Comp. w/ CeFi} & \textbf{Future Opportunities}\\ \hline Badawi and Jourdan (2020) \cite{badawi2020cryptocurrencies} & General cryptocurrencies & By frauds & $\times$ & $\times$ & \checkmark & $\times$& $\times$\\ \hline Li et al. (2020) \cite{li2020survey} & General cryptocurrencies & By detection methods & N/A & N/A & \checkmark & $\times$ &\checkmark \\ \hline Eigelshoven et al. (2021) \cite{eigelshoven2021cryptocurrency} & General cryptocurrencies & By frauds & $\times$ & \checkmark & $\times$ & \checkmark & \checkmark \\ \hline Bartoletti et al. (2021) \cite{bartoletti2021cryptocurrency} & General cryptocurrencies & By frauds & $\times$& \checkmark & $\times$ & $\times$ & \checkmark \\ \hline Trozze et al. (2022) \cite{trozze2022cryptocurrencies} & General cryptocurrencies & By frauds & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & \checkmark \\ \hline Li (2022) \cite{li2022survey} & Ethereum & By detection methods & N/A & N/A & \checkmark & $\times$ & \checkmark \\ \hline Yan et al. (2022) \cite{yan2022blockchain} & Public and consortium blockchain & By frauds & $\times$ & $\times$ & \checkmark & $\times$ & \checkmark \\ \hline Wu et al. (2023) \cite{wu2023financial} & Web3-metaverse & By frauds & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & \checkmark & \checkmark \\ \hline Krishnan et al. (2023) \cite{krishnan2023scams} & General cryptocurrencies & By frauds & $\times$ & $\times$ & \checkmark & $\times$ & $\times$ \\ \hline Our Survey & DeFi & By frauds & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark\\ \hline \end{tabular}} \label{table:review-comparison} \end{table}

2405.17731v1

\begin{table}[htbp] \centering \caption{Data Loading times for all databases across the five datasets (time in seconds)} \label{tab:loadtime} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline Databases & SF1 & SF2 & SF3 & SF4 & SF5 \\ \hline PostgreSQL & 37s & 375s & 857s & 1089s & 1481s\\ \hline MongoDB & 90s & 1250s & 1701s & 2275s & 2810s \\ \hline ArangoDB & 295s & 2249s & 3964s & 12169s & 15162s \\ \hline Redis & 1495s & 3245s & 5023s & 7748s & 10289s\\ \hline Apache Kudu & 42s & 95s & 146s & 192s & 240s\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

1903.09493v1

\begin{table}[ht] \centering \begin{tabular}{c|c} \hline \textbf{Reference} & \textbf{Paper} \\ & \textbf{number} \\ \cline{1-2} \cite{Dwork:12} & [1] \\ \cite{Kleinberg:16} & [2] \\ \cite{Berk:17} & [3] \\ \cite{Hardt:16} & [4] \\ \cite{Corbett:17} & [5] \\ \cite{Simoiu:17} & [6] \\ \cite{Chouldechova:16} & [7] \\ \cite{Zafar:17} & [8] \\ \cite{Kusner:18} & [9] \\ \cite{Dieterich:16} & [10] \\ \cite{Zafar2:17} & [11] \\ \cite{Binns:18} & [12] \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{References} \label{Table:2} \end{table}

2309.04210v1

\begin{table} \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3} \caption{Comparison of all three observers, showing the mean and standard deviation of the rms voltage error $\obserrrms$ (in $mV$) across twenty trials.} \label{table:results_full} \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline & Centralized & Distributed & $\numredundant=3$ & $\numredundant=9$\\ \hline\hline Mean & 1.15 & 0.0788 & 0.0280 & 0.0241 \\ \hline Standard Deviation & 0.14 & 0.017 & 0.0056 & 0.0030 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

1604.02608v1

\begin{table}[!ht] \caption{Data intensive users supported by the OSDC} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|l | r|} \hline \# core hours during month & \# of users \\ \hline % 10,000 & 435 \\ \hline 20,000 & 120 \\ \hline 50,000 & 34 \\ \hline 100,000 & 23 \\ \hline 200,000 & 5 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \label{tab:users} \footnotesize{The estimated cost of 100,000 core hours on a commercial cloud service provider like AWS is \$40,000 per month.} \end{table}

2101.04025v2

\begin{table}[h] \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3} \caption{Serverless Fit Times and Costs with 1024 MB Memory and Per-Sample-Split Scaling (Mean, Min \& Max in 100 Runs).} \label{table_timing_example} \centering \begin{tabular}{l || c | c | c} \hline & \bfseries Mean & \bfseries Min & \bfseries Max \\ \hline\hline \bfseries Fit Time (s) & 19.82 & 19.53 & 21.49 \\ \bfseries Billed Duration (GB-s) & 3515.36 & 3492.01 & 3571.42 \\ \bfseries Avg.\ Duration per Invocation (s) & 17.16 & 17.05 & 17.44 \\ \bfseries Total Response Time (s) & 19.09 & 18.81 & 20.76 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2005.03197v4

\begin{table}[htb!] %\fontsize{7}{7}\selectfont \caption{(MFC Results) Vanilla HAC and FHAC (Ours)}\label{table1} \begin{center} \tabcolsep=0.10cm \resizebox{0.42\textwidth}{!}{ \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}% \hline \textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{Linkage} & \textbf{$\theta_1$} & \textbf{$\theta_2$} & \textbf{MFC (Vanilla)} & \textbf{MFC (FHAC)}\\ \hline \hline \texttt{census} & Average & 0.001 & 0.001 & \textbf{0.0853} & \textbf{ 0.0853}\\ \hline \texttt{census} & Complete & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.1806 & \textbf{0.0853}\\ \hline \texttt{census} & Single & 0.001 & 0.65 & 1.248 & \textbf{0.752}\\ \hline \texttt{creditcard} & Average & 0.00005 & 0.005 & 1.2439 & \textbf{1.0}\\ \hline \texttt{creditcard} & Complete & 0.00005 & 0.005 & 0.744 & \textbf{0.60}\\ \hline \texttt{creditcard} & Single & 0.0075 & 0.5 & 1.5 & \textbf{ 0.778}\\ \hline \texttt{bank} & Average & 0.0001 & 0.05 & 1.332 & \textbf{0.6679}\\ \hline \texttt{bank} & Complete & 0.5 & 0.05 & 1.332 & \textbf{0.4457}\\ \hline \texttt{bank} & Single & 0.001 & 0.65 & 1.332 & \textbf{0.6653}\\ \hline \end{tabular}} \end{center} \end{table}

2005.03197v4

\begin{table}[htb!] \caption{(Balance Results) Vanilla HAC and FHAC (Ours)}\label{table2} \begin{center} \tabcolsep=0.09cm \resizebox{0.42\textwidth}{!}{ \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{Linkage} & $\theta_1$ & $\theta_2$ & \textbf{Balance(Vanilla)} & \textbf{Balance(FHAC)}\\ \hline \hline \texttt{census} & Average & 0.001 & 0.001 & \textbf{0.8865} & \textbf{0.8865}\\ \hline \texttt{census} & Complete & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.7599 & \textbf{0.8865}\\ \hline \texttt{census} & Single & 0.0005 & 1.0 & 0.0 & \textbf{0.9385}\\ \hline \texttt{creditcard} & Average & 0.05 & 0.1 & 0.0 & \textbf{0.427}\\ \hline \texttt{creditcard} & Complete & 0.0005 & 1.0 & 0.0 & \textbf{0.7105}\\ \hline \texttt{creditcard} & Single & 0.0005 & 1.0 & 0.0 & \textbf{0.7959}\\ \hline \texttt{bank} & Average & 0.045 & 0.09 & 0.0 & \textbf{0.5567}\\ \hline \texttt{bank} & Complete & 0.5 & 0.05 & 0.0 & \textbf{0.3327}\\ \hline \texttt{bank} & Single & 0.0005 & 1.0 & 0.0 & \textbf{0.8099}\\ \hline \end{tabular}} \end{center} \end{table}

2005.03197v4

\begin{table}[htbp] \caption{(MFC Results) FHAC, AFHAC-R, and AFHAC-V}\label{table3} \begin{center} %\begin{tabularx}{0.642\linewidth}{|p{2.6cm}|p{1.6cm}|p{2cm}|p{1cm}|p{1.6cm}|} \tabcolsep=0.10cm \resizebox{0.42\textwidth}{!}{ \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{MFC (FHAC)} & \textbf{MFC (AFHAC-V)} & \textbf{MFC (AFHAC-R)}\\ \hline \hline \texttt{creditcard} & \textbf{1.0} & 2.8505 & 1.5825 \\ \hline \texttt{census} & \textbf{0.0853} & 4.0 & 4.0 \\ \hline \texttt{bank} & 0.6679 & \textbf{0.03648} & 2.0027\\ \hline \end{tabular}} \end{center} \end{table}

2005.03197v4

\begin{table}[htbp] \caption{(Balance Results) FHAC, AFHAC-R, AFHAC-V}\label{table4} \begin{center} %\begin{tabularx}{0.642\linewidth}{|p{2.6cm}|p{1.6cm}|p{2cm}|p{1cm}|p{1.6cm}|} \tabcolsep=0.09cm \resizebox{0.42\textwidth}{!}{ \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{Balance(FHAC)} & \textbf{Balance(AFHAC-V)} & \textbf{Balance(AFHAC-R)}\\ \hline \hline \texttt{creditcard} & \textbf{0.427} & 0.0 & 0.416 \\ \hline \texttt{census} & \textbf{0.8865} & 0.2 & 0.0 \\ \hline \texttt{bank} & 0.5567 & \textbf{0.9474} & 0.0\\ \hline \end{tabular}} \end{center} \end{table}

2211.00948v2

\begin{table} \centering \begin{tabular}{c|c} & \textbf{Huber loss} \\ \hline \textbf{$0_th$ Round} & 3.91E+01 \\ \hline \textbf{$1_st$ Round} & 3.68E+01 \\ \hline \textbf{$2_nd$ Round} & 3.44E+01 \\ \hline \textbf{$3_rd$ Round} & 2.49E+01 \\ \hline \textbf{$4_th$ Round} & 1.66E+01 \\ \hline \textbf{$5_th$ Round} & 1.42E+01 \\ \hline \textbf{$6_th$ Round} & 2.99E+01 \\ \hline \textbf{$7_th$ Round} & 3.22E+01 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Loss Values In Different Rounds} \label{tab:store-sizec} \vspace{4mm} \end{table}

2211.00948v2

\begin{table}[H] \centering \begin{tabular}{@{}c|ccc@{}} & \textbf{Without Risk-Neutral} & \textbf{With Risk-Neutral} \\ \hline \textbf{Loss } &$1.18E+02$($1000_{th}$iteration) &$2.37E+02$($253_{th}$iteration) \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Loss of two jump-diffusion models} \label{tab:5 assets loss} \vspace{-4mm} \end{table}

1907.07305v1

\begin{table}[!htb] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \rowcolor[rgb]{0,1,1} $S$ & $r$ & $q$ & $T_{max}$ & $K_{\max}$ & Call/Put & $N_u$ & $N_v$ & $R_c$ \\ \hline 100.00 & 0.05 & 0.01 & 1.00 & 400.00 & Call & 200 & 100 & 20 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Parameters of the test.} \label{inputs} \end{center} \end{table}

