Datasets:

staghado

/

ArXiv-tables

like 2

2301.02692v1

\begin{table}[htb!] \centering {\small \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|cl||cc|c|} \hline & &gamma deviance &RMSE &average\\ \hline (0)& null model &2.085& 35,311&24,641\\\hline (1a)& gamma GLM &1.717& 32,562&25,105\\ (1b)& gamma GLM recalibrated with $K=24$&1.641& 31,578&24,641\\\hline (2a)& gamma FFNN &1.496& 29,673&24,526\\ (2b)& gamma FFNN recalibrated with $K=22$ &1.452& 28,806&24,641\\ (2c)& gamma FFNN tree adjustment with 4 bins (seed 1) &1.508& 29,371&24,641\\ (2d)& gamma FFNN tree adjustment with 8 bins (seed 2) &1.466& 27,942&24,641\\\hline \end{tabular} \end{center}} \caption{Losses in the Swedish motorcycle example based on all available covariates. } \label{results gamma 1} \end{table}

2209.06155v1

\begin{table}[H] \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline \rowcolor[HTML]{c0c0c0} Description & Sphere & Fibonacci sphere \\ \hline \rowcolor[HTML]{EFEFEF} $\epsilon$ & $0.5$ & $0.25$ \\ \hline Number of vertices & 200 & 500 \\ \hline \rowcolor[HTML]{EFEFEF} Number of simplices & 112094 & 4202 \\ \hline Betti Numbers & $[1,0,1]$ & $[1,0,1]$ \\ \hline \rowcolor[HTML]{EFEFEF} Dimension & 3 & 3 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Topological properties for each sphere.} \label{tab:sphere} \end{table}

2209.06155v1

\begin{table}[H] \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline \rowcolor[HTML]{c0c0c0} Description & $\omega_1$ & $\omega_2$ & $\omega_3$ \\ \hline \rowcolor[HTML]{EFEFEF} Epsilon & $\epsilon_1 = 0.77$ & $\epsilon_2 = 0.33$ & $\epsilon_3 = 0.31$ \\ \hline Num of vert & 252 & 252 & 252 \\ \hline \rowcolor[HTML]{EFEFEF} Num of Simp & 188087202 & 160639 & 93917 \\ \hline Betti Numbers & $[1,0,0,0]$ & $[1,0,0,0]$ & $[1,0,0,0]$ \\ \hline \rowcolor[HTML]{EFEFEF} Dimension & 4 & 4 & 4 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{$\omega_{1,2,3}$ simplicial complexes data.} \label{tab:results} \end{table}

1910.05902v2

\begin{table}[htb] \caption*{ Exhibit 2: The estimated parameters of the distribution fitted to daily SPDR S\&P 500 log-returns.} \label{tab:Table_Option_trader} \begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{c *{8}{Y}} \toprule[1pt] {$\mu$}&{$m$}&{$\alpha$}&{$\beta$}&{$d$}&{$\rho$}&{$\sigma$}\\ \hline 0.00002&-0.00018&310.8&1.19&0.007&0.0011&2.199\\ \bottomrule[1pt] \end{tabularx} \end{table}

1912.07685v1

\begin{table}[ht] \centering \begin{tabular}{r|rrl} Label function & Precision & Recall & Class \\ \midrule 1 & 0.896970 & 0.185232 & alt.atheism \\ 2 & 0.916216 & 0.424280 & alt.atheism \\ 3 & 0.934263 & 0.474696 & comp.windows.x \\ 4 & 0.646739 & 0.120445 & comp.windows.x \\ 5 & 0.738806 & 0.100202 & comp.windows.x \\ 6 & 0.650000 & 0.039514 & sci.space \\ 7 & 0.835635 & 0.612969 & sci.space \\ 8 & 0.821739 & 0.191489 & sci.space \\ 9 & 0.818966 & 0.096251 & sci.space \\ 10 & 0.725118 & 0.310030 & sci.space \\ 11 & 0.898734 & 0.071935 & sci.space \\ 12 & 0.940741 & 0.257345 & sci.space \\ 13 & 0.617801 & 0.152258 & talk.politics.misc \\ 14 & 0.765152 & 0.130323 & talk.politics.misc \\ 15 & 0.787709 & 0.181935 & talk.politics.misc \\ 16 & 0.804878 & 0.052548 & talk.religion.misc \\ \bottomrule \end{tabular} \caption{Weak labeling functions created for a subset of 20 Newsgroup topics.} \label{tab:labelfunc} \end{table}

1303.4767v1

\begin{table}[htbp] \caption{Summary of cell features. } \centering \begin{tabular}{| c | p{2cm} | p{7.6cm} | c |} \hline & Categories & Details & \# of Fea. \\ \hline\hline 1 & Intensity & Average, Std., Average $log_{10}$, Minimum, Maximum, the 25\%, 50\%, 75\% quantiles of cell pixel intensity &8 \\ \hline 2 & Shape \& Size & Perimeter, Area, Non-convexity, Length-Width Ratio, Radius Std. & 5\\ \hline 3 & Local Density & Cell densities in 5 square moving windows with different sizes & 5\\ \hline 4 & Cell Orient. & Cell angle, Angle difference with nearest neighbors, The 25\%, 50\%, 75\% quantiles of angle differences in 4 square moving windows with different sizes &14\\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{TAB:summaryCellFea} \end{table}

1303.4767v1

\begin{table}[htbp] \caption{Summary of additional entire-well features. } \centering \begin{threeparttable} \begin{tabular}{| c | p{2cm} | p{7.6cm} | c |} \hline & Categories & Details & \# of Fea. \\ \hline\hline 1 & Cell Number & Number of identified cells in an image &1 \\ \hline 2 & Cell Gap & Summaries* of gap intensity & 6\\ \cline{3-4} & & Summaries* of the size of circular gaps**& 6\\ \hline \end{tabular} \begin{tablenotes} \item[*] Standard deviation, min., max. and the 25\%, 50\%, 75\% quantiles are used as summaries. \item[**] These features are extracted by performing distance transformation \cite{distImage} on the IPLab segmented image. Statistical summaries of the intensity of the resulting distance image are used as a description of the size of the circular gaps among cells. \end{tablenotes} \end{threeparttable} \label{TAB:summaryWellFea} \end{table}

1303.4767v1

\begin{table}[htbp] \caption{Simulation results. } \begin{threeparttable} \begin{tabular}{| p{2.7cm} |p{1.8cm} | p{1.8cm} | p{2.5cm} | p{2.39cm}|} \hline Data Objects & Wells-Alone & Wells-Alone & Cell-Well Unions & Cell-Well Unions \\ \hline Cell Analyses & Not done & Std$^{[1]}$ & PCA \& Std$^{[1]}$ & PLS \& Std$^{[1]}$ \\ \hline\hline Uncertainty$^{[2]}$ & $1.414 \pm 0.051$ & $1.390 \pm 0.055$ & $0.471 \pm 0.088$ &$0.464 \pm 0.078$ \\ \hline DWD Error Rate$^{[2]}$ & $0.212 \pm 0.011$ & $0.132 \pm 0.009$ & $0.105 \pm 0.009$ & $0.104 \pm 0.009$\\ \hline \end{tabular} \begin{tablenotes} \item[1] Standardize the cell data (or the PC/PLS scores) for each well by their standard deviations. \item[2] The 95\% confidence intervals from 500 simulations are shown. \end{tablenotes} \end{threeparttable} \label{TAB:simulations} \end{table}

2401.07126v2

\begin{table}[!ht] \caption{Group 1 tests cases IVIM parameters correlation with GA in the canicular and saccular stages} \centering \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|} \hline ~ & Dt\_can & Dt\_sac & Dp\_can & Dp\_sac & Fp\_can & Fp\_sac \\ \hline SLS-TRF & 0.111 & 0.118 & 0.279 & 0.008 & 0.267 & 0.107 \\ \hline Affine-TRF reg to b0 & 0.022 & 0.089 & 0.052 & 0.004 & 0.253 & 0.202 \\ \hline SyN-TRF reg to b0 & 0.145 & 0.000 & 0.021 & 0.002 & 0.002 & 0.000 \\ \hline SyN-TRF reg to next b & 0.297 & 0.018 & 0.023 & 0.001 & 0.385 & 0.009 \\ \hline Iterative SyN-TRF & 0.203 & 0.124 & 0.004 & 0.001 & 0.190 & 0.048 \\ \hline \textbf{IVIM-Morph} & 0.075 & 0.417 & 0.286 & 0.040 & \textbf{0.439} & 0.125 \\ \hline VoxelMorph & 0.074 & 0.101 & 0.254 & 0.026 & 0.070 & 0.121 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2401.07126v2

\begin{table}[!ht] \caption{Group 2 tests cases IVIM parameters correlation with GA in the canicular and saccular stages} \centering \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|} \hline ~ & Dt\_can & Dt\_sac & Dp\_can & Dp\_sac & Fp\_can & Fp\_sac \\ \hline SLS-TRF & 0.007 & 0.000 & 0.299 & 0.058 & 0.249 & 0.027 \\ \hline Affine-TRF reg to b0 & 0.007 & 0.042 & 0.360 & 0.216 & 0.004 & 0.007 \\ \hline SyN-TRF reg to b0 & 0.095 & 0.007 & 0.478 & 0.129 & 0.003 & 0.017 \\ \hline SyN-TRF reg to next b & 0.023 & 0.000 & 0.445 & 0.056 & 0.002 & 0.021 \\ \hline Iterative SyN-TRF & 0.000 & 0.002 & 0.420 & 0.063 & 0.016 & 0.001 \\ \hline \textbf{IVIM-Morph} & 0.400 & 0.008 & 0.425 & 0.013 & \textbf{0.517} & 0.042 \\ \hline VoxelMorph & 0.027 & 0.132 & 0.069 & 0.068 & 0.139 & 0.121 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2401.07126v2

\begin{table}[t!] \caption{Prior bounds on the IVIM parameters} \label{Table: parameters range} \centering \begin{tabular} { |p{1.5cm}|p{1cm}|p{1cm}|p{1cm}| } \hline Parameter & $D (\frac{mm^2}{sec})$ & f (\%) & $D^* (\frac{mm^2}{sec}$)\\ \hline minimum & 0.0003 & 7 & 0.006 \\ \hline maximum & 0.0032 & 50 & 0.15 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2401.07126v2

\begin{table}[!t] \small \caption{\label{Table:times} Methods running times} \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Method} & \textbf{Time (s)} & \textbf{Machine} \\ \hline SLS-TRF & $57.93 \pm 1.26$ & CPU \\ \hline Affine - Reg to b0 & $53.32 \pm 3.09$ & CPU \\ \hline SyN - Reg to b0 & $54.04 \pm 2.14$ & CPU \\ \hline RSyN - Reg to next b & $53.11\pm 2.29$ & CPU \\ \hline Iterative SyN-TRF & $261.16 \pm 67.61$ & CPU \\ \hline VoxelMorph + SLS - TRF & $84.738 \pm 7.23$ & CPU+GPU \\ \hline IVIM-Morph & $52.69 \pm 1.90$ & GPU \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2201.10105v1

\begin{table}[h]%[t] \caption{The feature set extracted from heart and lung sounds} \centering \begin{tabular}{|p{1.9cm}||p{5.7cm}|}%{ |p{3cm}||p{12.4cm}| } \hline \textbf{Title} & \textbf{Description} \\ \hline Statistical Features & Variance, skewness and kurtosis of audio and autocorrelation signal \\ \hline Entropy & Sample, Shannon, Renyi and Tsallis entropy \\ \hline Power Features & Power spectrum represented in dB/octave and intercept and slope of linear regression line calculated. Power spectrum fitted using a 4-term Gaussian mixture model, and the number of peaks, frequency of peaks and 2 highest peaks frequency difference calculated from this. Total power, various power ratios from 100-1000Hz, 3dB bandwidth, 1st, 2nd and 3rd quartile, interquartile range, standard deviation, mean frequency, power centroid and max power of power spectrum were calculated. \\ \hline Mel-Frequency Cepstral Coefficients (MFCCs) & 13 level decomposition in Mel filter scale and log energy were calculated using a window length of 25\,ms and overlap length of 15\,ms, then minimum, maximum, mean, median, mode, variance and skewness of these frames were calculated. \\ \hline Vital Sign Features & Heart rate and breathing rate estimated using 10\,s sliding window with 1\,s hop size and then variability calculated \cite{grooby2020neonatal,grooby2021real}. \\ \hline Abnormal Chest Sound Features & Using YAMNet, a deep convolutional neural network for sound classification, the probability of groan, grunt, wheeze, gasp, pant, cough and throat clearing sounds present in each from the audio recording was determined \cite{hershey2017cnn,chakraborty2020feature}. \\ \hline Autocorrelation Features & Correlation prominence, sinusoid correlation and Hjorth activity to measure the strength of periodicity of the signal \cite{grooby2020neonatal}. \\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab1:features} \end{table}