1907.07305v1

\begin{table}[!htb] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|r|r|r|r|} \hline \rowcolor[rgb]{0,1,1} Step in time & Iterations per step & $\varepsilon \ \ $ & $t$ elapsed, secs \\ \hline 1 & 20 & 1.5e-4 & 16 \\ \hline 2 & 3 & 2.3e-6 & 2.7 \\ \hline 3 & 3 & 1.9e-6 & 2.8 \\ \hline 5 & 3 & 1.4e-6 & 2.8 \\ \hline 10 & 3 & 8.3e-7 & 2.8 \\ \hline 20 & 3 & 3.8e-7 & 2.8 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Convergence of the Picard iterations for various steps in time $T$. The time step $\Delta T$ = 0.01.} \label{conv} \end{center} \end{table}

2110.07519v1

\begin{table}[tb] \centering \caption{Index expansion rate (index size as a percentage of the original data size).}\label{table5} \hspace*{-0.3cm} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline &Synthetic&Seismic&SALD\\ & {100GB} & {100GB} & {100GB} \\ & {100M series} & {100M series} & {200M series} \\ \hline index expansion rate&5.7\%& 5.1\%& 10.5\%\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2110.07519v1

\begin{table}[tb] % \centering % \scriptsize % \caption{Query answering algorithms comparison: number of times an operation is executed (average over 100 queries). }\label{table4} % \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|} % \hline % & {\bf ParIS} & {\bf ParIS-TS} & {\bf ParIS-TS-LB} & {\bf MESSI-sq} & {\bf MESSI-mq} \\ % \hline % Insert node &n/a&69K& 69K& 15K& 15K\\ % \hline % Delete node&n/a&20K &20K& 11K& 11K\\ % \hline % LBD calculation &100M& 69K &9M& 9M &9M\\ % \hline % RD calculation &112K &9M &52K &54K &54K\\ % \hline % \end{tabular} %\end{table}

2110.07519v1

\begin{table}[tb] \centering \makeatletter\def\@captype{table}\makeatother \caption{Update Frequency of the BSF array (Euclidean distance).} { \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline %Number of nearest neighbors & {\bf 1-NN} & {\bf 5-NN} & {\bf 10-NN} & {\bf 50-NN}\\ \hline number of BSF& & & & \\ %updates/query&11.97&20.92&45.58&258.04\\ updates/query&11.9&20.9&45.6&258.1\\ \hline BSF update time& & & &\\ %$\mu$sec/query&0.51&5.07&19.12&186.47\\ $\mu$sec/query&0.5&5.1&19.1&186.5\\ \hline % BSF update time\\ query time \% &0.001\% & 0.011\% & 0.038\% & 0.331\% BSF update time& & & &\\ query time \% &0.001\% & 0.01\% & 0.04\% & 0.3\% \\ \hline \end{tabular} } % font size \vspace*{0.1cm} \label{table2} \end{table}

2110.07519v1

\begin{table}[tb] \centering \makeatletter\def\@captype{table}\makeatother \caption{Update Frequency of the BSF array (DTW distance, 5\% warping).} { \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline %Number of nearest neighbors & {\bf 1-NN} & {\bf 5-NN} & {\bf 10-NN} & {\bf 50-NN}\\ \hline number of BSF& & & & \\ %updates/query&22.71& 83.94& 160.2& 672.35\\ updates/query&22.7& 83.9& 160.2& 672.4\\ \hline BSF update time& & & &\\ %$\mu$sec/query&4.92&19.95& 50.21&473.27 $\mu$sec/query&4.9&19.9& 50.2&473.3 \\ \hline % BSF update time\\ query time \% &0.001\% & 0.011\% & 0.038\% & 0.331\% BSF update time& & & &\\ query time \textperthousand % &0.0072\textperthousand % &0.027\textperthousand % &0.062\textperthousand % &0.54\textperthousand &0.007\textperthousand &0.03\textperthousand &0.06\textperthousand &0.5\textperthousand \\ \hline \end{tabular} } % font size \vspace*{0.1cm} \label{tabledtw5} \end{table}

2110.07519v1

\begin{table}[tb] \centering \makeatletter\def\@captype{table}\makeatother \caption{Update Frequency of the BSF array (DTW distance, 10\% warping).} { \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline %Number of nearest neighbors & {\bf 1-NN} & {\bf 5-NN} & {\bf 10-NN} & {\bf 50-NN}\\ \hline number of BSF& & & & \\ %updates/query&45.83& 124.73& 221.36& 854.04\\ updates/query&45.8& 124.7& 221.4& 854.1\\ \hline BSF update time& & & &\\ %$\mu$sec/query&11.91 &31.46&72.51&574.22 $\mu$sec/query&11.9 &31.5&72.5&574.2 \\ \hline % BSF update time\\ query time \% &0.001\% & 0.011\% & 0.038\% & 0.331\% BSF update time& & & &\\ query time \textperthousand % &0.0031\textperthousand& % 0.0076\textperthousand& % 0.0016\textperthousand& % 0.12\textperthousand &0.003\textperthousand& 0.008\textperthousand& 0.002\textperthousand& 0.1\textperthousand \\ \hline \end{tabular} } % font size \vspace*{0.1cm} \label{tabledtw10} \end{table}

1811.01315v2

\begin{table}[!h] \centering \caption{List of Abbreviations and Acronyms.} \begin{tabular}{c|c} \hline MNL & Multinomial logit \\ \hline NB & Naive Bayes \\ \hline CART & Classification and regression trees \\ \hline RF & Random forest \\\hline BOOST & Boosting trees \\\hline BAG & Bagging trees \\\hline SVM & Support vector machines \\\hline NN & Neural networks \\\hline AIC & Akaike information criterion \\\hline BIC & Bayesian information criterion \\\hline Min & Minimum \\\hline Max & Maximum \\\hline SD & Standard deviation \\\hline SP & Stated-preference \\\hline RP & Revealed-preference \\\hline IIA & Independence of irrelevant alternatives \\ \hline PT & Public transit \\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:acy} \end{table}

1811.01315v2

\begin{table}[!t] \centering \caption{List of Symbols and Notations Used in the Paper} \footnotesize \begin{tabular}{c|c} \hline \bf{} Symbols & \bf{} Description \\ \hline $K$ & Total number of alternatives \\ \hline $N$ & Total number of observations \\ \hline $P$ & Total number of features\\ \hline $\boldsymbol{X}$ & Input data for logit models containing $P$ features with $N$ observations for $K$ alternatives \\ \hline $\boldsymbol X_{k,p}$ & Feature $p$ for alternative $k, k = 1, ..., K$ of $\boldsymbol X$\\ \hline $\boldsymbol{X}_{k,-p}$ & All the features except $p$ for alternative $k, k = 1, ..., K$ of $\boldsymbol X$\\ \hline $\boldsymbol{X}_{ik}$ & A row-vector for the $i$th observation for alternative $k, k = 1, ..., K$ \\ \hline $\boldsymbol{X}_k$ & Input data for alternative $k$, $\boldsymbol{X}_k = [\boldsymbol{X}_{.k1}; ...; \boldsymbol{X}_{.kP}]$ where $\boldsymbol{X}_{.kp} = [X_{1kp}, ..., X_{Nkp}]$\\ \hline $\boldsymbol{X}_i$ & The $i$th observation of $\boldsymbol{X}$, $\boldsymbol{X}_i = [\boldsymbol{X}_{i.1}, ..., \boldsymbol{X}_{i.P}]$ where $\boldsymbol{X}_{i.p} = [X_{i1p}; ...; X_{iKp}]$ \\ \hline $\boldsymbol{X}_p$ & The feature $p$ of $\boldsymbol{X}$, $\boldsymbol{X}_p = [\boldsymbol{X}_{1.p}, ..., \boldsymbol{X}_{N.p}]$ where $\boldsymbol{X}_{i.p} = [X_{i1p}; ...; X_{iKp}]$\\ \hline $\boldsymbol{Z}$ & Input data for machine-learning models containing $P$ features and $N$ observations\\ \hline $\boldsymbol Z_{p}$ & Feature $p$ of $\boldsymbol{Z}$\\ \hline $\boldsymbol Z_{-p}$ & All the features except $p$ of $\boldsymbol{Z}$\\ \hline $\boldsymbol{Z}_i$ & $i$th observation of $\boldsymbol{Z}, \boldsymbol{Z}_i = [Z_{i1}, ..., Z_{iP}$]\\ \hline $U_k(\boldsymbol{X}_k|\boldsymbol{\beta}_k)$ & Utility function for mode $k$ \\ \hline $\boldsymbol{\beta}_k$ & Parameter vector for alternative $k$ of MNL model\\ \hline $\boldsymbol{\beta}$ & Parameter matrix of MNL model, $\boldsymbol{\beta} = [\boldsymbol{\beta}_1,..., \boldsymbol{\beta}_K]$ \\ \hline $\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}$ & Estimated parameter matrix of MNL model \\ \hline $\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_{k}$ & Random error for alternative $k$ of MNL model \\ \hline $\boldsymbol{Y}$ & Output mode choice data \\ \hline $\hat{Y}_i$ & Estimated mode choice for observation $i$ \\ \hline $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ & Parameter or hyperparameter vector for machine-learning models\\ \hline $\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}$ & Estimated parameter or hyperparameter vector\\ \hline $f(\boldsymbol{Z}|\boldsymbol{\theta})$ & Machine-learning models based on $\boldsymbol{Z}$ and $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ \\ \hline $p_{ik}$ & Probability of choosing alternative $k$ of observation $i$ \\ \hline $\hat{p}_{ik}$ & Predicted probability for choosing alternative $k$ of observation $i$\\ \hline $I_k(\hat{Y}_i)$ & Indicator function that equals to 1 if $\hat{Y}_i = k$ \\ \hline $P_k(\boldsymbol{X}|\hat{ \boldsymbol{\beta}})$ & Aggregate level prediction for mode $k$ based on $\boldsymbol{X}$ and $\hat{ \boldsymbol{\beta}}$ for logit models\\ \hline $Q_k(\boldsymbol{Z}|\hat{ \boldsymbol{\theta}})$ & Aggregate level prediction for mode $k$ based on $\boldsymbol{Z}$ and $\hat{ \boldsymbol{\theta}}$ for machine-learning models\\ \hline $E_k(\cdot)$ & Arc elasticity for alternative $k$\\ \hline $M_k(\cdot)$ & Marginal effect for alternative $k$\\ \hline $\Delta$ & Constant\\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:symbol_des} \end{table}

1811.01315v2

\begin{table}[!] \caption{Comparison Between Logit and Machine-Learning Models} \footnotesize \resizebox{1\textwidth}{!}{% <------ Don't forget this % \begin{tabular}{p{3.2cm}|p{8.8cm}|p{7.5cm}} \hline \textbf{} & \textbf{Logit Models} & \textbf{Machine-Learning Models} \Tstrut\Bstrut \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{Model formulation}} & $U_{k}(\boldsymbol{X}_k|\boldsymbol{\beta}_k) = \boldsymbol{\beta}_k^T \boldsymbol{X}_{k} + \boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_{k}$ & $\boldsymbol{Y} = f(\boldsymbol{Z}|\boldsymbol{\theta}), \boldsymbol{Y} \in \{1, …, K\}$ \Tstrut \\ & $p_{ik} = \frac{\exp {(\boldsymbol{\beta}}_k^T \boldsymbol{X}_{ik})}{\sum_{p=1}^K \exp {(\boldsymbol{\beta}}_p^T \boldsymbol{X}_{ik})}, k \in \{1, ..., K\}$ \Tstrut & \\ \hline \textbf{Commonly used model type} & MNL, mixed logit, nested MNL, generalized MNL & NB, CART, BAG, BOOST, RF, SVM, NN \Tstrut\Bstrut \\ \hline \textbf{Prediction type} & Class probability: $p_{i1}, …, p_{iK}$ & Classification: $k, k \in \{1, ..., K\}$ \Tstrut\Bstrut \\ \hline \textbf{Input data} & $\boldsymbol{X}$ & $\boldsymbol{Z}$ \\ \hline \textbf{Model topology} & Layer structure & Layer structure, tree structure, case-based reasoning, etc. \Tstrut\Bstrut \\ \hline \textbf{Optimization method} & Maximum likelihood estimation, simulated maximum likelihood & Back propagation, gradient descent, recursive partitioning, structural risk minimization, maximum likelihood, etc. \\ \hline \textbf{Evaluation criteria} & (Adjusted) McFadden's pseudo $R^2$, AIC, BIC & Resampling-based measures, e.g., cross validation \Tstrut\Bstrut \\ \hline \textbf{Individual-level mode prediction} & $\argmax_k (\hat{p}_{i1}, ..., \hat{p}_{iK})$ & $\hat{Y}_i$ \Tstrut\Bstrut \\ \hline \textbf{Aggregate-level mode share prediction} & $P_k(\boldsymbol{X}_k|\hat{ \boldsymbol{\beta}}_k) = \sum_i^N \hat{p}_{ik}/N$ & $Q_k(\boldsymbol{Z}|\hat{ \boldsymbol{\theta}}) = \sum_i^N \hat{p}_{ik}/N$ \Tstrut \\ \hline \textbf{Variable importance} & Standardized Beta coefficients & Variable importance, computed by using Gini index, out-of-bag error, and many others \Tstrut\Bstrut \\ \hline \textbf{Variable effects} & Sign and magnitude of Beta coefficients & Partial dependence plots \Tstrut\Bstrut \\ \hline \textbf{Arc elasticity of feature $p$ for alternative $k$} & $E_k(\boldsymbol{X}_{k,p}) = \frac{[P_k(\boldsymbol{X}_{k,-p}, \boldsymbol X_{k,p} \cdot (1+\Delta) | \hat{ \boldsymbol{\beta}}_k) - P_k(\boldsymbol{X}_{k} | \hat{ \boldsymbol{\beta}}_k)]/P_k(\boldsymbol{X}_{k} | \hat{ \boldsymbol{\beta}}_k)}{|\Delta|},$ $k \in \{1, ..., K\}$ \Tstrut & $E_k(\boldsymbol{Z}_{p}) = \frac{[Q_k(\boldsymbol{Z}_{-p}, \boldsymbol Z_{p} \cdot (1+\Delta) | \hat{ \boldsymbol{\theta}}_k) - Q_k(\boldsymbol{Z} | \hat{ \boldsymbol{\theta}}_k)]/Q_k(\boldsymbol{Z} | \hat{ \boldsymbol{\theta}}_k)}{|\Delta|},$ $k \in \{1, ..., K\}$ \Tstrut \\ \hline \textbf{Marginal effects of feature $p$ for alternative $k$} & $M_k(\boldsymbol{X}_{k,p}) = \frac{P_k(\boldsymbol{X}_{k,-p}, \boldsymbol{X}_{k,p} +\Delta) | \hat{ \boldsymbol{\beta}}_k) - P_k(\boldsymbol{X}_{k} | \hat{ \boldsymbol{\beta}}_k)}{|\Delta|},$ $k \in \{1, ..., K\}$ \Tstrut & $M_k(\boldsymbol{Z}_{p}) = \frac{Q_k(\boldsymbol{Z}_{-p}, \boldsymbol Z_{p} + \Delta) | \hat{ \boldsymbol{\theta}}_k) - Q_k(\boldsymbol{Z} | \hat{ \boldsymbol{\theta}}_k)}{|\Delta|},$ $k \in \{1, ..., K\}$ \Tstrut \\ \hline \end{tabular} } \label{tab:comparison} \end{table}

1811.01315v2

\begin{table}[!t] \caption{Ranking of Variable Importance for RF, NN, MNL, and Mixed Logit} \begin{tabular}{c|cccc} \hline \textbf{Variable} & \textbf{RF} & \textbf{NN} & \textbf{MNL} & \textbf{Mixed logit} \\ \hline TT\_Walk & 1 & 16 & 2 & 2 \\ TT\_Drive & 2 & 14 & 4 & 5 \\ TT\_Bike & 3 & 13 & 1 & 1 \\ TT\_PT & 4 & 11 & 3 & 3 \\ Current\_Mode\_Bike & 5 & 2 & 5 & 10 \\ PT\_Access & 6 & 8 & 13 & 16 \\ Bike\_Walkability & 7 & 6 & 16 & 13 \\ Income & 8 & 10 & 14 & 15 \\ CarPerCap & 9 & 7 & 11 & 14 \\ Current\_Mode\_Walk & 10 & 1 & 6 & 12 \\ Rideshare & 11 & 9 & 9 & 9 \\ Transfer & 12 & 5 & 8 & 8 \\ Wait\_Time & 13 & 15 & 10 & 11 \\ Female & 14 & 3 & 15 & 17 \\ Parking\_Cost & 15 & 12 & 12 & 4 \\ Current\_Mode\_Car & 16 & 4 & 7 & 6 \\ Current\_Mode\_PT & / & / & 17 & 7 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:VarImp} \end{table}

1612.03079v2

\begin{table}[t] \centering \small % \subfloat[Benchmark Datasets]{ \begin{tabular}[b]{ | l | l | l | c | c | c | } \hline \textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{Type} & \textbf{Size} & \textbf{Features} & \textbf{Labels} \\ \hline MNIST \cite{mnist} & Image & 70K & 28x28 & 10 \\ CIFAR \cite{cifardata} & Image & 60k & 32x32x3 & 10 \\ ImageNet \cite{imagenet} & Image & ~1.26M & 299x299x3 & 1000 \\ Speech \cite{timit} & Sound & 6300 & 5 sec. & 39 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \vspace{-4mm} \caption{\small \textbf{Datasets.} The collection of real-world benchmark datasets used in the experiments.} \vspace{-5mm} \label{tab:datasets} \end{table}

1109.6846v2

\begin{table} \label{table:sham} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|} \hline observed degree & \# predicted ($E[N_{\delta,\rho^*}]$) & \# actual ($N_{\delta,\rho^*}$) \\ \hline $d_i\geq \delta =1$ & 8531 & 8492 \\ \hline $d_i\geq \delta =2$ & 1697 & 1635 \\ \hline $d_i\geq \delta =3$ & 234 & 229 \\ \hline $d_i\geq \delta =4$ & 24 & 28 \\ \hline $d_i\geq \delta =5$ & 2 & 4 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Fidelity of the predicted (mean) number of false positives and the observed number of false positives in the realization of the sham NKI dataset experiment shown in Fig. \ref{fig:pv1}}. \end{center} \end{table}

2305.02029v1

\begin{table}[!htbp] \begin{tabular}{|p{0.88\textwidth}|p{0.15\textwidth}|} \hline High Probability Words & Suggested topic\\ \hline 0.018*"quote" + 0.013*"ebay" + 0.010*"finance" + 0.009*"premium" + 0.009*"level" + 0.008*"performance" + 0.007*"new\_car" + 0.007*"expensive" + 0.007*"struggle" + 0.006*"advance" & package\\ \hline 0.019*"data" + 0.015*"flag" + 0.013*"meet" + 0.011*"retail\_check" + 0.010*"price\_indicator" + 0.010*"spec" + 0.008*"sit" + 0.008*"valuations" + 0.007*"group" + 0.007*"price\_flags" & price indicator flags\\ \hline 0.012*"request" + 0.012*"admin\_fees" + 0.011*"video" + 0.007*"find" + 0.007*"image" + 0.006*"actually" + 0.006*"query" + 0.006*"frustrate" + 0.005*"spec" + 0.005*"unhappy" & unhappy\\ \hline 0.017*"image" + 0.013*"rat" + 0.012*"new\_car" + 0.010*"highly" + 0.009*"upload" + 0.008*"reply" + 0.008*"award" + 0.007*"consumers" + 0.006*"info" + 0.006*"message" & live chat\\ \hline 0.012*"text" + 0.011*"valuations" + 0.011*"product" + 0.010*"chat" + 0.009*"lose" + 0.007*"tech" + 0.007*"margin" + 0.006*"platform" + 0.006*"retail" + 0.006*"higher" & valuations\\ \hline 0.010*"retract" + 0.008*"close" + 0.008*"open" + 0.007*"watch" + 0.007*"webinar" + 0.006*"book" + 0.006*"phone" + 0.006*"process" + 0.006*"answer" + 0.006*"charge" & process related\\ \hline 0.011*"staff" + 0.010*"coronavirus" + 0.010*"reduce" + 0.010*"lockdown" + 0.009*"canx" + 0.009*"plan" + 0.008*"struggle" + 0.008*"online" + 0.008*"june" + 0.008*"continue" & coronavirus\\ \hline 0.016*"lockdown" + 0.010*"june" + 0.010*"collect" + 0.008*"open" + 0.008*"retract" + 0.007*"confuse" + 0.007*"follow" + 0.007*"aware" + 0.007*"extend" + 0.007*"appreciate" & lockdown extensions\\ \hline 0.061*"xxxemailxxx" + 0.023*"subject" + 0.015*"group" + 0.013*"kind" + 0.009*"xxxtelephonexxx" + 0.008*"sit" + 0.008*"retail" + 0.007*"lead" + 0.007*"manheim" + 0.006*"option" & no recognised subject\\ \hline 0.027*"year" + 0.016*"experian" + 0.008*"car\_gurus" + 0.007*"ebay" + 0.006*"meet" + 0.006*"zuto" + 0.006*"july" + 0.005*"achieve" + 0.005*"award" + 0.005*"normal" & rival valuation products\\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Topic modelling results from the AutoTrader note corpus, with sector expert led topic naming suggestions.} \label{table:1} \end{table}

2305.02029v1

\begin{table}[h] \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline Clean & Baseline\\ \hline Valuation &0.97 \\ \hline Price &0.76 \\ \hline Package &0.78 \\ \hline Cancellation &0.63 \\ \hline Stock &0.68 \\ \hline Tech &0.86 \\ \hline Billing &0.56 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{ Baseline NDCG evaluations for the clean data. } \label{table:2} \end{table}

2305.02029v1

\begin{table}[h] \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline Pre-processed & Baseline\\ \hline Valuation &0.97 \\ \hline Price &0.76 \\ \hline Package &0.78 \\ \hline Cancellation &0.63 \\ \hline Stock &0.68 \\ \hline Tech &0.86 \\ \hline Billing &0.57 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{ Baseline NDCG evaluations for the pre-processed data. } \label{table:3} \end{table}

2305.02029v1

\begin{table}[h!] \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline Topic & Score & Difference from baseline\\ \hline Valuation &0.96 & -0.01\\ \hline Price &0.72 & -0.04\\ \hline Package &0.74 & -0.04\\ \hline Cancellation &0.60 & -0.03\\ \hline Stock &0.67 & -0.01\\ \hline Tech &0.92 & +0.06\\ \hline Billing &0.55 & -0.02\\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{NDCG evaluations for the query ``tech issue" on the pre-processed data.} \label{table:4} \end{table}