2306.17626v1

\begin{table}[h] \centering \caption{The average number of steps for PPO.} \label{flags_and_perfs} \begin{tabular}{ | p{1.0cm} | p{1.1cm} | p{1.0cm} |p{1.2cm} |} \hline Machine & power & voltage & PPO steps \\ \hline % \quad 1 & 2500 \tiny{kW} & 10000 \tiny{V} & 11 \\ \hline \quad 1 & 2500 kW & 10000 V & 11 \\ \hline \quad 2 & 600 kW & 6000 V & 12 \\ \hline \quad 3 & 2100 kW & 6000 V & 5 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

1811.03687v1

\begin{table}[H] \tiny \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{ l | l } \hline Item & Description \\ \hline instr & Instructor's identifier \\ class& Course code (descriptor)\\ repeat& Number of times the student is taking this course\\ attendance& Code of the level of attendance\\ difficulty& Level of difficulty of the course as perceived by the student; values taken from \\ Q1& The semester course content, teaching method and evaluation system were provided at the start.\\ Q2& The course aims and objectives were clearly stated at the beginning of the period.\\ Q3& The course was worth the amount of credit assigned to it.\\ Q4& The course was taught according to the syllabus announced on the first day of class.\\ Q5& The class discussions, homework assignments, applications and studies were satisfactory.\\ Q6& The textbook and other courses resources were sufficient and up to date.\\ Q7& The course allowed field work, applications, laboratory, discussion and other studies.\\ Q8& The quizzes, assignments, projects and exams contributed to helping the learning.\\ Q9& I greatly enjoyed the class and was eager to actively participate during the lectures.\\ Q10& My initial expectations about the course were met at the end of the period or year.\\ Q11& The course was relevant and beneficial to my professional development.\\ Q12& The course helped me look at life and the world with a new perspective.\\ Q13& The Instructor's knowledge was relevant and up to date.\\ Q14& The Instructor came prepared for classes.\\ Q15& The Instructor taught in accordance with the announced lesson plan.\\ Q16& The Instructor was committed to the course and was understandable.\\ Q17& The Instructor arrived on time for classes.\\ Q18& The Instructor has a smooth and easy to follow delivery/speech.\\ Q19& The Instructor made effective use of class hours.\\ Q20& The Instructor explained the course and was eager to be helpful to students.\\ Q21& The Instructor demonstrated a positive approach to students.\\ Q22& The Instructor was open and respectful of the views of students about the course.\\ Q23& The Instructor encouraged participation in the course.\\ Q24& The Instructor gave relevant homework assignments/projects, and helped/guided students.\\ Q25& The Instructor responded to questions about the course inside and outside of the course.\\ Q26& The Instructor's evaluation system (midterm, assignments, etc.) effectively measured the course objectives.\\ Q27& The Instructor provided solutions to exams and discussed them with students.\\ Q28& The Instructor treated all students in a right and objective manner.\\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{ l }{Q1-Q28 are all Likert-type, meaning that the values are taken from {1,2,3,4,5}} \\ %Q1-Q28 are all Likert-type, meaning that the values are taken from {1,2,3,4,5} \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Items and questions in the data set} \label{tab:data} \end{center} \end{table}

1811.03687v1

\begin{table}[ht] \small \centering \begin{tabular}{r|ccccc} \hline & Regression & Lasso & Variational model& LME model&Ridge\\ \hline Mean square error &1.45 & 1.43 & 1.45 & 1.45 & 1.54\\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Cross validated mean square error of the various models } \label{tab:predResults} \end{table}

2308.12827v1

\begin{table}[h] \centering \resizebox{8cm}{!} { \begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline Observation time (months) & GBMCMC catalogue UCBs \\ \hline 1.5 & 1998 \\ \hline 3.0 & 2758 \\ \hline 6.0 & 6196 \\ \hline 12.0 & 10027 \\ \hline \end{tabular}} \caption{Total number of GBMCMC catalogue UCBs as a function of observation time.} \label{table1} \end{table}

1809.04684v1

\begin{table} \caption{\label{table:classes} Protected classes defined under US fair lending laws such as the Fair Housing Act (FHA)~\cite{fha} and Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA)~\cite{ecoa}.} \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|} \hline Law & FHA\cite{fha} & ECOA\cite{ecoa} \\ \hline\hline age & & X \\ color & X & X \\ disability & X & \\ exercised rights under CCPA\cite{ccpa} & & X \\ familial status (household composition) & X & \\ gender identity & X & \\ marital status (single or married) & & X \\ national origin & X & X \\ race & X & X \\ recipient of public assistance & & X \\ religion & X & X \\ sex & X & X \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2205.00383v2

\begin{table}[H]\small \centering \caption{Descriptive statistics of daily returns ($\sim$six significant digits)} \label{tab:1} \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c} \hline Data set & mean & variance & skewness & excess kurtosis \\ \hline S\&P500 & 0.000564705 & 0.00047912 & $-0.861012$ & 8.46843 \\ \hline Bitcoin & 0.00384156 & 0.00160601 & $-4.07498$ & 50.8679 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2205.00383v2

\begin{table}[H]\small \centering \caption{Summary of properties of regulated stochastic clocks} \label{tab:6} \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c} \hline Category & type I & type II & type III \\ \hline induction nature & average of sample paths & average of log-LT & \tabincell{c}{quasi-average of \\ sample paths} \\ \hline regulating kernel & incomplete gamma & inverse gamma & Riemann-Liouville \\ \hline L\'{e}vy measure distortion & severe & moderate & mild \\ \hline Skew/EKurt enlargement & faster than exponential & exponential & \tabincell{c}{slower than linear \\ or bounded} \\ \hline \tabincell{c}{explicit formulae \\ (Poisson)} & \tabincell{c}{LT: $n=1$ only \\ LM: any $n>0$} & \tabincell{c}{LT: $n\in\mathbb{N}_{++}$ only \\ LM: any $n>0$} & LT and LM: any $n>0$ \\ \hline \tabincell{c}{explicit formulae \\ (tempered stable)} & LT and LM : $n=1$ only & LT and LM: $n\in\mathbb{N}_{++}$ & LT and LM: any $n>0$ \\ \hline \end{tabular}\\ LT: Laplace transform | LM: L\'{e}vy measure \end{table}

2012.04863v2

\begin{table}[t] \centering \begin{tabular}{l|p{8cm}} \hline Active learners & Testee\\ \hline Active learnable parameters & Network weights of the testee\\ \hline Supporting learnable parameters & Architecture of the testee\\ \hline Active training datasets & Training dataset of target-task $J_1$ performed by the testee \\ \hline Active auxiliary datasets & -- \\ \hline Training loss & Training loss of target-task $J_1$: $L(A, W, D_{ee}^{(\mathrm{tr})})$ \\ \hline Interaction function & -- \\ \hline Optimization problem & $W^{*}(A)=\min _{W} L(A, W, D_{ee}^{(\mathrm{tr})})$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Learning Stage I in LPT} \label{tb:lpt-s1} \end{table}

2012.04863v2

\begin{table}[t] \centering \begin{tabular}{l|p{8cm}} \hline Active learners & Examiner\\ \hline Active learnable parameters & 1) Data encoder of the tester; 2) Target-task executor of the tester. \\ \hline Supporting learnable parameters & Test creator of the tester\\ \hline Active training datasets & Training data of target-task $J_2$ performed by the tester\\ \hline Active auxiliary datasets & Test bank\\ \hline Training loss & $L(E, X, D_{er}^{(\mathrm{tr})}) +\gamma L(E, X, \sigma(C, E, D_{b}))$\\ \hline Interaction function & -- \\ \hline Optimization problem & $ E^{*}(C), X^{*}(C)=\min _{E, X} \;\; L(E, X, D_{er}^{(\mathrm{tr})}) +\gamma L(E, X, \sigma(C, E, D_{b})).$\\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Learning Stage II in LPT } \label{tb:lpt-s2} \end{table}

2012.04863v2

\begin{table}[t] \centering \begin{tabular}{p{4cm}|p{10.5cm}} \hline Active learners & Testee, tester\\ \hline Remaining learnable parameters & 1) Architecture of the testee; 2) Test creator of the tester\\ \hline Validation datasets& Validation dataset of the tester\\ \hline Active auxiliary datasets & Test bank\\ \hline Validation loss & $L(E^{*}(C), X^{*}(C), D_{er}^{(\mathrm{val})})$\\ \hline Interaction function & Testee's prediction loss defined on the test created by the tester: $ L(A, W^{*}(A), \sigma(C, E^{*}(C), D_{b}))/|\sigma(C, E^{*}(C), D_{b})|$\\ \hline Optimization problem & $\max_{C} \min _{A}\;\; L(A, W^{*}(A), \sigma(C, E^{*}(C), D_{b}))/|\sigma(C, E^{*}(C), D_{b})|-\lambda L(E^{*}(C), X^{*}(C), D_{er}^{(\mathrm{val})})$\\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Validation Stage in LPT} \label{tb:lpt-vs} \end{table}

2012.04863v2

\begin{table}[t] \centering \begin{tabular}{l|p{10.5cm}} \hline Skillearn & Learning by Passing Tests\\ \hline Learners & 1) Testee; 2) Tester \\ \hline Learnable parameters & 1) Architecture of testee; 2) Network weights of testee; 3) Data encoder of tester; 4) Target-task executor of tester; 5) Test creator of tester. \\ \hline Interaction function & Testee's prediction loss defined on the test created by the tester: $ L(A, W^{*}(A), \sigma(C, E^{*}(C), D_{b}))/|\sigma(C, E^{*}(C), D_{b})|$ \\ \hline Learning stages & Learning stage I: the testee learns its network weights on its training data: $W^{*}(A)=\min _{W} L(A, W, D_{ee}^{(\mathrm{tr})})$\newline Learning stage II: the tester uses its test creator to select a subset of examples from the test bank, then it learns its data encoder and target-task executor on its training data and on the selected examples from the test bank: $E^{*}(C), X^{*}(C)=\min _{E, X} \;\; L(E, X, D_{er}^{(\mathrm{tr})}) +\gamma L(E, X, \sigma(C, E, D_{b})).$ \\ \hline Validation stage & 1) The testee updates its architecture to minimize the prediction loss on the test created by the tester; 2) The tester updates its test creator to maximize the testee's prediction loss and minimize its own validation loss. $\max _{C} \min _{A}\;\; \frac{1}{|\sigma(C, E^{*}(C), D_{b})|} L(A, W^{*}(A), \sigma(C, E^{*}(C), D_{b}))-\lambda L(E^{*}(C), X^{*}(C), D_{er}^{(\mathrm{val})}).$\\ \hline Datasets & 1) Training data of the testee; 2) Training data of the tester; 3) Validation data of the tester; 4) Test bank.\\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Instantiation of Skillearn to LPT} \label{tb:sltolpt} \end{table}

2012.04863v2

\begin{table}[t] \centering \begin{tabular}{l|p{8cm}} \hline Active learners & The first learner\\ \hline Active learnable parameters & Weights of the data encoder and weights of the task-specific head in the first learner\\ \hline Supporting learnable parameters & Encoder architecture shared by all learners \\ \hline Active training datasets & Training dataset of the first learner\\ \hline Active auxiliary datasets & -- \\ \hline Training loss & The first learner trains the weights of its data encoder and the weights of its task-specific head on its training dataset: $L(A, W^{(1)}_1, H^{(1)}_1,D_1^{(\textrm{tr})})$. \\ \hline Interaction function & -- \\ \hline Optimization problem & $\widetilde{W}_1^{(1)}(A) =\textrm{min}_{W^{(1)}_1,H^{(1)}_1} \; L(A, W^{(1)}_1, H^{(1)}_1,D_1^{(\textrm{tr})})$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Learning stage 1 in interleaving learning} \label{tb:il-1} \end{table}