2305.02029v1

\begin{table}[h!] \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline Topic & Score & Difference from baseline\\ \hline Valuation &0.97 & 0.00\\ \hline Price &0.86 & +0.10\\ \hline Package &0.79 & +0.01\\ \hline Cancellation &0.66 & +0.03\\ \hline Stock &0.68 & 0.00\\ \hline Tech &0.82 & -0.04\\ \hline Billing &0.54 & -0.03\\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{NDCG evaluations for the query ``too expensive" on the pre-processed data.} \label{table:5} \end{table}

2305.02029v1

\begin{table}[h] \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline Topic & Score & Difference from baseline\\ \hline Valuation &0.96 & -0.01\\ \hline Price &0.75 & -0.01\\ \hline Package &0.74 & -0.04\\ \hline Cancellation &0.65 & -0.02\\ \hline Stock &0.64 & -0.04\\ \hline Tech &0.84 & -0.02\\ \hline Billing &0.68 & +0.11\\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{NDCG evaluations for the query ``send money" on the pre-processed data.} \label{table:6} \end{table}

1807.08372v1

\begin{table}[h!] \begin{smallermathTable} \scriptsize{ \centering \begin{tabular}[t]{p{1.52cm}<{\centering}|p{1.3cm}<{\centering}|p{1.3cm}<{\centering}|p{1.3cm}<{\centering}|p{0.98cm}<{\centering}} \hline TBox Axi.: 541 & Concept Ast. Ent.: 1824 &Role Ast. Ent.: 4528 & Individual: 1159 & Ext. Axi.: $\sim21$ K \\\hline \hline Parameters ($\sigma, \kappa, \tau$) & Root Concept Ast. Ent.& Root Role Ast. Ent. & Root Individual & External Axioms\\\hline P1:($.90, 1, .40$) & $1105$ ($61\%$) & $3805$ ($84\%$) & $1103$ ($95\%$) & $\sim$ $20$ K \\\hline P2:($.93, 1, .43$) & $990$ ($54\%$) & $3459$ ($76\%$) & $1080$ ($93\%$) & $\sim$ $19$ K \\\hline P3:($.96, 1, .46$) & $540$ ($30\%$) & $1816$ ($40\%$)& $872$ ($75\%$) & $\sim$ $16$ K \\\hline P4:($.99, 1, .49$) & $305$ ($17\%$) &$980$ ($22\%$) &$510$ ($44\%$) & $6271$ \\\hline P5:($.99, 2, .49$) & $157$ ($8.6\%$) & $402$ ($8.9\%$)& $108$ ($9.3\%$) & $615$ \\\hline \end{tabular} \vspace{-0.25cm} \caption{\label{res:count} Average Number of Root Entailments, Root Individuals and External Axioms per Learning Domain.} } \end{smallermathTable} \end{table}

2210.09619v1

\begin{table}[ht] \centering \resizebox{0.65\textwidth}{!}{ \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \cline{1-3} \textbf{Symbol} & \textbf{Sector} & \textbf{$\#$ of stocks}\\ \hline AU & Auto & 15 \\ \hline BM & Basic Materials & 189 \\ \hline BX & Bankex & 10 \\ \hline CD & Consumer Durables & 12 \\ \hline CDGS & Consumer Discretionary Goods \& Services & 297 \\ \hline CG & Capital Goods & 25 \\ \hline CPSE & CPSE & 52 \\ \hline EG & Energy & 27 \\ \hline FMCG & Fast Moving Consumer Goods & 81 \\ \hline FN & Financials & 139 \\ \hline HC & Healthcare & 96 \\ \hline ID & Industrials & 203 \\ \hline II & India Infrastructure & 30 \\ \hline IT & Information Technology & 62 \\ \hline MT & Metal & 10 \\ \hline ONG & Oil \& Gas & 10 \\ \hline PSU & PSU & 56 \\ \hline PWR & Power & 11 \\ \hline RE & Realty & 10 \\ \hline TC & Telecom & 17 \\ \hline Teck & Teck & 28 \\ \hline UT & Utilities & 24 \\ \hline \end{tabular} } \caption{Details of Bombay stock exchange (S\&P BSE) sectors considered for the analysis are given here. The first column consists of the symbol of the sectors followed by the name of the corresponding sectors in the second column. The third column shows the total number of available stocks in each sector during the time period considered for analysis. For the rest of the paper, we are going to refer the sectors by their corresponding symbol name provided here.} \label{table:stocksdetails1} \end{table}

2210.09619v1

\begin{table}[ht] \centering \resizebox{0.65\textwidth}{!}{% \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|} \hline Sectors & $\Delta \alpha$ & $\alpha_{max}$ & $\alpha_{0}$ & $\alpha_{min}$ & $H_2$ & dH & B \\ \hline AU & 1.71 & 1.92 & 0.99 & 0.21 & 0.72 & 1.38 & -0.09 \\ \hline BM & 0.64 & 0.69 & 0.4 & 0.05 & 0.33 & 0.46 &\ 0.09 \\ \hline BX & 1.07 & 1.54 & 0.97 & 0.47 & 0.86 & 0.75 & -0.08 \\ \hline CD & 1.21 & 1.37 & 0.59 & 0.16 & 0.47 & 0.93 & -0.29 \\ \hline CDGS & 0.46 & 0.83 & 0.73 & 0.37 & 0.66 & 0.3 &\ 0.57 \\ \hline CG & 1.55 & 1.51 & 0.75 & -0.04 & 0.5 & 1.15 & -0.02 \\ \hline CPSE & 1.4 & 1.61 & 0.92 & 0.21 & 0.71 & 1.09 & \ 0.02 \\ \hline EG & 0.58 & 1.07 & 0.82 & 0.49 & 0.82 & 0.35 &\ 0.13 \\ \hline FMCG & 1.27 & 1.49 & 0.85 & 0.22 & 0.67 & 0.98 &\ 0.0 \\ \hline FN & 0.71 & 0.86 & 0.54 & 0.15 & 0.44 & 0.55 &\ 0.11 \\ \hline HC & 0.85 & 1.16 & 0.83 & 0.31 & 0.75 & 0.55 &\ 0.23 \\ \hline ID & 0.71 & 1.01 & 0.51 & 0.3 & 0.47 & 0.48 & -0.42 \\ \hline II & 0.87 & 1.33 & 1 & 0.46 & 0.87 & 0.65 &\ 0.26 \\ \hline IT & 0.4 & 0.76 & 0.67 & 0.36 & 0.62 & 0.26 &\ 0.51 \\ \hline MT & 0.89 & 0.59 & 0.32 & -0.29 & 0.18 & 0.65 &\ 0.37 \\ \hline ONG & 1.04 & 1.23 & 0.52 & 0.19 & 0.45 & 0.68 & -0.36 \\ \hline PSU & 1.65 & 1.6 & 0.71 & -0.04 & 0.47 & 1.25 & -0.08 \\ \hline PWR & 1.01 & 1.43 & 0.87 & 0.42 & 0.8 & 0.7 & -0.11 \\ \hline RE & 0.41 & 0.86 & 0.71 & 0.45 & 0.84 & 0.22 &\ 0.23 \\ \hline TC & 1.51 & 1.75 & 0.84 & 0.23 & 0.67 & 1.12 & -0.19 \\ \hline Teck & 0.82 & 1.2 & 1.01 & 0.38 & 0.84 & 0.63 & \ 0.54 \\ \hline UT & 0.66 & 1.2 & 1.03 & 0.54 & 0.91 & 0.44 &\ 0.50 \\ \hline \end{tabular}% } \caption{Sector-wise values of width of singularity spectrum ($\Delta \alpha$, column 2), Hurst exponents ($H_2$, column 6), spread in Hurst exponent ($dH$, column 7), and asymmetry ratio ($B$, column 8)} \label{table2} \end{table}

2406.18112v1

\begin{table} \caption{Averaged compute time of time steps in milliseconds for different parts of the in transit and hybrid analysis.}\label{tab-benchmark} \centering \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|} \hline & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\emph{Slice} Pipeline} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\emph{Resampling} Pipeline} \\ \cline{2-5} & In Transit & Hybrid & In Transit & Hybrid \\ \hline Simulation Time (ms) & 15860 & 15835 & 33539 & 31677\\ \hline Reduction Time (ms) & 0 & 319 & 0 & 2905\\ \hline Data Transfer Time (ms)& 3415 & 6.56 & 10957 & 48.7 \\ \hline \hline Total Time (ms)& 19275 & 16161 & 44497 & 34632 \\ \hline Total Gain & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{16.16\%} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{22.17\%}\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

1906.03507v1

\begin{table}[!htb] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline \rowcolor{cyan} $\lambda_1$ & $\lambda_2$ & $\lambda_3$ & \mbox{In-sample} & \mbox{MSE, bps} & \mbox{Mean \% error} & \mbox{Out-of sample} & \mbox{MSE, bps} \\ \hline 0 & 0 & 0 & 1008550 & 6.50 & 0.091 & 248432 & 6.48\\ \hline 1 & 1 & 1 & 421 & 10.32 & 0.115 & 101 & 10.38 \\ \hline 10 & 10 & 10 & 105 & 11.95 & 0.124 & 25 & 12.15\\ \hline 50 & 50 & 50 & 36 & 12.17 & 0.125 & 9 & 12.34 \\ \hline 100 & 100 & 100 & 25 & 11.26 & 0.120 & 6 & 11.43 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Penalty term ${\mathcal P}_{1,0}$ when predicting Call option prices using the ANN with soft constraints.} \label{arbTab} \end{center} \end{table}

1710.09593v2

\begin{table}[!htb] \centering \caption{The characteristics of the used Machines} \label{capa} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Machine's name} & \textbf{Operating System} & \textbf{Processor} & \textbf{Memory} \\\hline Dell-XPS L421X& \pbox{50cm}{Ubuntu \\ (V.14.04 LTS) }& \pbox{50cm}{1.8GHz*4 \\ Intel Core i5} & 8 GB \\ \hline Dell-Inspiron-3721 & \pbox{50cm}{Ubuntu \\ (V.14.04 LTS)} & \pbox{50cm}{2.00GHz*4 \\Intel Core i5 }& 4 GB \\\hline Dell-Inspiron-3521 & \pbox{50cm}{ Ubuntu \\(V.16.04 LTS)} &\pbox{50cm}{ 1.8 GHz*4 \\Intel Core i5 } & 6 GB \\\hline iMac-Early 2010 & \pbox{50cm}{cinux Mint \\ (V.17.1 Rebecca) }& \pbox{50cm}{3.06GHz*2} & 4 GB \\ \hline Dell-Inspiron-5559 & \pbox{50cm}{Ubuntu \\ (V.16.04 LTS) }& \pbox{50cm}{2.30GHz*4 \\ Intel Core i5} & 8 GB \\\hline iMac-Early 2009 & \pbox{50cm}{OS X El Capitan \\(V.10.11.6)} &\pbox{50cm}{ 2.93 *2 GHz \\Intel Core Due}& 8 GB \\\hline MacBook Air & \pbox{50cm}{OS X El Capitan \\(V.10.11.3)} &\pbox{50cm}{ 1.6 *2 GHz \\Intel Core i5 }& 8 GB \\\hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