2012.04863v2

\begin{table}[t] \centering \begin{tabular}{l|p{8cm}} \hline Active learners & The $k$-th learner \\ \hline Active learnable parameters & Weights of the data encoder and weights of the task-specific head in the $k$-th learner\\ \hline Supporting learnable parameters & Encoder architecture shared by all learners\\ \hline Active training datasets & Training dataset of the $k$-th learner \\ \hline Active auxiliary datasets & -- \\ \hline Training loss & The $k$-th learner trains the weights of its data encoder and the weights of its task-specific head on its training dataset: $L(A, W^{(m)}_k, H^{(m)}_k,D_k^{(\textrm{tr})})$ \\ \hline Interaction function & The learner encourages its encoder weights to be close to the optimal encoder weights $\widetilde{W}_{l-1}$ learned in the $l-1$ stage: $\|W^{(m)}_k-\widetilde{W}_{l-1}\|_2^2$ \\ \hline Optimization problem & $\widetilde{W}_k^{(m)}=\textrm{min}_{W_k^{(m)},H_k^{(m)}} \; L(A, W_k^{(m)}, H_k^{(m)},D_k^{(\textrm{tr})})+\lambda\|W^{(m)}_k-\widetilde{W}_{l-1}(A)\|^2_{2}$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Learning stage $l$ with the $k$-th learner at the $m$-th round, in interleaving learning} \label{tb:il-k} \end{table}

2012.04863v2

\begin{table}[t] \centering \begin{tabular}{l|p{8cm}} \hline Active learners & All learners\\ \hline Remaining learnable parameters & Encoder's architecture of all learners\\ \hline Validation datasets& Validation datasets of all learners\\ \hline Active auxiliary datasets & -- \\ \hline Validation loss & The sum of every learner's validation loss on its validation dataset: $\sum_{k=1}^K L(A, \widetilde{W}_k^{(M)}(A), \widetilde{H}_k^{(M)}(A),D_k^{(\textrm{val})}) $ \\ \hline Interaction function & -- \\ \hline Optimization problem & $\textrm{min}_{A} \; \sum_{k=1}^K L(A, \widetilde{W}_k^{(M)}(A), \widetilde{H}_k^{(M)}(A),D_k^{(\textrm{val})}) $ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Validation stage in interleaving learning} \label{tb:il-val} \end{table}

2012.04863v2

\begin{table}[t] \centering \begin{tabular}{l|p{10.5cm}} \hline Skillearn & Interleaving Learning\\ \hline Learners & $K$ learners \\ \hline Learnable parameters & 1) Encoder architecture shared by all learners; 2) In each round, each learner has weight parameters for the data encoder and weight parameters for the task-specific head. \\ \hline Interaction function & The encoder weights $W_l$ at learning stage $l$ are encouraged to be close to the optimal encoder weights $\widetilde{W}_{l-1}$ at stage $l-1$: $\|W_l-\widetilde{W}_{l-1}\|_2^2$.\\ \hline Learning stages & 1) In the first learning stage (the first learner in the first round), the learner trains the weights of its data encoder and the weights of its task-specific head on its training dataset: $\widetilde{W}_1^{(1)}(A) =\textrm{min}_{W^{(1)}_1,H^{(1)}_1} \quad L(A, W^{(1)}_1, H^{(1)}_1,D_1^{(\textrm{tr})})$; 2) In other learning stages, the learner trains the weights of its data encoder and the weights of its task-specific head on its training dataset where the encoder weights are encouraged to be close to the optimal encoder weights trained in the previous stage: $\widetilde{W}_k^{(m)}(A) =\textrm{min}_{W_k^{(m)},H^{(m)}_k} \quad L(A, W^{(m)}_k, H^{(m)}_k,D_k^{(\textrm{tr})})+\lambda\|W^{(m)}_k-\widetilde{W}_{k-1}^{(m)}(A)\|^2_{2}$. \\ \hline Validation stage & Each learner validates its optimal data encoder and task-specific head learned in the last round on its validation dataset.\\ \hline Datasets & Each learner has a training dataset and a validation dataset.\\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Mapping from Skillearn to Interleaving Learning} \label{tb:sk-il} \end{table}

2305.00798v1

\begin{table}[!ht] \centering \label{tbl:CNNtrain} \caption{Accuracy, time. and energy of training a CNN using CPU vs. GPU on CIFAT-10} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|} \hline Device & Accuracy (\%) & Time (s) & Energy (J) \\ \hline CPU & 47 & 27978.98796 & 3497373.495 \\ \hline GPU & 48 & 327.3535366 & 130941.4146 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2305.00798v1

\begin{table}[!ht] \centering \label{tbl:sync_loss} \caption{Final Loss results after 250 epochs for synchronous training} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|} \hline Test & MP1 & MP2 & MP4 & MP8 & MP16 & MPI1 & MPI2 & MPI4 & MPI8 & MPI16 \\ \hline Loss & 0.0183 & 0.0182 & 0.0183 & 0.0183 & 0.0182 & 0.0182 & 0.0185 & 0.0182 & 0.0177 & 0.0188 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2305.00798v1

\begin{table}[!ht] \centering \label{tbl:async_loss} \caption{Final Loss results after 250 epochs for asynchronous training} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|} \hline Test & MPA1 & MPA2 & MPA4 & MPA8 & MPA16 & MPIA1 & MPIA2 & MPIA4 & MPIA8 & MPIA16 \\ \hline Loss & 0.0182 & 0.0194 & 0.0212 & 0.0219 & 0.0242 & 0.0182 & 0.0194 & 0.0212 & 0.0219 & 0.0242 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

1308.6198v3

\begin{table}[h]\small \centering \caption{Comparison with \cite{nikolaenko2013privacy}}\label{table:linear_compare}\vspace{-10pt} \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c}\hline\hline Ridge Regression & Insurance & Red wine & White wine\\\hline \cite{nikolaenko2013privacy} & 55s & 39s & 45s\\\hline Ours & 74s & 12s & 33s \\\hline\hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

1308.6198v3

\begin{table}[h]\small \centering\caption{SMO on Datasets}\label{table:smo_data}\vspace{-10pt} \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c}\hline\hline Datasets & Records \# & Features \# & Time \\\hline\hline Adult \cite{kohavi1996scaling} & 1,605 & 14 & 2.75h \\ Web \cite{breese1998empirical} & 2,477 & 17 & 49.75h\\ \hline\hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

1806.02322v1

\begin{table} [h] \caption{Error rate for SDR ($U=20, I=40$). } \label{tab:SDRerr} \small \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{ |c|c|c|c|} \hline & $ D=4 $ & $D=8 $ & $ D=10 $ \cr \hline SDR Accur. $\times 10^{-3}$ & $ 7.5 $ & $4.4 $ & $ 4.0 $ \cr \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \normalsize \end{table}

1912.05467v1

\begin{table}[ht!] \small \centering \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|}\hline Transformer & Transformer + Fine Tune & MetaMT \\ \hline 36.38 & 40.61 & 42.20\\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Performance Comparison (BLEU-4) on Electronic Health Record Dataset} \label{tab:re_ehr} \end{table}

1905.08635v1

\begin{table}[h] \centering \caption{Statistics of the four sub-datasets and the accordingly generated network layers from the Facebook dataset.} \vspace{-0.4cm} \label{tbl:simple_statistics} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|} \hline \multicolumn{2}{|l|}{Dataset and Layers} & \#\_of\_users & \#\_of\_edges \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{|l|}{\textbf{Demographic Info}} & 2,676 & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{} & L1: Age & & 1,228,223 \\ \cline{2-4} & L2: Gender & & 1,813,638 \\ \cline{2-4} & L3: Relationship Status & & 1,119,592 \\ \cline{2-4} & L5: Locale & & 2,799,160 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{|l|}{\textbf{User's Political Views}} & 2,695 & \\ \hline & L4: Political Views & & 494,974 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{|l|}{\textbf{ Personality}} & 2,485 & \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{} & L6: OPN & & 1,020,306 \\ \cline{2-4} & L7: CON & & 840,456 \\ \cline{2-4} & L8: EXT & & 795,691 \\ \cline{2-4} & L9: AGR & & 718,201 \\ \cline{2-4} & L10: NEU & & 627,760 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{|l|}{\textbf{Facebook Status Updates}} & 1,645 & \\ \hline & L11: Privacy Concern & & 2,191,659 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

1905.08635v1

\begin{table}[h!t] \centering \caption{Statistics of the four datasets and the accordingly generated network layers from the Facebook dataset.} \vspace{-0.4cm} \scalebox{0.9}{ \begin{tabular}{m{4.3cm}|m{2.5cm}|m{1.5cm}} \hline \textbf{Dataset} & \multicolumn{2}{l}{ \#\_of\_users} \\ \hline Demographic Info (D1) & \multicolumn{2}{l}{2,676} \\ User's political views (D2) & \multicolumn{2}{l}{2,695} \\ Facebook personality (D3) & \multicolumn{2}{l}{2,485} \\ Facebook Status Updates (D4) & \multicolumn{2}{l}{1,645} \\ \hline \hline \textbf{Layer} & From dataset & \#\_of\_edges \\ \hline L1: Age & D1 & 1,228,223 \\ L2: Gender & D1 & 1,813,638 \\ L3: Relationship Status & D1 & 1,119,592 \\ L4: Political view & D2 & 494,974 \\ L5: Locale & D1 & 2,799,160 \\ L6: OPN & D3 & 1,020,306 \\ L7: CON & D3 & 840,456 \\ L8: EXT & D3 & 795,691 \\ L9: AGR & D3 & 718,201 \\ L10: NEU & D3 & 627,760 \\ L11: Privacy Concern & D3 \& D4 & 2,191,659 \\ \hline \end{tabular} } \label{tbl:simple_statistics} \end{table}

1905.08635v1

\begin{table} %\begin{wraptable}{l}{0.65\textwidth} \centering % \vspace{-20pt} \caption{\textit{AND}-Compositions needed for analytical queries shown in Section \ref{subsec:query}} % \vspace{-10pt} % \vspace{-0.2cm} \scalebox{0.9}{ \begin{tabular}{|m{0.8cm}|m{7.2cm}|} \hline \textbf{Ana-lysis} & \textbf{Required \textit{AND}-Compositions of Layers} \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{|l|}{\textit{Dominant Political Views}} \\ \hline \textbf{Q1} & L1 (Age), L4 (Political View), L5 (Locale)\\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{|l|}{\textit{Relationship Status Correlation}} \\ \hline \textbf{Q2a} & L1 (Age), L3 (Relationship Status), L5 (Locale)\\ \hline \textbf{Q2b} & Five 3-layer compositions: [L2 (Gender) AND L3 (Relationship Status)] with each of L6 (OPN), L7 (CON), L8 (EXT), L9 (AGR), L10 (NEU)\\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{|l|}{\textit{Personality Traits Analysis}} \\ \hline \textbf{Q3a} & L6 (OPN), L10 (NEU)\\ \hline \textbf{Q3b} & Five 2-layer compositions: Each of L6 (OPN), L7 (CON), L8 (EXT), L9 (AGR), L10 (NEU) with L1 (Age)\\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{|l|}{\textit{Privacy Concern Correlation}} \\ \hline %\textbf{Q4a} & L1 (Age), L10 (NEU)\\ % \hline \textbf{Q4a} & L1 (Age), L11 (Privacy Concern)\\ \hline \textbf{Q4b} & Five 3-layer compositions: [L2 (Gender) AND L11 (Privacy Concern)] with each of L6 (OPN), L7 (CON), L8 (EXT), L9 (AGR), L10 (NEU)\\ \hline \end{tabular} } \label{tab:computationLayers} % \vspace{-20pt} \vspace{-10pt} % \end{wraptable} \end{table}

1905.08635v1

\begin{table}[h!t] %\vspace{-25pt} \centering \caption{Dominant personality traits of male and females preferring different levels of privacy-concern} \vspace{-0.05cm} \scalebox{0.9}{ \begin{tabular}{m{1.6cm}|m{1.8cm}|m{1.9cm}|m{1.8cm}|m{1.9cm}} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Privacy}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{Extraversion(100\%)}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Neuroticism(100\%)}}\\ \cline{2-5} & \textbf{Males(\%)} & \textbf{Females(\%)} & \textbf{Males(\%)} & \textbf{Females(\%)}\\ \hline HiPC & 0 & 0 & 09.90 & \textbf{09.99} \\ MePC & 39.89 & \textbf{45.36} & 30.15 & \textbf{49.96} \\ LoPC & 07.45 & 07.30 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline \end{tabular} } \label{tab:Q3b} \vspace{-20pt} \end{table}