1710.09593v2

\begin{table}[!htb] \centering \caption{Datasets} \label{DS} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Benchmark}& \textbf{Size} & \textbf{Descriptions} \\\hline \textbf{D1}& 10,000 Points & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Different shapes, with \\ some clusters surrounded\\ by others\end{tabular} \\\hline \textbf{D2}& 30,000 Points& \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}2 small circles,\\ 1 big circle\\ and 2 linked ovals\end{tabular} \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2306.00454v1

\begin{table} \centering % \begin{tabular}{l|cc} \hline & Reaction rate for $d(p,\gamma)^{3}{\rm He}$ & $D_{p}$ data \tabularnewline \hline \hline { } Case I & Adelberger et al. & no-data\tabularnewline { } Case II & Adelberger et al. & Cooke et al. + offset \tabularnewline { } Case III & Adelberger et al. & Cooke et al.\tabularnewline { } Case IV & Marcucci et al. & Cooke et al.\tabularnewline { } Case V & Marcucci et al. & recent 11 weighted mean\tabularnewline { } Case VI & Pisanti et al. & Cooke et al.\tabularnewline { } Case VII & Pisanti et al. & recent 11 weighted mean\tabularnewline \hline \hline \end{tabular}\caption{\label{tab:Dp_treatment} Combinations of the data of $D_{p}$ and theoretical treatment of the reaction rate for $d(p,\gamma)^{3}{\rm He}$ used in our analysis. } \end{table}

2103.08664v1

\begin{table}[t] \centering \caption{Test accuracy of different training strategies on Physionet data: left fist VS right fist (task 2); both fists VS both feet (task 4).} \begin{tabular}{|c|cc|}\hline motor imagery task & task 2 & task 4 \\ \hline conventional learning & 59.6\% & 66.6\% \\ transfer learning & 56.0\% & 62.4\% \\ meta-learning & \textbf{64.5\%} & \textbf{68.2\%} \\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:5} \end{table}

2103.08664v1

\begin{table}[b] \centering \caption{Test accuracy on Physionet data after online sample filtering} \begin{tabular}{|c|cc|} \hline motor imagery task & task 2 & task 4 \\ \hline without meta-learning & 67.9\% & 68.8\% \\ with meta-learning & \textbf{80.6\%} & \textbf{79.7\%}\\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:7} \end{table}

2109.05142v1

\begin{table}[ht] \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|p{1.3in}|} \hline \textbf{Data Source}& \textbf{Data Model} &\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Polystore Placement}} \\ \hline Patents &Relational &PostgreSQL, Text in Solr \\ \hline News articles &Structured Text &Solr, Entity Network in Neo4J \\ \hline Federal Spending&Relational &PostgreSQL \\ \hline Company Networks&Graph &Neo4J \\ \hline \end{tabular} \vspace{1em} \caption{Data from a source are processed and placed into different stores.} \label{tab:sources} \vspace{-1.3em} \end{table}

1911.00108v2

\begin{table}[H] \centering \small \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|} \hline \textbf{Method} & \textbf{Average Accuracy} & \textbf{stdev} \\ \hline TPOT & 0.816 & 0.159 \\ \hline auto-sklearn(V) & 0.796 & 0.168 \\ \hline auto-sklearn(E) & 0.805 & 0.165 \\ \hline RankML \#1 rank & 0.786 & 0.169 \\ \hline RankML Max top-5 rank &0.819 & 0.154 \\ \hline RankML Max top-10 rank &\textbf{0.827} & 0.152 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption[Average accuracy Results]{Average accuracy results across 149 classification datasets.} \label{table:1} \end{table}

1911.00108v2

\begin{table}[H] \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{% \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|} \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}}} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{Number of Datasets with BOC Performance(\%)}} \\ \cline{2-4} \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} & \textbf{TPOT} & \textbf{auto-sklearn(V)} & \textbf{auto-sklearn(E)} \\ \hline RankML \#1 rank & 65(49\%) & 74(55\%) & 68(51\%) \\ \hline RankML Max top-5 rank & 102(73\%) & 112(80\%) & 112(80\%) \\ \hline RankML Max top-10 rank & \textbf{110(79\%)} & \textbf{119(85\%)} & \textbf{118(84\%)} \\ \hline \end{tabular}% } \caption{The number of classification datasets each method got better or comparable(BOC) results against baselines (percentage is out of valid datasets).} \label{table:2} \end{table}

1911.00108v2

\begin{table}[H] \centering \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{% \begin{tabular}{|m{3.3cm}|m{2cm}|m{1.1cm}|} \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{Primitive}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Family}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Avg \% \\ of appearances\end{tabular}}} \\ \hline MaxAbsScaler & Data pre-processing & 16\% \\ \hline StandardScaler & Data pre-processing & 11\% \\ \hline KNeighborsClassifier & Predictive models & 10\% \\ \hline RandomForestClassifier & Predictive models& 4\% \\ \hline PCA & Feature pre-processing & 0.4\% \\ \hline \end{tabular}% } \caption{A selection of primitives used in RankML recommended pipelines for classification. "Avg \% of appearances" is out of all primitives. } \label{table:4} \end{table}

1911.00108v2

\begin{table} \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{% \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|} \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}}} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{Number of Datasets with BOC Performance(\%)}} \\ \cline{2-4} \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} & \textbf{TPOT} & \textbf{auto-sklearn(V)} & \textbf{auto-sklearn(E)} \\ \hline RankML \#1 rank & 30(39\%) & 35(46\%) & 26(34\%) \\ \hline RankML Max top-5 rank & 39(49\%) & 47(59\%) & 41(52\%) \\ \hline RankML Max top-10 rank & \textbf{45(57\%)} & \textbf{53(67\%)} & \textbf{45(57\%)} \\ \hline \end{tabular}% } \caption{The number of regression datasets each version of our approach got better or comparable results against the baselines (percentage is out of valid datasets).} \label{table:1_reg} \end{table}

1509.03329v1

\begin{table}[!ht] \caption{Summary of cuts applied in the \xeff\ analysis depending on the brightness of the source.} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c|ccc|} \hline % \rowcolor{gray!10} Brightness &\phi12 & $\eta$ & \xeff\ \\% cut \\ % \rowcolor{gray!10} &\diffi&& \\ \hline \hline Very Bright & $>10$ & 0.1 & $<0.3$ \\ % \hline Bright & 1 ... 10 & 0.2 & $<0.3$ \\ % \hline Medium & 0.5 ... 1 & 0.4 & $<0.3$\\ % \hline Faint & $< 0.5 $ & 0.7 & $<0.3$ \\ % \hline % Very faint & $< 0.1 $ & 0.8 & 0.3 \\ % $<1 \% $ Crab &&& \\ % \hline \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \label{tabcuts} \end{table}

2104.04036v1

\begin{table}[!ht] \centering \begin{tabular}{| L{3.26cm} | C{2.75cm}| C{2.75cm} | C{2.75cm} | C{2.75cm} | } \hline & Optimal Agent & Symmetric & Tabular Q & Deep-Q \\ \hline Mean Wealth & 47.79 & 57.67 & 44.21 & 53.47 \\ \hline Std. Dev. Wealth& 6.09 & 11.86 & 7.08 & 6.67 \\ \hline Sharpe Ratio & 7.83 & 4.86 & 6.24 & 8.00 \\ \hline Mean Cum. Reward & 22.46 & -7.17 & 19.19 & 29.04 \\ \hline Utility Estimate& -2.63e-9 & -4.34e-6 & -1.49e-6 & -2.20e-10 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{1000 simulations for $\beta = 0.5$} \label{tab:table_strat_tr} \end{table}

1904.08994v1

\begin{table}[h!] \centering \begin{tabular}{c|l|l} \hline \textbf{Symbol} & \textbf{Meaning} & \textbf{Notes}\\ \hline $p_{z}$ & Data distribution over noise input $z$ & Usually, just uniform. \\ $p_{g}$ & The generator's distribution over data $x$ & \\ $p_{r}$ & Data distribution over real sample $x$ & \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

1904.08994v1

\begin{table}[h!] \centering \begin{tabular}{c|p{10cm}} \hline \textbf{Term} & \textbf{Explanation} \\ \hline Manifold & A topological space that locally resembles Euclidean space near each point. Precisely, when this Euclidean space is of dimension $n$, the manifold is referred as $n$-manifold. \\ Support & A real-valued function $f$ is the subset of the domain containing those elements which are not mapped to zero.\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

1907.09456v3

\begin{table}[h] \centering \caption{Summary of \texttt{SCSF} Tuning Parameters} \begin{tabular}{|c|l|c|} \hline \textbf{Param.} & \textbf{Description} & \textbf{Value} \\ \hline $k$ & Rank of the matrix factorization & $6$ \\ $\tau$ & Approximate quantile of the data to be fit & $0.85$ \\ $\mu_L$ & Weight of the smoothing term on the left matrix & $500$ \\ $\mu_R$ & Weight of the smoothing term on the right matrix & $1000$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:tuning-param} \end{table}

1907.09456v3

\begin{table}[b] \centering \caption{\texttt{SCSF} Tuning Parameter Grid Search} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Param.} & \textbf{Low Val.} & \textbf{Mid Val.} & \textbf{High Val.} \\ \hline $k$ & $4$ & $6$ & $8$ \\ $\tau$ & $.8$ & $.85$ & $.9$ \\ $\mu_L$ & $1e2$ & $5e2$ & $1e3$ \\ $\mu_R$ & $5e2$ & $1e3$ & $5e3$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:tuning-study} \end{table}

1907.09456v3

\begin{table}[b] \centering \caption{Summary of site selection for both methods} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline & & & \textbf{Unique} \\ & \textbf{Included Sites}& \textbf{Excluded Sites} & \textbf{Excluded Sites} \\ \hline \texttt{SCSF}& $551$ & $22$ & $19$ \\ \texttt{RdTools} & $387$ & $186$ & $183$\\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:fleet-join} \end{table}

2211.08064v2

\begin{table}[h] \begin{tabular}{c|c} \hline Notations & Description \\ \hline $u$ & state variables of the physical system \\ \hline $\boldsymbol{x}$ & spatial or spatial-temporal coordinates \\ \hline $x$ & spatial coordinates \\ \hline $t$ & temporal coordinates \\ \hline $\theta$ & parameters for a physical system \\ \hline $w$ & weights of neural networks \\ \hline $\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}$ & partial derivatives operator \\ \hline $\mathcal{D}^k_i$ & $\frac{\partial^k}{\partial x_i^k}$, $k$-order derivatives for variable $x_i$ \\ \hline $\nabla$ & nabla operator (gradient) \\ \hline $\Delta$ & Laplace operator \\ \hline $\int$ & integral operator \\ \hline $\mathcal{F}$ & differential operator representing the PDEs/ODEs \\ \hline $\mathcal{I}$ & initial conditions (operator) \\ \hline $\mathcal{B}$ & boundary conditions (operator) \\ \hline $\Omega$ & spatial or spatial-temporal domain of the system \\ \hline $\Theta$ & space of the parameters $\theta$ \\ \hline $W$ & space of weights of neural networks \\ \hline $\mathcal{L}$ & loss functions \\ \hline $\mathcal{L}_r$ & residual loss \\ \hline $\mathcal{L}_b$ & boundary condition loss \\ \hline $\mathcal{L}_i$ & initial condition loss \\ \hline $l_k$ & residual (error) terms \\ \hline $\| \cdummy \|$ & norm of a vector or a function \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{A table of mathematical notations.} \label{tb1} \end{table}