2403.13076v1

\begin{table}[h!] \centering \caption{Performance measures on the test set comparing $\mu^*$ and the estimated $\hat \mu$ (computed with the parameters estimated with $n=1000$). The results are displayed as mean on the 100 iterations (standard deviation).} \label{table:scores_test_synthetic} \begin{tabular}{|c|l|c|c|c|c|} \hline & \textbf{Model} & $\boldsymbol{R^2}$ & \textbf{RMSE} & \textbf{Cross-entropy} & \textbf{Cos similarity} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{$\rho=0.1$} & Not spatial & 0.9309 ($<10^{-4}$) & 0.0739 ($<10^{-4}$) & 0.6660 (0.0001) & 0.9855 ($<10^{-4}$) \\ & Spatial & 0.9335 ($<10^{-4}$) & 0.0723 ($<10^{-4}$) & 0.6648 (0.0001) & 0.9862 ($<10^{-4}$) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{$\rho=0.5$} & Not spatial & 0.8311 (0.0001) & 0.1249 ($<10^{-4}$) & 0.6845 (0.0001) & 0.9610 ($<10^{-4}$)\\ & Spatial & 0.9408 ($<10^{-4}$) & 0.0705 ($<10^{-4}$) & 0.6275 (0.0002) & 0.9872 ($<10^{-4}$) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{$\rho=0.9$} & Not spatial & 0.2073 (0.0025) & 0.3257 (0.0001) & 0.9033 (0.0005) & 0.7764 (0.0001) \\ & Spatial & 0.9011 (0.0026) & 0.1097 (0.0008) & 0.4414 (0.0026) & 0.9776 (0.0001) \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2403.13076v1

\begin{table}[h] \centering \caption{Performance measures for the Dirichlet models on Maupiti dataset.} \label{table:scores_maupiti} \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Model} & $\boldsymbol{R^2}$ & \textbf{RMSE} & \textbf{Cross-entropy} & \textbf{AIC} & \textbf{Cos similarity} \\ \hline Without spatial & 0.265 & 0.297 & 0.815 & -73873 & 0.786 \\ \hline With spatial & 0.441 & 0.261 & 0.675 & -74170 & 0.848 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2403.13076v1

\begin{table}[h] \centering \caption{Performance measures for the mutinomial regression models on Maupiti dataset using the cross-entropy loss} \label{table:scores_maupiti_crossentropy} \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Model} & $\boldsymbol{R^2}$ & \textbf{RMSE} & \textbf{Cross-entropy} & \textbf{Cos similarity} \\ \hline Without spatial & 0.636 & 0.221 & 0.455 & 0.868 \\ \hline With spatial & 0.820 & 0.160 & 0.307 & 0.925 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

1908.02947v1

\begin{table}[ht] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|r|r|c|} \hline \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{\textbf{Biasing Strategy}} & \textbf{CBOW $200$ $(\%)$} \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{Uniform} & $68.64$ \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Domain-independent} & Predicate Frequency & $54.03$ \\ & Inverse Predicate Frequency & $71.33$ \\ & Object Frequency & $77.42$ \\ & Inverse Object Frequency & $50.56$ \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Domain-specific} & AIFB-Weight-Function-1 & $88.28$ \\ & AIFB-Weight-Function-2 & $89.94$ \\ & AIFB-Weight-Function-3 & $91.56$ \\ & AIFB-Weight-Function-4 & $99.86$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{$k$-Nearest Neighbor classification ($k=4$) accuracy for the AIFB dataset.} \label{tbl:AIFB} \end{center} \end{table}

1908.02947v1

\begin{table}[ht] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline {\bf Algorithm} & {\bf Hyperparameters} \\ \hline AIFB-Weight-Function-1 & $ \hp{w}{low} = 0.1, \hp{w}{high} = 10 $ \\ \hline AIFB-Weight-Function-2 & $ \hp{w}{low} = 0.1, \hp{w}{high} = 10 $\\ \hline AIFB-Weight-Function-3 & $ \hp{w}{low} = 0.1, \hp{w}{high} = 10 $\\ \hline AIFB-Weight-Function-4 & $ \hp{w}{low} = 0.1, w = 10, \hp{w}{high} = 100 $ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \caption{Hyperparameter values used in the domain-specific biasing strategies for the AIFB dataset.} \label{tbl:AIFBHyperparameters} \end{table}

1908.02947v1

\begin{table}[ht] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline {\bf Algorithm} & {\bf Hyperparameters} \\ \hline BGS-Weight-Function-1 & $ \hp{w}{low} = 0.1, \hp{w}{high} = 10 $ \\ \hline BGS-Weight-Function-2 & $ \hp{w}{low} = 0.001, \hp{w}{high} = 1 $\\ \hline BGS-Weight-Function-3 & $ \hp{w}{low} = 0.1, w = 10, \hp{w}{high} = 100 $\\ \hline BGS-Weight-Function-4 & $ \hp{w}{low} = 0.1, \hp{w}{high} = 1 $ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \caption{Hyperparameter values used in the domain-specific biasing strategies for the BGS dataset.} \label{tbl:BGSHyperparameters} \end{table}

2102.11447v1

\begin{table}[h] \centering \resizebox{0.6\columnwidth}{!}{% \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Year} & \textbf{Using Public Dataset} & \textbf{Not Using Public Dataset} & \textbf{Public Ratio} \\ \hline \textit{2015} & 15 & 7 & 68.18\% \\ \textit{2016} & 19 & 3 & 86.36\% \\ \textit{2017} & 34 & 10 & 77.27\% \\ \textit{2018} & 124 & 33 & 78.98\% \\ \textit{2019} & 170 & 66 & 72.03\% \\ \textit{2020} & 209 & 47 & 81.64\% \\\hline \textit{Total} & 571 & 166 & 77.48\% \\ \hline \end{tabular}% } \caption{The count of publications using public/non-public dataset (Facebook).} \label{tab:facebook} \end{table}

2102.11447v1

\begin{table}[h] \centering \resizebox{0.6\columnwidth}{!}{% \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Year} & \textbf{Using Public Dataset} & \textbf{Not Using Public Dataset} & \textbf{Public Ratio} \\ \hline \textit{2015} & 23 & 4 & 85.19\% \\ \textit{2016} & 30 & 12 & 71.43\% \\ \textit{2017} & 87 & 26 & 76.99\% \\ \textit{2018} & 93 & 27 & 77.50\% \\ \textit{2019} & 101 & 29 & 77.69\% \\ \textit{2020} & 157 & 43 & 78.50\% \\\hline \textit{Total} & 468 & 137 & 77.36\% \\ \hline \end{tabular}% } \caption{The count of publications using public/non-public dataset (Google).} \label{tab:google} \end{table}

2102.11447v1

\begin{table}[h] \centering \resizebox{0.6\columnwidth}{!}{% \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Year} & \textbf{Using Public Dataset} & \textbf{Not Using Public Dataset} & \textbf{Public Ratio} \\ \hline \textit{2017} & 98 & 38 & 72.06\% \\ \textit{2018} & 85 & 26 & 76.58\% \\ \textit{2019} & 137 & 33 & 80.59\% \\ \textit{2020} & 189 & 29 & 86.70\% \\\hline \textit{Total} & 509 & 126 & 80.16\% \\ \hline \end{tabular}% } \caption{The count of publications using public/non-public dataset (Microsoft).} \label{tab:microsoft} \end{table}

1808.04439v1

\begin{table}[h] \centering \begin{tabular}{|p{1.6cm}|p{2.8cm}|p{2.3cm}|p{4.2cm}|} \hline {} & Logistic Regression & Maximum MI & Optimized LDDMM-kernel\\ \hline ROC AUC &0.36$\pm$0.02 & 0.72 $\pm$ 0.06 & 0.75 $\pm$ 0.06 \\\hline \end{tabular} \caption{ROC AUC scores for three models} \label{tb:result} \end{table}

2109.05087v1

\begin{table}[h] \centering \begin{tabular}{|l| p{12cm}|} \hline \textbf{Patient Information} & \textbf{Features} \\ \hline Basic Information& Age, Gender, Race/Ethnicity, BMI, Medical History, Prior medications, co-morbidities, \\ \hline Presenting Symptoms & Duration of GI Symptoms prior to admission, Co-infections, GI bleed\\ \hline Method of Diagnosis & RT-PCR, Qualitative, Isothermal, Non-PCR, Serological Test, Chest computed tomography\\ \hline Laboratory/Imaging & WBC, Hgb, Hct, MCV, Platelet, count initial, Neutrophil Abs initial, Lymphocyte Abs initial, Fibrinogen, Initial, D-Dimer, Glucose Initial, BUN initial, Cr initial, K initial, GFR initial, AKI, Na initial, Bicarb initial, Alb initial-worst-day5, Tbili initial, EGD, Initial EKG, Alk Phos-initial-worst-day5, CT chest, ALT initial-worst-day5, CXR, AST initial-worst-day5, LDH inital, CPK initial, Troponin initial, Ferritin Initial, ProBNP, CRP initial, HBa1c, TSH, T4 Free, Lipase initial, ABG, VBG, Urine Blood, Stool studies, IL-6, Autoimmune markers, T-spot, Colonoscopy, Liver biopsy, Abd ultrasound \\ \hline Treatment & Mechanical ventilation, SpO2, Duration of GI symptoms after admission, Admitted to ICU, Length of stay in ICU,Died in hospital, Severe Outcomes, Readmission within 30 days\\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:info} \caption{Initial Features in the Dataset} \end{table}

2109.05087v1

\begin{table}[t] \begin{table}[h] \centering \begin{tabular}{|p{8cm}|l|l|} \hline \textbf{Variable Name} & \textbf{Medical Meaning} & \textbf{Description} \\ \hline AKI (any time during the hospitalization) & Acute kidney injury & Laboratory/Imaging \\ ALB{\_}I or Alb initial (3.5 - 5.5 g/dL) & Albumin & Laboratory/Imaging \\ ALK{\_}I or Alk Phos inItial (45- 115 IU/L) & Alkaline phosphatase & Laboratory/Imaging\\ AST{\_}I or AST intial (10-55 IU/L) & Aspartate aminotransferase & Laboratory/Imaging \\ BUN initial (6-23mg/dL) & Blood urea nitrogen & Laboratory/Imaging \\ CR or Cr initial (.5-1.2mg/dL) & Creatinine & Laboratory/Imaging \\ CXR2 & bilateral opacities/infiltrates & Laboratory/Imaging \\ DIMER or D-Dimer initial (0-500 ng/mL) & - & Laboratory/Imaging \\ EKG or Initial EKG QTc interval number (esp if received Hydroxychloroquine & & \\ or Azythromycin) & Electrocardiogram & Laboratory/Imaging\\ GFR initial ($>$60mL/min/1.73M*M) & Glomerular filtration rate & Laboratory/Imaging \\ Glucose initial (70-100mg/dL) & - & Laboratory/Imaging \\ Hct initial (36.7-44.7{\%}) & Hematocrit & Laboratory/Imaging \\ MCV initial (78.0-99.0fL) & Mean corpuscular volume & Laboratory/Imaging \\ NA{\_}I or Na initial (136-145mmol/L) & Sodium & Laboratory/Imaging \\ TBILI or Tbili initial (0.1 - 1.2 mg/dL) & Total Bilirubin & Laboratory/Imaging \\ WBC initial (4.9 – 10.0 Thousand/ul) & White blood cells & Laboratory/Imaging \\ \hline RACE{\_}E & Race and Ethnicity & Personal Information \\ Age & - & Personal Information \\ \hline Prior Cmorbidities(HTN) & Hypertension & Co-morbidities \\ \hline SYMP20 or AMS & Altered mental status & Presenting Symptoms \\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:medical} \caption{Features Selected and their medical meaning} \end{table}

2109.05087v1

\begin{table}[h] \centering \begin{tabular}{|l|l|p{9cm}|} \hline \textbf{Model} & \textbf{AUC} & \textbf{Important Features(descending order)} \\ \hline Random Forest & 0.8285 & 'AKI', 'WBC', 'ALB{\_}I', 'BUN', 'AST{\_}I' \\ \hline LightGBM & 0.8333 & 'AKI', 'MCV', 'EKG', 'ALB{\_}I', 'CR', \\ \hline XGBoost & 0.8196 & 'AKI', 'CXR2', 'Hct', 'AST{\_}I', 'Prior{\_}Co1'\\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:features} \caption{Important features identified by individual methods} \end{table}

2407.01154v1

\begin{table}[h!] \centering \caption{Parameters of the wind models for the classification of strong shear wind vs light constant wind environments.} \subfigure[Shear wind. $\alpha =0.143$, $\rho$ = 1.225 Wind speed for different axes.]{ %\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c |} \begin{tabular}{|p{1cm}|p{1cm}|p{1cm}|} \hline x axis (m/s) & y axis (m/s) & z axis (m/s) \\ \hline \hline 2.1 & 10.1 & 0 \\ 2.2 & 10.2 & 0 \\ 2.3 & 10.3 & 0 \\ 2.4 & 10.4 & 0 \\ 2.5 & 10.5 & 0 \\ \hline \end{tabular}} \subfigure[Constant wind. $\rho$ = 1.225 ~~~~~~~~Wind speed for different axes.]{ %\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c |} \begin{tabular}{|p{1cm}|p{1cm}|p{1cm}|} \hline x axis (m/s) & y axis (m/s) & z axis (m/s) \\ \hline \hline 1.1 & 1.1 & 0 \\ 1.2 & 1.2 & 0 \\ 1.3 & 1.3 & 0 \\ 1.4 & 1.4 & 0 \\ 1.5 & 1.5 & 0 \\ \hline \end{tabular}} \label{tab:sim_env_input} \end{table}