1903.07639v2

\begin{table}[ht!] \caption{\textbf{Elements of a data analysis.} This table describes eight elements that are used by the data analyst to build the data analysis.} \label{table-elements} \begin{tabular}{p{3cm}|p{11cm}} \hline \textbf{Element} & \textbf{Description} \\ \hline Narrative text & Expository phrases or sentences that describe what is happening in the data analysis in a human readable format \\ \hline Code & A series of programmatic instructions to execute a particular programming or scripting language \\ \hline Code comment & Non-executable code or text near or inline with code that describes the expected action/result of the surrounding code or provides context \\ \hline Data visualization & A plot, figure or graph illustrating a visual representation of the data. \\ \hline Narrative diagram & A diagram or flowchart without data \\ \hline Summary statistics & Numerical quantities derived from the data, such as the mean, standard deviation, etc. \\ \hline Table & An ordered arrangement of data or summaries of data in rows and columns \\ \hline Statistical model or computational algorithm & Mathematical model or algorithm concerning the underlying data phenomena or data-generation process, predictive ability, or computational algorithm \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2103.03739v1

\begin{table}[t!] \centering \caption{Threat prioritization depending on likelihood and impact.} \label{tab:lin:threat-table:priorities} \scalebox{0.92}{ \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline Likelihood & Impact & Priority \\ \hline \hline low & low & \multirow{3}{*}{low} \\ low & medium & \\ medium & low & \\ \hline \end{tabular} % \quad % \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline Likelihood & Impact & Priority \\ \hline \hline low & high & \multirow{3}{*}{medium}\\ medium & medium & \\ high & low & \\ \hline \end{tabular} % \quad % \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline Likelihood & Impact & Priority \\ \hline \hline medium & high & \multirow{3}{*}{high} \\ high & medium & \\ high & high & \\ \hline \end{tabular} } \end{table}

2103.03739v1

\begin{table}[t] \centering \caption{Overview of threat prioritization. Threats that are not effective due to our assumptions are not included in the table.} \label{tab:lin:threat-table:prioritization} \begin{tabular}{ | m{.6\textwidth}<{\raggedleft} || c | c || c | } \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c||}{Threat} & Likelihood & Impact & Priority \\ \hline \hline Linkability in one or more storages & medium & medium & medium \\ \hline Identifiability in one or more storages & low & high & medium \\ \hline Detectability of data existence & medium & low & low \\ \hline Detectability in communication between different trust domains & low & low & low \\ \hline Linkability of IP addresses in communication between different trust domains & low & medium & low \\ \hline Linkability of IP addresses in communication between different trust domains leads to identifiability & low & high & medium\\ \hline Non-repudiation of encrypted data & low & low & low \\ \hline Non-repudiation of communication between different trust domains & low & low & low \\ \hline Unawareness of the data owner & low & high & medium \\ \hline Non deletion of data in cloud storage & low & low & low \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2003.09758v1

\begin{table}[htb!] \small \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \rowcolor[HTML]{EFEFEF} \textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Score \\ change\end{tabular}} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Speed \\ (x faster)\end{tabular}} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Tables \\ removed\end{tabular}} & \textbf{$\tau$} \\ \hline Taxi & -0.04\% & 3.18 & 10 & 24 \\ \hline Pickup & -15.35\% & 3.50 & 17 & 17 \\ \hline Poverty & -1.19\% & 5.87 & 36 & 15 \\ \hline School (S) & -1\% & 1.14 & 2 & 15 \\ \hline School (L) & -5\% & 1.32 & 39 & 17 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Performance of ARDA with \textsf{RIFS} and Tuple Rule as a table filtering step for real world datasets. Hyperparameter $\tau$ was optimized for each dataset.} \label{tab:TR_RIFS_prefilter} \end{table}

1305.2505v1

\begin{table}[t] \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline Hypothesis class & Rademacher Complexity\\\hline $\B_q(\norm{\W}_q)$ & $2\norm{\X}_p\norm{\W}_q\sqrt{\frac{p - 1}{n}}$\\\hline $\B_1(\norm{\W}_1)$& $2\norm{\X}_\infty \norm{\W}_1\sqrt{\frac{e\log d}{n}}$\\\hline \end{tabular} \caption{Rademacher complexity bounds for AUC maximization. We have $1/p+1/q = 1$ and $q > 1$.} \label{tab:rad-bounds-auc} \end{table}

1305.2505v1

\begin{table}[t] \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline Hypothesis Class & Rademacher Avg. Bound\\\hline $\S_2(1)$ & $\kappa^2\sqrt{\frac{p}{n}}$\\\hline $\Delta(1)$ & $\kappa^2\sqrt{\frac{e\log p}{n}}$\\\hline \end{tabular} \caption{Rademacher complexity bounds for Multiple kernel learning} \label{tab:mkl-rad-bounds} \end{table}

2102.06826v3

\begin{table}[!t] \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1} \caption{Task difference between the three DNNs $F_w$, $F_{w_1}$ and $F_{w_2}$.} \centering \begin{tabular}{c|ccc} \hline\hline DNN & Style Transfer & Data Embedding & Data Extraction\\ \hline $F_w$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$\\ \hline $F_{w_1}$ & $\surd$ & $\times$ & $\times$\\ \hline $F_{w_2}$ & $\times$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$\\ \hline\hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2102.06826v3

\begin{table}[!t] \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1} \caption{The mean PSNR (dB) and mean SSIM (on 5000 test images).} \centering \begin{tabular}{c|cccccc} \hline\hline DNN/AL & $0$ & $8^2$ & $16^2$ & $32^2$ & $64^2$ & $128^2$\\ \hline $F_{w_1}$: PSNR & 28.13 & $-$ & $-$ & $-$ & $-$ & $-$\\ $F_{w_1}$: SSIM & 0.865 & $-$ & $-$ & $-$ & $-$ & $-$\\ \hline $F_w$: PSNR & $-$ & 27.63 & 25.31 & 25.28 & 25.25 & 24.96\\ $F_w$: SSIM & $-$ & 0.860 & 0.800 & 0.800 & 0.796 & 0.776\\ \hline\hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2102.06826v3

\begin{table}[!t] \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1} \caption{The mean PSNR (dB) and mean BER (on 5000 test images).} \centering \begin{tabular}{c|ccccc} \hline\hline DNN/AL & $8^2$ & $16^2$ & $32^2$ & $64^2$ & $128^2$\\ \hline $F_{w_2}$: PSNR & 38.29 & 37.36 & 37.18 & 36.31 & 34.83\\ $F_{w_2}$: BER & 0 & 0 & 0 & $5.28\times 10^{-5}$ & $4.10\times 10^{-4}$\\ \hline $F_w$: PSNR & 37.00 & 36.68 & 36.49 & 36.20 & 31.45\\ $F_w$: BER & 0 & 0 & 0 & $7.48\times 10^{-5}$ & $4.62\times 10^{-4}$\\ \hline\hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2102.06826v3

\begin{table}[!t] \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1} \caption{Classification accuracy with the steganalysis method in \cite{xu:net}.} \centering \begin{tabular}{c|ccccc} \hline\hline DNN/AL & $8^2$ & $16^2$ & $32^2$ & $64^2$ & $128^2$\\ \hline $F_{w_2}$ & 0.906 & 0.925 & 0.939 & 0.975 & 0.995\\ \hline $F_w$ & 0.913 & 0.9375 & 0.941 & 0.981 & 0.998\\ \hline\hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2102.06826v3

\begin{table}[!t] \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1} \centering \caption{Quantitative results by using the L2-norm loss. The PSNRs, SSIMs and BERs shown in this Table are mean values (on 5000 test images).} \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c} \hline\hline \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{AL}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Style Transfer} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Data Embedding} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Data Extraction} \\ \cline{2-5} & PSNR (dB) & SSIM & PSNR (dB) & BER \\ \hline $16^2$ & 25.60 & 0.814 & 36.63 & 0\\ $64^2$ & 25.17 & 0.793 & 36.08 & $7.97\times 10^{-5}$\\ $128^2$ & 25.01 & 0.770 & 31.94 & $4.58\times 10^{-4}$\\ \hline\hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2102.06826v3

\begin{table}[!t] \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1} \centering \caption{Quantitative results by using a pre-trained DNN to generate the ground-truth images for the style transfer task. The PSNRs, SSIMs and BERs shown in this Table are mean values (on 5000 test images).} \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c} \hline\hline \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{AL}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Style Transfer} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Data Embedding} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Data Extraction} \\ \cline{2-5} & PSNR (dB) & SSIM & PSNR (dB) & BER \\ \hline $16^2$ & 35.04 & 0.876 & 41.12 & 0\\ $64^2$ & 34.99 & 0.875 & 41.05 & $4.60\times 10^{-5}$\\ $128^2$ & 34.73 & 0.869 & 37.42 & $2.66\times 10^{-4}$\\ \hline\hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2102.06826v3

\begin{table}[!t] \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1} \centering \caption{Quantitative results for the method in \cite{DH:TPAMI}. The PSNRs and BERs shown in this Table are mean values (on 5000 test images).} \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c} \hline\hline \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{AL}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Style Transfer} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Data Embedding} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Data Extraction} \\ \cline{2-5} & PSNR (dB) & SSIM & PSNR (dB) & BER \\ \hline $16^2$ & $-$ & $-$ & 38.50 & 0\\ $64^2$ & $-$ & $-$ & 37.79 & $1.74\times 10^{-6}$\\ $128^2$ & $-$ & $-$ & 35.12 & $4.03\times 10^{-5}$\\ \hline\hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2102.06826v3

\begin{table}[!t] \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2} \caption{Classification accuracy for detecting the method in \cite{DH:TPAMI} with XuNet.} \centering \begin{tabular}{c|ccc} \hline\hline DNN/AL & $16^2$ & $64^2$ & $128^2$\\ \hline \cite{DH:TPAMI} & 0.935 & 0.966 & 0.990\\ \hline\hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

1811.09248v1

\begin{table}[tb] \footnotesize %FIGURE 2: data context \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|} \cline{1-2} \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Price paid data} \\ \hline price\_paid & saon & paon & street & postcode & town\\ \hline 155000 & Flat 6 & 25 & Bournem. Rd & SE15 4UJ & London\\ \hline \end{tabular} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|} \cline{1-2} \multicolumn{2}{|l|}{Address data} \\ \hline pao & street.name & town.name & postcode.name\\ \hline 14 & Heron Lane & Scarborough & YO12 4TW\\ \hline \end{tabular} \quad \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|} \cline{1-1} Master data \\ \hline street\_nr & paon & city & postcode & price\\ \hline Redhill street & 8 & London & E14 3NE & 125.000£\\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Data context information: price paid data (examples), address data (reference data) and master data} \label{tab:datacontext} \end{table}