2407.01154v1

\begin{table}[h!] \centering \caption{Simulation and UAV parameters.} \subfigure[UAV properties]{ \begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline UAV mass (Kg) & 2 \\ $C_D$ & 0.1 \\ $S$ ($m^2$) & 0.01 \\ \hline \end{tabular}} \subfigure[simulation properties]{ \begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline Time step (s) & 0.1 \\ Total time (s) & 12 \\ Number of loops & 50 \\ \hline \end{tabular}} \subfigure[UAV thrust action properties ]{ \begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline $F_{thrust}$ magnitude (N) & Randomly selected\\ & in the range [0-50]\\ $F_{thrust}$ directions [x y z] & Randomly selected\\ $F_{thrust}$ application times (s) & Randomly selected \\ \hline \end{tabular}} \label{tab:sim_sys_input} \end{table}

2407.01154v1

\begin{table}[h!] \centering \caption{Simulation parameters and outputs after one simulation loop.} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline Silhouette score & 94.55 \\ Observations1 & [1 1 1 1 1] \\ Observations2 & [0 0 0 0 0] \\ Thrust change times (s) & [ 0 4 10] \\ Thrust magnitude (N) & [40 15 45] \\ Thrust directions [x y z] & [[0 0 1] [1 0 0] [0 1 0]] \\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:sim_output} \end{table}

2407.01154v1

\begin{table}[!ht] \centering \caption{Maximum and mean Silhouette scores for all wind conditions scenarios in the range similarity experiments.} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline & \multicolumn{2}{ c| }{Maximum} &\multicolumn{2}{ c |}{Mean}\\ \hline Scenario & 6 env & 20 env & 6 env & 20 env\\ \hline Light const. vs light const. & 95.05 & 81.19 & 94.45 & 79.50\\ Light const. vs strong const. & 96.30 & 95.90 & 95.75 & 95.30 \\ Strong const. vs strong const. & 97.47 & 93.96 & 97.25 & 92.61 \\ Light shear vs light shear & 93.49 & 77.42 & 92.49 & 72.44 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:Range length_output} \end{table}

2407.01154v1

\begin{table}[h!] \centering \caption{Maximum and mean Silhouette scores for all wind conditions scenarios in thrust changes experiments. 0 and 12 changes.} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline & \multicolumn{2}{ c| }{Maximum} &\multicolumn{2}{ |c |}{Mean}\\ \hline Scenario & 0 ch. & 12 ch. & 0 ch. & 12 ch.\\ \hline Light const. vs light const. & 81.19 & 81.19 & 80.11 & 80.61\\ Light const. vs strong const. & 96.55 & 96.21 & 95.51 & 96.09 \\ Strong const. vs strong const. & 95.52 & 93.67 & 92.03 & 92.81 \\ Light shear vs light shear & 76.17 & 74.70 & 70.26 & 73.88 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:thrust changes} \end{table}

2407.01154v1

\begin{table}[h!] \centering \caption{Maximum and mean Silhouette scores for all wind conditions scenarios in wind direction experiments.} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline Scenario & Maximum & Mean\\ \hline Light const. vs light shear - similar direction & 71.18 & 21.58 \\ Light const. vs light shear - opposite direction & 92.16 & 90.33 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:wind direction_output} \end{table}

1609.08391v1

\begin{table}[b] \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline $A$ & $B$ & $\lnot A$ & $A\land B$ & $A\lor B$ & $A\imply B$ & $A\bimply B$ \\ \hline T & T & F & T & T & T & T \\ \hline T & F & F & F & T & F & F \\ \hline F & T & T & F & T & F & F \\ \hline F & F & T & F & F & F & T \\ \hline \end{tabular} \myCaption{Logical connectives truth table}{} \label{tab:truth} \end{table}

2105.06060v1

\begin{table}{} \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline Train Set Size & Validation Set Size&Test Set Size&Number of Features \\ \hline 48,548&2,698&2,698&40\\ \hline \end{tabular} \vspace{6px} \caption{Train/validation/test size of the dataset} \label{table:dataset} \end{table}

2105.06060v1

\begin{table}{} \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline Model& Train $R^2$ & Dev $R^2$& Test $R^2$& Train MSE& Dev MSE& Test MSE\\ \hline Extra Tree (baseline) & 0.99 &0.86& 0.71& 0.000& 0.112& 0.002\\ \hline Neural Net F (baseline) & 0.96 & 0.84 &0.85 & 0.037 & 0.136 & 0.001\\ \hline Neural Net I & $0.000$&-0.0001&-0.038& 1.062 & 0.859 & 0.010\\ \hline Neural Net F+I & 0.98 & 0.94 & 0.93 & 0.011 & 0.044 & 0.001 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \vspace{0.6em} \caption{Summary of results. MSE (mean-square error) is calculated using normalized labels. F is features, I is satellite images.} \label{table:results} \end{table}

2105.06060v1

\begin{table}{} \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline L2 Regularization Parameter & $0.1$\\ \hline First Dropout (drop probability)&$0.3$ \\ \hline First Dropout (drop probability)&$0.2$ \\ \hline Activation Function & ReLU\\ \hline Batch Size& $1024$ \\ \hline Optimizer& Adam(learning rate=$0.0005$, $\beta_1=0.9$, $\beta_2=0.999$)\\ \hline Epochs& $200$\\ \hline Learning Rate Decay &$\alpha=0.0001$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \vspace{0.6em} \caption{Hyperparameters for F+I model} \label{table:hyperparameters} \end{table}

2309.12330v3

\begin{table}[h!] \centering \begin{tabular}{ |c|c|c| } \hline $i_{AA^{\prime}}$ (Interaction Type) & $A$ (Agent Category) & $A^{\prime}$ (Agent Category) \\ \hline Good A & Consumer & Producer \\ Good B & Consumer & Producer \\ Maintenance Fee & Producer & Control Mechanism \\ Incentive & Control Mechanism & Consumer \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Interactions taxonomy.} \label{InteractionsTaxonomy} \end{table}

2309.12330v3

\begin{table}[h!] \centering \begin{tabular}{ |c|c|c|c| } \hline & Consumer & Control Mechanism & Producer \\ \hline Initial Wealth & 1,500 & 98,000 & 500 \\ \hline Desired Wealth & 50,000 & 10,000 & 40,000 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Initial and desired wealth distributions.} \label{InitialDesiredWealthDistribution} \end{table}

2309.12330v3

\begin{table}[h!] \centering \begin{tabular}{ |c|c|c|c|c|c| } \hline & $\beta_{PC}$ & $\beta_{PB}$ & $\beta_{CB}$ & $\gamma_{P}$ & $\gamma_{C}$\\ \hline No Interactions & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0.2 & 0.05 \\ \hline No Rotations & 0.3 & 0.2 & 0.35 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Parameters for extreme case simulations.} \label{ExtremeCasesParameters} \end{table}

2309.12330v3

\begin{table}[h!] \centering \begin{tabular}{ |c|c|c|c|c| } \hline $\beta_{PC}$ & $\beta_{PB}$ & $\beta_{CB}$ & $\gamma_{P}$ & $\gamma_{C}$\\ \hline 0.2 & 0.25 & 0.2 & 0.1 & 0.01 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Arbitrary values of forward propagation parameters.} \label{ForwardPropagationParameters} \end{table}

2309.12330v3

\begin{table}[h!] \centering \begin{tabular}{ |c|c|c| } \hline Consumer & Control Mechanism & Producer \\ \hline 51,923 & 6,538 & 41,538 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Wealth distribution at time $t_{m}$ using parameters from Table \ref{ForwardPropagationParameters}.} \label{ForwardPropagationFinalWealth} \end{table}

2309.12330v3

\begin{table}[h!] \centering \begin{tabular}{ |c|c|c|c|c| } \hline $\beta_{PC}$ & $\beta_{PB}$ & $\beta_{CB}$ & $\gamma_{P}$ & $\gamma_{C}$\\ \hline 0.44265 & 0.56809 & 0.45447 & 0.63014 & 0.37250 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Solution of the inverse propagation.} \label{InversePropagationParameters} \end{table}

2309.12330v3

\begin{table}[h!] \centering \begin{tabular}{ |c|c|c| } \hline Consumer & Control Mechanism & Producer \\ \hline 49,053 & 14,309 & 36,638 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Wealths of agent categories at timestep $t=50$ using parameters from Table \ref{InversePropagationParameters}.} \label{PricingExampleWealths} \end{table}

2010.01040v1

\begin{table}[ht] \caption{Possible implementations of the compatibility function. \texttt{act} is any element wise activation function, such as \texttt{tanh} or \texttt{sigmoid}.} \centering \begin{tabular}{|l|l|c|r|} \hline Form & Parameters & Expression & Reference \\ \hline \hline Multiplicative & None & $\mathbf{q}^\intercal\mathbf{k}/\sqrt{d}$ & \citep{vaswani2017attention} \\\hline Additive & $\mathbf{w} \in \mathbb{R}^H$ & $\texttt{act}(\mathbf{q} + \mathbf{k})^\intercal \mathbf{w}$ & \citep{DBLP:journals/corr/BahdanauCB14} \\\hline \end{tabular} \label{compats} \end{table}

2010.01040v1

\begin{table} \centering \caption{ABC results on the three tasks outlined in this section. The scores displayed are the means over the 20 testing alphabets. The per-alphabet split can be found in Appendix~\ref{sec:appendix_omniglot_details}.} \label{tab:ABC_results} \begin{tabular}{|l|c|} \hline Task & NMI \\ \hline \hline Variable unknown number of clusters & 0.874\\ Variable known number of clusters & 0.893\\ Fixed number of clusters ($k=20$) & 0.884\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

1910.10482v1

\begin{table}[ht] %\centering \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{ %\begin{minipage}{21.5cm} \begin{minipage}{15cm} \centering \begin{tabular}{|l|l|} \hline CCD camera:&SBIG ST-7XME\\ \hline Telescope:&Celestron 14" f/11\\ \hline Reducer:&0.63xReducer\\ \hline Pixel Binning:&1x1\\ \hline Image scale:&0.75 arsec/pixel\\ \hline Focal length:&2463mm\\ \hline Focal ratio:&76.93\\ \hline field of view of CCD camera:&9.6' x 6.4'(arcmin, width x height)\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{minipage}} \caption{\textbf{Technical details of MKBU Telescope system with focal reducer}} \end{table}

1910.10482v1

\begin{table}[ht] %\centering \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{ %\begin{minipage}{21.5cm} \begin{minipage}{21 cm} \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Star type}& \textbf{AUID}& \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{J2000.0}}& \multicolumn{5}{c|}{\textbf{Magnitudes}}\\ &&($RA$)&($DEC$)&($B$)&($V$)&($B-V$)&($Rc$)&($Ic$)\\ \hline Object Star&000-BCS-770&21:13:01.24&18:56:29.20&-&11.31-?&-&-&-\\ \hline Check Star&000-BCS-776&21:13:11.29&18:57:12.1&11.665(0.155)\^*&11.386(0.026)\^@&0.279(0.157)&-&10.833(0.143)\^\$\\ \hline Comparison Star-1&000-BCS-777&21:13:13.29&18:58:03.7&-&11.875(0.137)\^\$&-&-&11.144(0.217)\^\$\\ \hline Comparison Star-2&000-BCS-764&21:12:37.32&19:02:54.9&12.478(0.257)\^*&11.044(0.023)\^@&1.434(0.258)&-&9.667(0.126)\^\$\\ \hline \end{tabular} \begin{flushleft} Here, * = Tycho-2 , \$ = TASS , @ = ASAS3 \end{flushleft} \end{minipage}} \caption{\textbf{Object, check and comparison star table:(NSV 13601)}} \end{table}

1910.10482v1

\begin{table}[ht] %\centering \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{ \begin{minipage}{14cm} \centering \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|} \hline \textbf{Star Name}&\textbf{MKBU Data(V)}&\textbf{MKBU Data(Ic)}\\ %\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{MKBU Data}}& % \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{MKBU Data}}\\ ($NSV 13601$)&($d$)&($d$)\\ \hline VStar&77.784&77.632\\ \hline Period04&77.058&49.560\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{minipage}} \caption{\textbf{Time-series analysis results of NSV 13601}} \end{table}