1811.09248v1

\begin{table}[t] \begin{tabular}{|m{0.6cm}|m{2cm}|m{1cm}|m{1.5cm}|m{1cm}|} \hline tuple&street&city&postcode&price\\ \hline $t_1$&Whitfield Street & London & W1T 5EF &137,495\\ $t_2$&Biscayne Ave & London & E14 9BE&189,950\\ $t_3$&Canton Street & London & E14 6JW&595,000\\ $t_4$&South Drive & London & W1A 0AA&575,000\\ \hline \end{tabular} \begin{tabular}{|m{0.6cm}|m{3cm}|m{1.5cm}|m{1.45cm}|} \hline tuple& agency & contact & crimestats\\ \hline $t_1$&Leaders&898756 & 136\\ $t_2$&ReedsRains&8654789 & 45\\ $t_3$&Belvoir London LTD&E14 3NE& 34\\ $t_4$&Belvoir London LTD&E14 3NE& 78\\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Transformed, integrated and repaired records} \label{tab:transformdata} \normalsize \end{table}

1902.06818v1

\begin{table} \centering \caption{Classification accuracies obtained on the test partitions of movie review and UCI dataset using the various classifiers. Performance yielded by $C_f$ are significantly better than chance (using a binomial proportions test at $<$5\% significance level.)} \begin{tabular}{ l|cc } \hline Classifiers used & UCI dataset & Movie review\\ Chance & 50.0 & 50.0 \\ $C_b$ & 63.3 & 72.0 \\ $C_f$ & 56.3 & 55.7 \\ $C_t$ & 63.9 & 62.6\\ $C_b, C_f$ & 64.3 & 73.2 \\ $C_b, C_f, C_t$ & 64.5 & 74.0 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:results2} \vspace{-5mm} \end{table}

1706.00857v2

\begin{table}[htbp] \footnotesize \caption{\label{tab4}{\bf Grouping Results for The Index Coefficients for SMB, HML and \centerline{Link Functions of 49 Industrial Portfolios}}} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{c|cccccccccc} \hline \hline & Agric & Food & Soda & Beer & Smoke & Toys & Fun & Books & Hshld & Clths\tabularnewline SMB & 6 & 5 & 6 & 4 & 2 & 8 & 9 & 7 & 6 & 6\tabularnewline HML & 4 & 4 & 4 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6\tabularnewline Function & ii & i & ii & ii & i & i & i & i & i & ii\tabularnewline \hline & Hth & MedEq & Drugs & Chems & Rubbr & Txtls & BldMt & Cnstr & Steel & FabPr\tabularnewline SMB & 9 & 8 & 9 & 7 & 7 & 8 & 8 & 8 & 9 & 10\tabularnewline HML & 2 & 2 & 1 & 6 & 4 & 4 & 6 & 6 & 9 & 7\tabularnewline Function & i & i & i & i & i & i & i & i & i & ii\tabularnewline \hline & Mach & ElcEq & Autos & Aero & Ships & Guns & Gold & Mines & Coal & Oil\tabularnewline SMB & 8 & 9 & 7 & 6 & 8 & 6 & 10 & 9 & 11 & 9 \tabularnewline HML & 8 & 6 & 6 & 6 & 7 & 4 & 10 & 7 & 11 & 9 \tabularnewline Function & i & i & i & i & i & i & ii & i & ii & i\tabularnewline \hline & Util & Telcm & PerSv & BusSv & Hardw & Softw & Chips & LabEq & Paper & Boxes\tabularnewline SMB & 4 & 8 & 8 & 7 & 8 & 8 & 7 & 7 & 6 & 6 \tabularnewline HML & 5 & 4 & 5 & 4 & 5 & 3 & 5 & 5 & 5 & 6\tabularnewline Function & i & i & i & i & i & i & i & i & i & i \tabularnewline \hline & Trans & Whlsl & Rtail & Meals & Banks & Insur & RIEst & Fin & Other & \tabularnewline SMB & 7 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 6 & 7 & 6 & 7 & \tabularnewline HML & 6 & 6 & 4 & 3 & 6 & 5 & 5 & 5 & 6 & \tabularnewline Function & i & i & i & i & i & i & i & i & ii & \tabularnewline \hline \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \end{table}

1706.00857v2

\begin{table}[htbp] \footnotesize \begin{center} \caption{{\bf Grouping Results for The Index Coefficients for RAIN, SUN and \centerline{Link Functions at 16 Locations}}} \label{tab6} \vspace{0.3cm} \begin{tabular}{c|cccccccc} \hline \hline & Waddington & Sheffield & Shawbury & Ross-On-Wye & Paisley & Oxford & Leuchars & Lerwick\tabularnewline RAIN & 4 & 4 & 4 & 3 & 4 & 3 & 4 & 4 \tabularnewline SUN & 1 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 3 & 2 & 3 & 4 \tabularnewline Function & i & i & i & ii & i & i & i & i \tabularnewline \hline & Hurn & Heathrow & Eskdalemuir & Eastbourne & Cambridge & Camborne & Bradford & Armagh \tabularnewline RAIN & 3 & 4 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 4 \tabularnewline SUN & 2 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 3 & 2 & 2 \tabularnewline Function & i & i & ii & i & i & i & i & ii \tabularnewline \hline \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \end{table}

2005.00745v1

\begin{table}[!h] \caption{Channel Measurement Parameters.}\label{tab1} \begin{tabular}{| m{5 cm} | m{2cm}|} \hline \bfseries Parameters & \bfseries Values \\ \hline Distance (m)& 1-40 \\ \hline Frequency (GHz) & 28 \\ \hline Bandwidth (MHz) & 800\\ \hline TXPower (dBm) & 300\\ \hline Scenario & UMi \\ \hline Polarization & Co-Pol \\ \hline TxArrayType & ULA \\ \hline RxArrayType & ULA \\ \hline Antena & SISO \\ \hline Tx/Rx antenna Azimuth and Elevation (red) & 10\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2005.00745v1

\begin{table}[!h] \caption{Communication Scenarios Comparison .}\label{tab1} \begin{tabular}{| m{3.5 cm} | m{2.10cm}| m{1.60cm}|} \hline \vspace{0.2mm} \bfseries Environment Scenario & \bfseries UMi & \bfseries UMa \\ \hline \textbf{MAE} & 8.92& 6.66 \\ \hline \textbf{MSE} & 126.60 & 74.32 \\ \hline \textbf{RMSE}& 11.25 & 8.62 \\ \hline \textbf{R Square}& 0.21 & 0.533 \\ \hline \textbf{Confidence}& 0.21 & 0.533 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2005.00745v1

\begin{table}[!h] \caption{Channel Measurement Parameters for UMi Communication.}\label{tab1} \begin{tabular}{| m{3.55 cm} | m{1.150cm}| m{1.150cm}| m{1.150cm}|} \hline \vspace{0.2mm} \bfseries Test & \bfseries LR & \bfseries MLR &\bfseries MLR \\ \hline \textbf{T-R Separation Distance (m) } & 0.56& 0.46 & 0.48\\ \hline \textbf{Time Delay (ns)} & - & -0.08 &-0.09 \\ \hline \textbf{Received Power (dBm)}& - & -0.69 &-0.69\\ \hline \textbf{RMS Delay Spread (ns)}& -& -& 0.29\\ \hline \textbf{Elevation AoD (degree)} & -& -&-0.10 \\ \hline \textbf{Azimuth AoD (degree)} & -& - &-0.002\\ \hline \textbf{Azimuth AoA (degree)}& - & - &-0.004\\ \hline \textbf{Elevation AoA (degree)}& -& - & -0.001\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2005.00745v1

\begin{table}[!h] \caption{Linear Regression Model.}\label{tab1} \begin{tabular}{| m{3.55 cm} | m{1.150cm}| m{1.150cm}| m{1.150cm}|} \hline \vspace{0.2mm} \bfseries Environment & \bfseries $\alpha$ & \bfseries $L_0[dB]$ &\bfseries $X_\sigma{}[dB]$ \\ \hline \textbf{Outdoor Micro Urban } & 9.7 & .61 & 13.6 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2005.00745v1

\begin{table}[!h] \caption{Micro Urban Channel Measurement Parameters.}\label{tab1} \begin{tabular}{| m{1.125 cm} | m{2.210cm}| m{1.60cm}| m{1.60cm}|} \hline \bfseries Test & \bfseries Linear Regression & \bfseries Multiple Linear Regression (3 Feature) &\bfseries Multiple Linear Regression (7 Feature)\\ \hline \vspace{0.2mm} \textbf{MAE} & 8.92& 6.66 &5.10 \\ \hline \vspace{0.2mm} \textbf{MSE} & 126.60 & 74.32 &44.51 \\ \hline \vspace{0.2mm} \textbf{RMSE}& 11.25 & 8.62 &6.67\\ \hline \vspace{0.2mm} \textbf{R Square}& 0.21 & 0.533 & 0.72\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

1905.05494v3

\begin{table}[ht] \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c||c|c|c||c|c|c|}\hline & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{no rounding ($C$ is a ball)} & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{rounding} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{H-polytope approx.}\\ \hline \centering Z-polytope & $k$ & Refl & time & $k$ & Refl & time & $k$ & Refl & time \\ \hline\hline $Z_{\mathcal{U}}$-$30$-$60$ & 3 & 3.09e+04 & 54 & 1 & 2.80e+04 & 50 & \textbf{1} & \textbf{1.57e+04} & \textbf{35.9} \\ \hline $Z_{\mathcal{U}}$-$40$-$80$ & 4 & 4.23e+04 & 126 & 1 & 3.89e+04 & 115 & \textbf{1} & \textbf{1.71e+04} & \textbf{67.1} \\ \hline $Z_{\mathcal{U}}$-$50$-$100$ & 5 & 5.53e+04 & 282 & 1 & 5.10e+04 & 270 & \textbf{1} & \textbf{1.84e+04} & \textbf{133} \\ \hline $Z_{\mathcal{U}}$-$60$-$120$ & 7 & 9.04e+04 & 825 & 1 & 6.61e+04 & 575 & \textbf{2} & \textbf{3.52e+04} & \textbf{369} \\ \hline\hline $Z_{\mathcal{U}}$-$30$-$150$ & \textbf{1} & \textbf{7.01e+03} & \textbf{57} & 1 & 1.61e+04 & 111 & 1 & 7.24e+03 & 64 \\ \hline $Z_{\mathcal{U}}$-$40$-$200$ & \textbf{1} & \textbf{7.79e+03} & \textbf{126} & 1 & 2.07e+04 & 323 & 1 & 7.81e+03 & 163 \\ \hline $Z_{\mathcal{U}}$-$50$-$250$ & \textbf{1} & \textbf{8.33e+03} & \textbf{319} & 1 & 2.67e+04 & 858 & 2 & 1.24e+04 & 414 \\ \hline $Z_{\mathcal{U}}$-$60$-$300$ & \textbf{1} & \textbf{9.53e+03} & \textbf{721} & 1 & 3.35e+04 & 2121 & 2 & 1.37e+04 & 1168 \\ \hline %$rvc$-$30$-$60$ & 3 & 4.74e+04 & 72 & \textbf{1} & \textbf{2.11e+04} & \textbf{29} & 1 & 4.22e+04 & 63 \\ \hline %$rvc$-$40$-$80$ & 4 & 7.39e+04 & 185 & \textbf{2} & \textbf{3.37e+04} & \textbf{82} & 2 & 6.73e+04 & 175 \\ \hline %$rvc$-$50$-$100$ & 5 & 1.07e+05 & 456 & \textbf{2} & \textbf{4.03e+04} & \textbf{173} & 2 & 9.06e+04 & 365 \\ \hline %$rvc$-$60$-$120$ & 7 & 1.44e+05 & 849 & \textbf{3} & \textbf{5.32e+04} & \textbf{331} & 3 & 1.24e+05 & 779 \\ \hline %$rvc$-$70$-$140$ & 8 & 1.66e+05 & 2382 & \textbf{3} & \textbf{5.93e+04} & \textbf{582} & 4 & 1.60e+05 & 1412 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Comparisons between rounding and the H-polytope approximation used as body in MMC of Section~\ref{sec:rounding}. For each Z-polytope \volalg\ performs 10 runs. $k$: average number of bodies in MMC; Refl: average number of reflection (or boundary oracle calls) performed by \billiard; time: average runtime of \volalg\ in seconds. We set $\epsilon = 0.1$ in all cases. Bold marks best runtimes. The volumes for each Z-polytope agree up to at most $\epsilon = 0.05$ and thus omitted. \label{tab:r_nr_hp2} } \end{table}