1907.04666v1

\begin{table} \begin{subtable}{.5\textwidth} \centering \begin{tabular}{| c | c | c |} \hline \backslashbox{MeL}{RL} & \textbf{CRL} & \textbf{MSE}\\ \hline \textbf{Cosine} & \textbf{0.714}* $\pm$ 0.048&0.666 $\pm$ 0.066 \\ \hline \textbf{Euclidean} & 0.609 $\pm$ 0.042& 0.635 $\pm$ 0.064\\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Completeness} \end{subtable}% \begin{subtable}{.5\textwidth} \centering \begin{tabular}{| c | c | c |} \hline \backslashbox{MeL}{RL} & \textbf{CRL} & \textbf{MSE}\\ \hline \textbf{Cosine} & 0.618 $\pm$ 0.105 &\textbf{0.667} $\pm$ 0.144\\ \hline \textbf{Euclidean} & 0.402 $\pm$ 0.05&0.408 $\pm$ 0.042\\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Silhouette} \end{subtable}% \begin{subtable}{.5\textwidth} \centering \begin{tabular}{| c | c | c |} \hline \backslashbox{MeL}{RL} & \textbf{CRL} & \textbf{MSE}\\ \hline \textbf{Cosine} & \textbf{0.449}* $\pm$ 0.032&0.397 $\pm$ 0.040 \\ \hline \textbf{Euclidean} & 0.419 $\pm$ 0.033& 0.434 $\pm$ 0.047 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{NMI} \end{subtable}% \begin{subtable}{.5\textwidth} \centering \begin{tabular}{| c | c | c |} \hline \backslashbox{MeL}{RL} & \textbf{CRL} & \textbf{MSE}\\ \hline \textbf{Cosine} & \textbf{0.253}* $\pm$ 0.03&0.205 $\pm$ 0.033\\ \hline \textbf{Euclidean} & 0.255 $\pm$ 0.027&0.264 $\pm$ 0.038\\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{AMI} \end{subtable}% \caption{Evaluations of CRL and MSE on LTMM dataset.} \label{exp_crl} \end{table}

1907.04666v1

\begin{table} \centering \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{ \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Metric} & \textbf{Model} & \textbf{Joint} & \textbf{Completeness} & \textbf{Silhouette} & \textbf{NMI} & \textbf{AMI} \\ \hline DTW \cite{salvador2007toward} & x & x & 0.804 & -0.93 & 0.528 & 0.32 \\ \hline Euclidean & SLSTM& x& 0.616 $\pm$ 0.032 & 0.427 $\pm$ 0.053& 0.414 $\pm$ 0.022 & 0.246 $\pm$ 0.019\\ \hline Cosine& SLSTM& x& 0.617 $\pm$ 0.06 & 0.572 $\pm$ 0.143& 0.372 $\pm$ 0.052 & 0.192 $\pm$ 0.046\\ \hline Euclidean & SS2S & no &0.674 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.528 $\pm$ 0.07& 0.458 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.28 $\pm$ 0.027\\ \hline Euclidean& SS2S & yes & 0.635 $\pm$ 0.064 & 0.408 $\pm$ 0.042 & 0.434 $\pm$ 0.047 &0.264 $\pm$ 0.038 \\ \hline Cosine& SS2S & no &0.71 $\pm$ 0.05& \textbf{0.756*} $\pm$ 0.089& 0.467 $\pm$ 0.028& 0.275 $\pm$ 0.024\\ \hline Cosine& SS2S & yes & 0.714 $\pm$ 0.048 & 0.618 $\pm$ 0.105 & 0.449 $\pm$ 0.032 & 0.253 $\pm$ 0.03 \\ \hline KISSME & SS2S & no & \textbf{0.983*} $\pm$ 0.016& 0.439 $\pm$ 0.077& \textbf{0.619*} $\pm$ 0.035& \textbf{0.363*} $\pm$ 0.046\\ \hline KISSME & SS2S & yes & 0.667 $\pm$ 0.021& 0.316 $\pm$ 0.039& 0.446 $\pm$ 0.012& 0.266 $\pm$ 0.012 \\ \hline \end{tabular}} \caption{Evaluations on LTMM dataset of the SS2S architecture (x means non applicable).} \label{v1} \end{table}

1907.04666v1

\begin{table} \centering \begin{subtable}[b]{.5\textwidth} \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Metric} & \textbf{REV} \\ \hline Euclidean & 0.707 $\pm$ 0.112\\ \hline KISSME & 0.736 $\pm$ 0.099\\ \hline Disjoint & \textbf{0.55}* $\pm$ 0.083\\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{MSE} \end{subtable}% \begin{subtable}[b]{.5\textwidth} \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Metric} & \textbf{REV} \\ \hline Cosine & 0.339 $\pm$ 0.036\\ \hline Disjoint & \textbf{0.298}* $\pm$ 0.03\\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{CRL} \end{subtable} \caption{Average reconstruction errors on the validation set of LTMM.} \label{vre} \end{table}

1701.07274v6

\begin{table}[h] \centering \begin{tabular}{cc|c|c|c|c|c|c|l} \cline{3-8} & & \multicolumn{6}{ c| }{algorithm} \\ \cline{3-8} & & \shortstack{TD($\lambda$)\\ SARSA($\lambda$)} & \shortstack{ADP} & \shortstack{LSTD($\lambda$)\\ LSPE($\lambda$)} & Fitted-Q & \shortstack{Residual\\ Gradient} & \shortstack{GTD($\lambda$)\\ GQ($\lambda$)}\\ \cline{1-8} \multicolumn{1}{ |c }{ } & \multicolumn{1}{ |c| }{\shortstack{linear\\ computation}} & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & & & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$& \\ \cline{2-8} \multicolumn{1}{ |c }{\multirow{4}{*}{\begin{turn}{-270}issue\end{turn}}} & \multicolumn{1}{ |c| }{\shortstack{nonlinear\\ convergent}} & & & & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$& $\checkmark$& \\ \cline{2-8} \multicolumn{1}{ |c }{} & \multicolumn{1}{ |c| }{\shortstack{off-policy\\ convergent}} & & & $\checkmark$& & $\checkmark$& $\checkmark$& \\ \cline{2-8} \multicolumn{1}{ |c }{} & \multicolumn{1}{ |c| }{\shortstack{model-free,\\ online}} & $\checkmark$ & & $\checkmark$ & &$\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$& \\ \cline{2-8} \multicolumn{1}{ |c }{} & \multicolumn{1}{ |c| }{\shortstack{converges to\\ PBE = 0}} & $\checkmark$& $\checkmark$& $\checkmark$& $\checkmark$& & $\checkmark$& \\ \cline{1-8} \end{tabular} \caption{RL Issues vs. Algorithms} \label{table-rl} \end{table}

2307.00501v2

\begin{table}[!htb] \centering \caption{Hyperparameters tested and selected}\label{tab:hyperA} \adjustbox{scale=0.665}{ \begin{tabular}{c|ccccc} \midrule\midrule Learning & \multirow{2}{*}{Hyperparameter} & \multirow{2}{*}{Tested} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Selected} \\ \cline{4-6} \\[-2.5ex] technique & & & Histogram & Digram & Sequence \\ \midrule % \multirow{3}{*}{SVM} & $C$ & 1, 10, 100, 1000 & 100 & 1 & 1\\ %\midrule & $\gamma$ & 0.001, 0.0001 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.0001 \\ %\midrule & kernel & linear, poly, rbf, sigmoid & rbf & rbf & rbf\\ \midrule %\midrule % \multirow{3}{*}{$k$-NN} & Number of neighbors & (1,2,\ldots,200) & 83 & 98 & 74\\ & Distance metric & Euclidean, manhattan, minkowski & Euclidean & Euclidean & manhattan\\ & Weights & uniform, distance & uniform & uniform & uniform\\ \midrule % \multirow{3}{*}{RF} & Number of estimators & (1,2,\ldots,200) & 192 & 197 & 177\\ & Max depth & 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 8 & 8 & 8\\ & Criterion & gini, entropy & gini & gini & gini\\ \midrule % \multirow{5}{*}{MLP} & Activation function & tanh, relu & relu & relu & tanh\\ & $\alpha$ & 0.0001, 0.05 & 0.0001 & 0.0001 & 0.0001 \\ % regularization term %%%%% What does (500,) mean? % only 1 hidden layer with 500 hidden units & Hidden layer size & (100,200,15), (150,100,50), (500,) & (500,) & (500,) & (500,)\\ & Max iterations & 200, 500, 1000 & 200 & 200 & 200\\ & Solver & sgd, adam & adam & adam & adam\\ \midrule % \multirow{2}{*}{ELM} & Activation function & relu, sigmoid, tanh & relu & tanh & tanh\\ & Hidden neurons & (1,2,\ldots,1000) & 133 & 9696 & 995\\ \midrule % \multirow{3}{*}{LSTM} & Number of hidden layers & 1, 2, 3 & 3 & 2 & 2\\ & Activation function & relu, tanh, softmax & softmax & softmax & softmax\\ & Dropout rate & 0.1, 0.3, 0.9 & 0.3 & 0.3 & 0.3\\ \midrule % \multirow{3}{*}{CNN} & Number of layers & 3, 4, 5 & 5 & 5 & 5\\ & Activation function & sigmoid, softmax & sigmoid & sigmoid & sigmoid\\ & Dropout rate & 0.1, 0.3, 0.5 & 0.3 & 0.3 & 0.3\\ \midrule\midrule \end{tabular} } \end{table}

2109.03188v3

\begin{table} \centering \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|} \hline Evaluation & Gradient Descent & Augmented \\ \hline Circle Train Loss & $ \mathbf{0.5834 \pm 2 * 10^{-6}} $ & $ 0.5834 \pm 5 * 10^{-6}$ \\ \hline Circle Validation Loss & $ 0.5761 \pm 0.0001$ & $ \mathbf{0.57048 \pm 0.0017} $ \\ \hline Moons Train Loss & $ 0.354218 \pm 0.000379 $ & $ \mathbf{0.3538 \pm 3 * 10^{-5} }$ \\ \hline Moons Validation Loss & $ 0.36714 \pm 0.0042747 $ & $ \mathbf{0.3586 \pm 0.00143}$ \\ \hline Blobs Train Loss & $ \mathbf{ 1.5677 \pm 0.03122} $ & $ 1.578 \pm 0.01315 $ \\ \hline Blobs Validation Loss & $ \mathbf{1.56367 \pm 0.02969} $ & $ 1.5798 \pm 0.0155 $ \\ \hline Regression Train Loss& $ \mathbf{0.0254 \pm 0.00502} $ & $ 0.0719 \pm 0.0182 $ \\ \hline Regression Validation & $ \mathbf{0.0291 \pm 0.00513} $ & $0.0747 \pm 0.0131 $ \\ Loss & & \\ \hline 5 Qubit QAOA Cost & $ -1.50 \pm 8 * 10^{-7} $ & $ \mathbf{ -1.50 \pm 9 * 10^{-7}} $ \\ \hline 10 Qubit QAOA Cost & $\mathbf{ -2.9998 \pm 0.000205} $ & $ -2.9997 \pm 0.000262 $ \\ \hline 20 Qubit QAOA Cost & $\mathbf{ -7.8989 \pm 0.0877} $ & $ -7.667 \pm 0.461 $ \\ \hline 5 Qubit VQE Cost & $ -2.51396 \pm 0.1517 $ & $ \mathbf{-2.5595 \pm 0.1471} $ \\ \hline 10 Qubit VQE Cost & $ \mathbf{-1.2362 \pm 0.0109} $ & $ -1.2345 \pm 0.0195 $ \\ \hline 20 Qubit VQE Cost & $ -0.05 \pm 0.000838 $ & $\mathbf{ -0.05 \pm 0.000827} $ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Noiseless} \label{tab:exp1} \end{table}

2109.03188v3

\begin{table} \centering \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|} \hline Evaluation & Gradient Descent & Augmented \\ \hline Circle Train Loss & $\mathbf{0.5674 \pm 0.00032}$ & $0.5676 \pm 0.0003$ \\ \hline Circle Validation Loss & $0.6087 \pm 0.001076$ & $\mathbf{0.605 \pm 0.0005565}$ \\ \hline Moons Train Loss & $0.344 \pm 0.0002$ & $\mathbf{0.3439 \pm 0.00042}$ \\ \hline Moons Validation Loss & $0.3844 \pm 0.000683$ & $\mathbf{0.3835 \pm 0.0008}$ \\ \hline 5 Qubit QAOA Cost & $-1.561 \pm 0.0061$ & $\mathbf{-1.5627 \pm 0.0034}$ \\ \hline 10 Qubit QAOA Cost & $\mathbf{-4.8 \pm 0.2382}$ & $-4.687 \pm 0.2756$ \\ \hline 5 Qubit VQE Cost & $\mathbf{-3.575 \pm 0.198}$ & $-3.5626 \pm 0.076$ \\ \hline 10 Qubit VQE Cost & $-1.0922 \pm 0.0813$ & $\mathbf{-1.1215 \pm 0.0599}$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Only shot noise}\label{tab:exp2} \end{table}

2109.03188v3

\begin{table} \centering \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|} \hline Evaluation & Gradient Descent & Augmented \\ \hline Circle Train Loss & $0.6739 \pm 0.000303$ & $\mathbf{0.6724 \pm 0.00012}$ \\ \hline Circle Validation Loss & $0.656 \pm 0.000278$ & $\mathbf{0.6547 \pm 0.00106}$ \\ \hline Moons Train Loss & $0.644 \pm 0.005$ & $\mathbf{0.6347 \pm 0.00307}$ \\ \hline Moons Validation Loss & $0.6406 \pm 0.0058$ & $\mathbf{0.631 \pm 0.0043}$ \\ \hline 5 Qubit QAOA Cost & $-1.52 \pm 0.00998$ & $\mathbf{-1.5773 \pm 0.01062}$ \\ \hline 10 Qubit QAOA Cost & $-4.805 \pm 0.683$ & $\mathbf{-5.2257 \pm 0.0889}$ \\ \hline 5 Qubit VQE Cost & $ -0.1634 \pm 0.0297 $ & $\mathbf{-0.1716 \pm 0.0242} $ \\ \hline 10 Qubit VQE Cost & $-1.0683 \pm 0.06495$ & $\mathbf{-1.10984 \pm 0.0272}$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Shot and depolarizing noise}\label{tab:exp3} \end{table}

2109.03188v3

\begin{table}[H] \centering \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|} \hline Evaluation & SAC MLP & SAC CNN \\ \hline Circle Train Loss & $ 0.588 \pm 0.00115 $ & $ 0.5993 \pm 0.0056 $ \\ \hline Circle Validation Loss & $ 0.5657 \pm 0.00148 $ & $ 0.576 \pm 0.01$ \\ \hline Moons Train Loss & $ 0.4148 \pm 0.0201 $ & $ 0.4266 \pm 0.02148 $ \\ \hline Moons Validation Loss & $ 0.39574 \pm 0.01771 $ & $ 0.4098 \pm 0.03125 $ \\ \hline Blobs Train Loss & $ 1.854 \pm 0.00951 $ & $ 1.856 \pm 0.007386 $ \\ \hline Blobs Validation Loss & $ 1.852 \pm 0.00759 $ & $ 1.859 \pm 0.00538 $ \\ \hline Regression Train Loss & $ 0.1349 \pm 0.01003 $ & $ 0.1428 \pm 0.00777 $ \\ \hline Regression Validation & $ 0.1526 \pm 0.00251 $ & $ 0.1572 \pm 0.00395$\\ Loss & & \\ \hline 5 Qubit QAOA Cost & $ -1.312 \pm 0.09788 $ & $ -1.3387 \pm 0.0979$ \\ \hline 10 Qubit QAOA Cost & $ -2.4763 \pm 0.3418 $ & $ -2.237 \pm 0.319 $ \\ \hline 20 Qubit QAOA Cost & $ -5.3057 \pm 0.194 $ & $ -4.8765 \pm 0.0498$ \\ \hline 5 Qubit VQE Cost & $ -1.604 \pm 0.00368 $ & $ -0.6838 \pm 0.0863 $ \\ \hline 10 Qubit VQE Cost & $ -0.1667 \pm 0.031 $ & $ -0.1598 \pm 0.00192$ \\ \hline 20 Qubit VQE Cost & $ -0.00457 \pm 0.0004 $ & $ -0.00479 \pm 0.0007 $ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Noiseless} \label{tab:exp1_app} \end{table}

2109.03188v3

\begin{table}[h] \centering \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|} \hline Evaluation & SAC MLP & SAC CNN \\ \hline Circle Train Loss & $0.5743 \pm 0.00063$ & $0.5876 \pm 0.0103$ \\ \hline Circle Validation Loss & $0.6094 \pm 0.0023$ & $0.6138 \pm 0.00868$ \\ \hline Moons Train Loss & $0.4401 \pm 0.0159$ & $0.4172 \pm 0.0229$ \\ \hline Moons Validation Loss & $0.4563 \pm 0.008$ & $0.4493 \pm 0.0219$ \\ \hline 5 Qubit QAOA Cost & $-1.293 \pm 0.0451$ & $-1.2663 \pm 0.0404$ \\ \hline 10 Qubit QAOA Cost & $-2.84 \pm 0.4335$ & $-2.634 \pm 0.3651$ \\ \hline 5 Qubit VQE Cost & $-0.9572 \pm 0.2028$ & $-0.8533 \pm 0.078$ \\ \hline 10 Qubit VQE Cost & $-0.209 \pm 0.00234$ & $-0.226 \pm 0.0293$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Only shot noise}\label{tab:exp2_app} \end{table}

2109.03188v3

\begin{table}[h] \centering \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|} \hline Evaluation & SAC MLP & SAC CNN \\ \hline Circle Train Loss & $0.676 \pm 0.000288$ & $0.681 \pm 0.00131$ \\ \hline Circle Validation Loss & $0.6571 \pm 0.00022$ & $0.6679 \pm 0.0019$ \\ \hline Moons Train Loss & $0.6599 \pm 0.00176$ & $0.6657 \pm 0.00204$ \\ \hline Moons Validation Loss & $0.6564 \pm 0.000924$ & $0.6645 \pm 0.00253$ \\ \hline 5 Qubit QAOA Cost & $-1.364 \pm 0.0936$ & $-1.368 \pm 0.095$ \\ \hline 10 Qubit QAOA Cost & $-3.1087 \pm 0.4198$ & $-2.7073 \pm 0.811$ \\ \hline 5 Qubit VQE Cost & $ -0.1751 \pm 0.0226 $ & $-0.1889 \pm 0.0267$ \\ \hline 10 Qubit VQE Cost & $-0.829 \pm 0.00707$ & $-0.7524 \pm 0.02768$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Shot and depolarizing noise}\label{tab:exp3_app} \end{table}

2103.07268v1

\begin{table}[htbp!] \centering \caption{Model architecture} \label{tab:dl_arch} \begin{tabular}{c|c} \hline \textbf{Layer type} & \textbf{Layer information} \\ \hline \hline Fully Connected + ReLU & 100 \\ Fully Connected + ReLU & 100 \\ Fully Connected + ReLU & 100 \\ Fully Connected + TanH & 1 \\ \hline \end{tabular} %%%%%%%%%%%% \end{table}

2103.07268v1

\begin{table}[htbp!] \centering \caption{Milimater-wave beam prediction model parameters} \label{tab:dl_arch_params} \begin{tabular}{c|c} \hline \textbf{Parameter} & \textbf{Value} \\ \hline \hline Optimizer & Adam \\ Learning rate & 0.01 \\ Batch Size & 100 \\ Dropout Ratio & 0.25 \\ Epochs & 10 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2103.07268v1

\begin{table}[htbp!] \centering \caption{Adversarial settings of our experiments perturbation budget $\epsilon$} \label{tab:adversarial_settings} \begin{tabular}{c|c|c} \hline \textbf{Attack} & \textbf{Parameters} & \textbf{$l_p$ norm}\\ \hline \hline FGSM & $\epsilon \in [0.01, \cdots 0.1]$ & $l_\infty$\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2206.13190v1

\begin{table}[!t] \centering \caption{Test accuracy (mean$\pm$std).} \label{tab:result_accuracy} %\vspace{-3mm} \scalebox{0.89}{ \begin{tabular}{lccccc|c}\Hline & FEMNIST & Shakespeare & Sent140 & MNIST & CIFAR-10 & Average rank \\\hline FedAvg & 75.79±1.65 & 44.94±1.96 & 58.83±11.88 & 98.90±0.10 & 86.05±0.48 & 9.2 \\ FedAvg+FT & 77.25±3.99 & 42.53±2.19 & 74.66±6.20 & \textbf{99.23±0.09} & 89.59±0.94 & 3.6 \\ FedProx & 76.08±2.12 & 48.59±3.59 & 58.83±11.88 & 98.87±0.06 & 86.01±0.38 & 8.6 \\ FedProx+FT & 76.96±3.42 & 45.17±2.83 & 74.66±6.20 & 99.20±0.10 & 89.76±0.62 & 3.6 \\\hdashline HypCluster & 75.99±2.94 & 41.82±3.33 & \textbf{77.08±4.69 }& 98.90±0.09 & 85.21±1.22 & 7.4 \\ HypCluster+FT & 76.29±3.15 & 41.10±3.29 & 73.16±9.41 & 99.15±0.12 & 88.54±1.42 & 7.2 \\ FML & 67.91±2.53 & 28.73±1.78 & 72.49±8.87 & 98.26±0.16 & 79.89±1.44 & 12.0 \\ FedMe & 77.64±2.39 & 46.98±2.30 & 73.99±8.29 & 98.92±0.14 & 88.15±0.52 & 5.8 \\ FedMe+FT & \textbf{78.06±3.00} & 45.83±2.48 & 74.41±8.16 & 99.17±0.07 & \textbf{90.96±0.84} & \textbf{2.8} \\ LG-FedAvg & 65.14±3.12 & 23.17±1.93 & 73.41±10.07 & 97.80±0.16 & 78.53±1.57 & 13.0 \\ FedPer & 65.96±2.81 & 30.83±3.32 & 74.16±7.59 & 99.11±0.08 & 90.00±0.83 & 8.0 \\ FedRep & 66.04±2.20 & 31.71±2.29 & 73.91±8.33 & 99.06±0.07 & 88.96±0.48 & 8.8 \\ Ditto & 75.68±3.63 & \textbf{49.33±1.85} & 74.28±8.10 & 99.22±0.06 & 90.41±0.67 & 3.8 \\ pFedMe & 72.92±3.54 & 40.33±2.27 & 71.20±10.25 & 98.96±0.05 & 79.46±2.08 & 10.6 \\\hdashline Local Data Only & 64.71±2.94 & 24.77±1.95 & 74.33±7.86 & 97.60±0.28 & 73.17±1.55 & - \\ Centralized & 76.08±1.65 & 47.64±2.63 & 58.83±11.88 & 98.89±0.05 & 85.96±0.54 & - \\ Centralized+FT & 79.35±2.29 & 48.43±3.32 & 67.91±7.41 & 99.27±0.08 & 90.80±0.92 & - \\ \Hline \end{tabular} } \end{table}

1902.02904v1

\begin{table}[!t] \footnotesize \caption{Statistics for Features and Response Variable.} \setlength{\tabcolsep}{7pt} \centering \resizebox{1\textwidth}{!}{% <------ Don't forget this % \begin{tabular}{ l | l | l l l l l l } \hline \textbf{Variable} & \textbf{Description} & \textbf{Category} & \textbf{\%} & \textbf{Min} & \textbf{Max} & \textbf{Mean} & \textbf{SD} \\[0.5ex] \hline \textit{Response Variable} &&&&&&& \\[0.5ex] Switching Choice & & MOD Transit & 35.28 & & & & \\ & & Not MOD Transit & 64.72 & & & & \\ & &&&&&& \\ \textit{Features} &&&&&&& \\[0.5ex] TT\_Drive & Travel time of driving (min) & & & 2.00 & 40.00 & 15.21 & 6.62 \\ TT\_Walk & Travel time of walking (min) & & & 3.00 & 120.00 & 32.30 & 23.08 \\ TT\_Bike & Travel time of biking (min) & & & 1.00 & 55.00 & 15.34 & 10.45 \\ TT\_MOD & Travel time of using MOD transit (min) & & & 6.20 & 34.00 & 18.68 & 4.75 \\ Wait\_Time & Wait time for MOD (min) & & & 3.00 & 8.00 & 5.00 & 2.07 \\ Transfer & Number of transfers in MOD & & & 0.00 & 2.00 & 0.33 & 0.65 \\ Rideshare & Number of additional pickups in MOD & & & 0.00 & 2.00 & 1.11 & 0.82 \\ Income& Income level & & & 1.00 & 6.00 & 1.93 & 1.34 \\ Bike\_Walkability& Importance of bike- and walk-ability & & & 1.00 & 4.00 & 3.22 & 0.95 \\ MOD\_Access& ease of access to MOD & & & 1.00 & 4.00 & 3.09 & 1.02 \\ CarPerCap & Car per capita & & & 0.00 & 3.00 & 0.53 & 0.48 \\ Female & Female or Male & Female & 56.32 & & & & \\ & & Male & 43.68 & & & & \\ Student & Students or faculty/staff & Student & 73.52 & & & & \\ && Faculty or staff & 26.48 & & & & \\ Current\_Mode\_Car & Current travel mode is Car or not & Car & 16.68 & & & & \\ && Not Car & 83.32 & & & & \\ Current\_Mode\_Walk & Current travel mode is Walk or not & Walk & 40.41 & & & & \\ && Not Walk & 59.59 & & & & \\ Current\_Mode\_Bike & Current travel mode is Bike or not & Bike & 8.25 & & & & \\ && Not Bike & 91.75 & & & & \\ [1ex] \hline \end{tabular} } \label{tab:var} \end{table}