2008.11081v1

\begin{table}[htbp] \caption{Sample Clinical notes} \begin{center} %\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} %\begin{tabular}{p{1.25cm} | p{2cm} |p{2cm}| p{2cm} } \begin{tabular}{p{2.0cm} | p{5.5cm} } %\begin{tabularx}{8cm}{|X|X|X|X|} \hline %\textbf{Table}&\multicolumn{3}{|c|}{\textbf{Table Column Head}} \\ %\cline{2-4} \cline{2-2} %\textbf{\textbf{N-grams}} & \textbf{\textit{Table column subhead}}& \textbf{\textit{Subhead}}& \textbf{\textit{Subhead}} \\ %\textbf{\textbf{N-grams}} & \textbf{\textbf{Pain Relevant %(Exclusive)}}& \textbf{\textbf{Pain Irrelevant %(Exclusive)}}& \textbf{\textit{Pain Relevant AND Pain Irrelevant}} \\ \textbf{\textbf{Pain Relevance}}& \textbf{\textbf{Sample Clinical Note}} \\ \hline YES & Patient pain increased from 8/10 to 9/10 in chest. \\ \hline NO & Discharge home \vspace*{-\baselineskip} %\vspace{-2em} %$^{\mathrm{a}}$& & \\ %$^{\mathrm{}}$& & \\ %\hline %\multicolumn{4}{l}{$^{\mathrm{a}}$Sample of a Table footnote.} \end{tabular} %\end{tabularx} \label{tab1} \end{center} \vspace{-4mm} \end{table}

2008.11081v1

\begin{table}[htbp] \caption{Top 10 Unigrams} \begin{center} %\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} %\begin{tabular}{p{1.25cm} | p{2cm} |p{2cm}| p{2cm} } \begin{tabular}{p{2.15cm} |p{2cm}| p{2cm} } %\begin{tabularx}{8cm}{|X|X|X|X|} \hline %\textbf{Table}&\multicolumn{3}{|c|}{\textbf{Table Column Head}} \\ %\cline{2-4} \cline{2-3} %\textbf{\textbf{N-grams}} & \textbf{\textit{Table column subhead}}& \textbf{\textit{Subhead}}& \textbf{\textit{Subhead}} \\ %\textbf{\textbf{N-grams}} & \textbf{\textbf{Pain Relevant %(Exclusive)}}& \textbf{\textbf{Pain Irrelevant %(Exclusive)}}& \textbf{\textit{Pain Relevant AND Pain Irrelevant}} \\ \textbf{\textbf{Pain Relevant (Exclusive)}}& \textbf{\textbf{Pain Irrelevant (Exclusive)}}& \textbf{\textit{Pain Relevant AND Pain Irrelevant}} \\ \hline emar, intervention, increase, dose, expressions, chest, regimen, alteration, toradol, medication & home, wheelchair, chc, fatigue, bedside, parent, discharge, warm, relief, mother & pain, pca, plan, develop, control, altered, patient, level, comfort, manage %$^{\mathrm{a}}$& & \\ %$^{\mathrm{}}$& & \\ %\hline %\multicolumn{4}{l}{$^{\mathrm{a}}$Sample of a Table footnote.} \end{tabular} %\end{tabularx} \label{tab1} \end{center} \vspace{-4mm} \end{table}

2008.11081v1

\begin{table}[htbp] \vspace{1 mm} \caption{Topic distribution based on pain relevance} \begin{center} \vspace{-4 mm} %\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \begin{tabular}{p{1.25cm} | p{3.2cm} | p{3.2cm}} %\begin{tabular}{p{2cm} | p{5cm} } %\begin{tabularx}{8cm}{|X|X|X|X|} \hline %\textbf{Table}&\multicolumn{3}{|c|}{\textbf{Table Column Head}} \\ \cline{2-3} %\cline{2-2} %\textbf{\textbf{N-grams}} & \textbf{\textit{Table column subhead}}& \textbf{\textit{Subhead}}& \textbf{\textit{Subhead}} \\ %\textbf{\textbf{N-grams}} & \textbf{\textbf{Pain Relevant %(Exclusive)}}& \textbf{\textbf{Pain Irrelevant %(Exclusive)}}& \textbf{\textit{Pain Relevant AND Pain Irrelevant}} \\ \textbf{\textbf{Pain Relevance}}& \textbf{Most Prevalent Words in Topic-1} & \textbf{Most Prevalent Words in Topic-2} \\ \hline YES & progress, pain, improve, decrease, knowledge, control%, management, satisfaction & patient, pain, medication, knowledge, goal, state%, improve, regimen \\ \hline NO & note, admission, discharge, patient, home, ability%, respiratory, mother & pain, goal, admission, outcome, relief, continue %, home, ability \vspace*{-\baselineskip} %$^{\mathrm{a}}$& & \\ %$^{\mathrm{}}$& & \\ %$^{\mathrm{}}$& & \\ %\hline %\multicolumn{4}{l}{$^{\mathrm{a}}$Sample of a Table footnote.} \end{tabular} %\end{tabularx} \label{tab1} \end{center} \vspace{-4mm} \end{table}

1810.08323v1

\begin{table}[t] \centering \fontsize{8}{10pt}\selectfont \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline & Barbara & Boat & Man & Couple & Puffins \\ \hline Single Pass & 22.67 & 23.26 & 23.25 & 22.97 & 23.92 \\ \hline Two Passes & 23.00 & 23.60 & 23.39 & 23.26 & 24.29 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Denoised PSNR values (in dB) for the adaptive DeepResT algorithm using a single pass and two passes with $L=5$ layers and $\sigma=100$.} \label{tab2} %\vspace{-0.1in} \end{table}

2307.06450v1

\begin{table}[H] \caption{Parameters for CARA case of competition between portfolio managers with delayed tax effects.}\label{table param CARA no consump} \centering \begin{tabular}{| c || c | c | c | c | c | c | c | c | c | c | } \hline Parameter & $N$ & $T$ & $\mu_1$ & $\sigma$ & $r$ & $\lambda$ & $\mu_2$ & $\delta_i$ & $\theta_i$ & $X^i_{(-\infty,0]} = x^i_0$ \\ \hline Value & 10 & 10.0 & 0.08 & 0.2 & 0.04 & 2.0 & 0.01 & $0.3 + \frac{4}{9}(i-1)$ & $0.3 + \frac{4}{9}(i-1)$ & $2 + \frac{1}{10}(i-1)$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2307.06450v1

\begin{table}[H] \caption{Parameters for CRRA case of competition between portfolio managers with delayed tax effects.}\label{table param CRRA no consump} \centering \begin{tabular}{| c || c | c | c | c | c | c | c | c | c | c | } \hline Parameter & $N$ & $T$ & $\mu_1$ & $\sigma$ & $r$ & $\lambda$ & $\mu_2$ & $\delta_i$ & $\theta_i$ & $X^i_{(-\infty,0]} = x^i_0$ \\ \hline Value & 10 & 1.0 & 0.08 & 0.2 & 0.04 & 1.0 & 0.2 & $0.3 + \frac{4}{9}(i-1)$ & $0.3 + \frac{4}{9}(i-1)$ & $1 + \frac{1}{20}(i-1)$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2307.06450v1

\begin{table}[H] \caption{Parameters for consumption and portfolio allocation game with delayed tax effects.} \label{table param CRRA w consump} \centering \begin{tabular}{| c || c | c | c | c | c | c | c | c | c | c | c | } \hline Parameter & $N$ & $T$ & $\mu_1$ & $\sigma$ & $r$ & $\lambda$ & $\mu_2$ & $\delta_i$ & $\theta_i$ & $X^i_{(-\infty,0]} = x^i_0$ & $\epsilon_i$ \\ \hline Value & 10 & 2.0 & 0.08 & 0.2 & 0.04 & 1.0 & 0.01 & $0.3 + \frac{4}{9}(i-1)$ & $0.3 + \frac{4}{9}(i-1)$ & $1 + \frac{1}{20}(i-1)$ & 50.0 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2307.06450v1

\begin{table}[H] \caption{Parameters for inter-bank lending model.} \label{table iblwd params} \centering \begin{tabular}{| c || c | c | c | c | c | c | c | c | } \hline Parameter & $N$ & $T$ & $\sigma$ & $q$ & $\epsilon$ & $c$ & $\tau$ & $X^i_0 = \xi^i$ \\ \hline Value & 10 & 1.0 & .05 & 1.0 & 2.0 & 0.25 & 0.25 & $1+0.1 \cdot 1.15^{i-1}$\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

1507.08340v1

\begin{table}[!ht] \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3} \caption{Benchmarks.} \label{Benchmarks} \centering \begin{tabular}{p{2cm}p{2cm}|p{3cm}|p{3cm}} \hline \multicolumn{2}{l|}{\textbf{Benchmarks}} & \textbf{Transformations} & \textbf{Actions} \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{l|}{Micro-benchmarks} & Word count & map, reduceByKey & saveAsTextFile \\\cline{2-4} \multicolumn{1}{l|}{} & Grep & filter & saveAsTextFile \\ \cline{2-4} \multicolumn{1}{l|}{} & Sort & map, sortByKey & saveAsTextFile \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{l|}{Classification} & Naive Bayes & map & collect \\ \multicolumn{1}{l|}{} & & & saveAsTextFile \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{l|}{Clustering} & K-Means & map, filter & takeSample \\ \multicolumn{1}{l|}{} & & mapPartitions & collectAsMap \\ \multicolumn{1}{l|}{} & & reduceByKey & collect \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

1507.08340v1

\begin{table}[!ht] \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3} \caption{Machine Details.} \label{hardware} \centering \begin{tabular}{l|l|p{6.5cm}} \hline \textbf{Component} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Details}} \\ \hline Processor & \multicolumn{2}{l}{Intel Xeon E5-2697 V2, Ivy Bridge micro-architecture} \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{} & Cores & 12 @ 2.7 GHz (Turbo upto 3.5 GHz) \\ \cline{2-3} & Threads & 2 per core \\ \cline{2-3} & Sockets & 2 \\ \cline{2-3} & L1 Cache & 32 KB for instructions and 32 KB for data per core \\ \cline{2-3} & L2 Cache & 256 KB per core \\ \cline{2-3} & L3 Cache (LLC) & 30 MB per socket \\ \hline Memory & \multicolumn{2}{l}{2 x 32 GB, 4 DDR3 channels, Max BW 60 GB/s} \\ \hline OS & \multicolumn{2}{l}{Linux kernel version 2.6.32} \\ \hline JVM & \multicolumn{2}{l}{Oracle Hotspot JDK version 7u71} \\ \hline Spark & \multicolumn{2}{l}{Version 1.3.0} \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}