1902.02904v1

\begin{table}[!t] \centering \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c} \hline \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{Mode/Outcome}} & \textbf{Accuracy} & \textbf{L1-Norm} \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Overall} & 0.893 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.02695} \\ \cline{1-3} \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Switching} & 0.808 & \\ \cline{1-3} \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Non-switching} & 0.939 & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Car} & Overall & 0.869 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.00213} \\ \cline{2-3} & Switching & 0.836 & \\ \cline{2-3} & Non-switching & 0.890 & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Walk} & Overall & 0.904 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.04375} \\ \cline{2-3} & Switching & 0.620 & \\ \cline{2-3} & Non-switching & 0.981 & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Bike} & Overall & 0.946 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.00433} \\ \cline{2-3} & Switching & 0.714 & \\ \cline{2-3} & Non-switching & 0.979 & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Bus} & Overall & 0.882 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.02525} \\ \cline{2-3} & Switching & 0.890 & \\ \cline{2-3} & Non-switching & 0.873 & \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Predicted Accuracy for all Intances and for Instances Segmented by Current Mode Choice in the \textit{Testing} Set.} \label{tab:accuracy} \end{table}

1905.10345v1

\begin{table} \centering \footnotesize \caption{Grammar $<T, N, P, S>$ for machine learning pipelines for a classification task.} \label{tab:grammar} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|} \hline $\textbf{T}$[Terminals] & $SkImputer$, $MissingIndicator$, $OneHotEncoder$, $OrdinalEncoder$, \\ & $PCA$ $\ldots$, $GaussianNB$, $RidgeClassifier$, $SGDClassifier$, $LinearSVC$ \\ \hline $\textbf{N}$[Non-Terminals] & $DataCleaning$ ${<}DC{>}$, $DataTransformation$ ${<}DT{>}$, \\ & $Estimators$ ${<}E{>}$ \\ \hline $\textbf{S}$[Start] & $S$ \\ \hline $\textbf{P}$[Production Rules] & ${<}S{>}$\hspace{.4cm}::= ${<}E{>}$ $|$ ${<}DC{>}$ ${<}E{>}$ $|$ ${<}DT{>}$ ${<}E{>}$ $|$ ${<}DC{>}$ ${<}DT{>}$ ${<}E{>}$ \\ & ${<}DC{>}$\hspace{.1cm}::= $SkImputer$ ${<}DC{>}$ $|\ldots|$ $MissingIndicator$ ${<}DC{>}$ $|$ \\ & \hspace{1.7cm}$SkImputer$ $|\ldots|$ $MissingIndicator$ \\ & ${<}DT{>}$\hspace{.1cm}::= $OneHotEncoder$ ${<}DT{>}$ $OrdinalEncoder$ ${<}DT{>}$ $|\ldots|$ \\ & \hspace{1.7cm}$PCA$ ${<}DT{>}$ $|$\\ & \hspace{1.7cm}$OneHotEncoder$ $OrdinalEncoder$ $|\ldots|$ $PCA$\\ & ${<}E{>}$\hspace{.4cm}::= $GaussianNB$ $|$ $RidgeClassifier$ $|$ $SGDClassifier$ $|\ldots|$ \\ & \hspace{1.7cm} $LinearSVC$\\ \hline \end{tabular} \vspace{-15pt} \end{table}

1407.0375v1

\begin{table}[t] \begin{center} \small \begin{tabular}{rl|rrr|rrr} \multicolumn{2}{c}{{\ER}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{} \\ %\multicolumn{2}{c|}{graph} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{average degree} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{} \\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{parameters} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textsf{densest subgraph}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textsf{optimal \QC}} \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{$n$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$p$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$|S|$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$P$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$R$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$|S|$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$P$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$R$} \\ \hline 3\,000 & 0.5 & 3\,000 & 0.01 & 1.00 & 3\,000 & 0.01 & 1.00 \\ 3\,000 & 0.1 & 3\,000 & 0.01 & 1.00 & 30 & 1.00 & 1.00 \\ 3\,000 & 0.008 & 30 & 1.00 & 1.00 & 30 & 1.00 & 1.00 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \caption{\label{tab:densesterdos} Subgraphs returned by Goldberg's max-flow algorithm and by our two algorithms (\Galgo, \LSalgo) on {\ER} graphs with 3\,000 vertices and three values of $p$, and with a planted clique of 30 vertices.} \end{table}

1407.0375v1

\begin{table}[t] %\label{tab:realavg} \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline $k$ & Relative Gain & $\rho_{\text{Fennel}}-\rho_{\text{c}}$ \\ \hline 2 & 25.37\% & 0.47\% \\ \hline 4 & 25.07\% & 0.36\%\\ \hline 8 & 26.21\% & 0.18\% \\\hline 16 & 22.07\% & -0.43\% \\\hline 32 & 16.59\% & -0.34\% \\\hline 64 & 14.33\% & -0.67\% \\\hline 128 & 13.18\% & -0.17\% \\\hline 256 & 13.76\% & -0.20\% \\\hline 512 & 12.88\% &-0.17\% \\\hline 1024 & 11.24\% &-0.44\% \\\hline \end{tabular} \caption{\label{tab:realavg} The relative gain $( 1-\frac{\lambda_{\text{Fennel}}}{ \lambda_{\text{c}} }) \times 100\%$ and load imbalance, where subindex $c$ stands for the best competitor, averaged over all datasets in Table~\ref{tab:datasets} as a function of $k$. } \end{table}

1407.0375v1

\begin{table} \centering \caption{\label{tab:proofcounts} Summary of proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:Trimmerlem3}.} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline ~ & $w'(i_1, i_4)+w'(i_2,i_3)$ & $w'(i_1,i_3) + w'(i_2, i_4)$ \\ \hline $(S_1,S_1)$ & 1 & 1 \\ \hline $(S_2,S_2)$ & 2 & 2 \\ \hline $(S_3,S_3)$ & 1 & 1 \\ \hline $(S_1,S_2)$ & 1 & 1 \\ \hline $(S_1,S_3)$ & 1 & 0 \\ \hline $(S_2,S_3)$ & 1 & 1 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

1407.0375v1

\begin{table} \caption{\label{tab:descriptiondataset}Datasets, papers and the URLs where the datasets can be downloaded. \textcolor{red}{$\odot$} and \textcolor{cyan}{$\blacksquare$} denote which datasets are synthetic and real respectively. } \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline ~ & Dataset & Availability \\\hline \textcolor{red}{$\odot$} & Lai et al. & \cite{1181383} \\ ~ & & \url{http://compbio.med.harvard.edu/} \\ \hline \textcolor{red}{$\odot$} & Willenbrock et al. & \cite{citeulike:387317} \\ ~ & & \url{http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/~hanni/aCGH/} \\ \hline \textcolor{cyan}{$\blacksquare$}& Coriell Cell lines & \cite{coriell} \\ ~ & & \url{http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v29/n3/} \\ \hline \textcolor{cyan}{$\blacksquare$} & Berkeley Breast Cancer & \cite{berkeley} \\ & & \url{http://icbp.lbl.gov/breastcancer/} \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

1407.0375v1

\begin{table} \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline Description & Availability \\ \hline SNAP & \url{http://snap.stanford.edu/} \\ \hline UF Sparse Matrix Collection & \url{http://www.cise.ufl.edu/research/sparse} \\\hline Max Planck & \url{http://socialnetworks.mpi-sws.org/} \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{\label{tab:sparsifierresources} Dataset sources.} \end{table}

1407.0375v1

\begin{table}[ht] %\begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|l|} \hline Name (Abbr.) & Nodes & Edges & Triangle Count \\ \hline \textcolor{red}{$\odot$} AS-Skitter (AS) & 1,696,415 & 11,095,298 & 28,769,868 \\ \hline \textcolor{cyan}{$\star$}Flickr (FL) & 1,861,232 & 15,555,040 & 548,658,705 \\ \hline \textcolor{cyan}{$\star$}Livejournal-links (LJ) & 5,284,457 & 48,709,772 & 310,876,909 \\ \hline \textcolor{cyan}{$\star$}Orkut-links (OR) & 3,072,626 & 116,586,585 & 621,963,073 \\ \hline \textcolor{cyan}{$\star$}Soc-LiveJournal (SL) & 4,847,571 & 42,851,237 & 285,730,264 \\ \hline \textcolor{cyan}{$\star$}Youtube (YOU) & 1,157,822 & 2,990,442& 4,945,382 \\ \hline \textcolor{green}{$\diamond$}Web-EDU (WE) & 9,845,725 & 46,236,104 & 254,718,147 \\ \hline \textcolor{green}{$\diamond$}Web-Google (WG) & 875,713 & 3,852,985& 11,385,529 \\ \hline \textcolor{green}{$\diamond$}Wikipedia 2005/11 (W0511) & 1,634,989 & 18,540,589 & 44,667,095 \\\hline \textcolor{green}{$\diamond$}Wikipedia 2006/9 (W0609) & 2,983,494 & 35,048,115 &84,018,183 \\ \hline \textcolor{green}{$\diamond$}Wikipedia 2006/11 (W0611)& 3,148,440 & 37,043,456 &88,823,817 \\ \hline \textcolor{green}{$\diamond$}Wikipedia 2007/2 (W0702) & 3,566,907 & 42,375,911 & 102,434,918 \\\hline \end{tabular} %\end{center} \caption{\label{tab:sparsifierdatasets}Datasets used in our experiments. Abbreviations are included. Symbol \textcolor{red}{$\odot$} stands for Autonomous Systems graphs, \textcolor{cyan}{$\star$} for online social networks and \textcolor{green}{$\diamond$} for Web graphs. Notice that the networks with the highest triangle counts are online social networks (Flickr, Livejournal, Orkut), verifying the folklore that online social networks are abundant in triangles.} \end{table}

1407.0375v1

\begin{table}[ht] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline p & $\{T_1 , T_2 \}$ & $ \sqrt{ \frac{\text{Var}[T]}{\Mean{T}^2} \frac{1}{s}\ln{\frac{1}{\delta}}} $ & err(\%) \\ \hline 0.01 & $\{ 42,398,007 ~\& ~50,920,488\}$ & 0.1960 & 4.46 \\ \hline 0.02 & $\{ 42,540,941 ~\& ~43,773,753 \}$ & 0.0307 & 3.38 \\ \hline 0.04 & $\{ 44,573,294 ~\& ~43,398,549 \}$ & 0.0287 & 1.52 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \caption{Doubling procedure for the Wikipedia 2005 graph with 44,667,095 triangles.} \label{tab:doublingexample} \end{table}

1407.0375v1

\begin{table}[ht] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|l|} \hline Name & Nodes & Edges & Triangle Count & Description\\ \hline AS-Skitter & 1,696,415 & 11,095,298 & 28,769,868& Autonomous Systems \\ \hline Flickr & 1,861,232 & 15,555,040 & 548,658,705 & Person to Person \\ \hline Livejournal-links & 5,284,457 & 48,709,772 & 310,876,909 & Person to Person \\ \hline Orkut-links & 3,072,626 & 116,586,585 & 621,963,073 & Person to Person \\ \hline Soc-LiveJournal & 4,847,571 & 42,851,237 & 285,730,264 & Person to Person \\ \hline Web-EDU& 9,845,725 & 46,236,104 & 254,718,147 & Web Graph (page to page) \\ \hline Web-Google & 875,713 & 3,852,985& 11,385,529 & Web Graph \\ \hline Wikipedia 2005/11 & 1,634,989 & 18,540,589 & 44,667,095 & Web Graph (page to page) \\\hline Wikipedia 2006/9 & 2,983,494 & 35,048,115 &84,018,183& Web Graph (page to page) \\ \hline Wikipedia 2006/11 & 3,148,440 & 37,043,456 &88,823,817 & Web Graph (page to page) \\ \hline Wikipedia 2007/2 & 3,566,907 & 42,375,911 & 102,434,918 & Web Graph (page to page) \\\hline Youtube & 1,157,822 & 2,990,442& 4,945,382 & Person to Person \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \caption{\label{tab:degreedatasets}Datasets used in our experiments.} \end{table}