Datasets:

staghado

/

ArXiv-tables

like 2

1407.0375v1

\begin{table}[ht] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|p{2.5cm}|c|c|c|c|c|c|c}\hline & \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{No Sparsification} \\ \hline Graph & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Exact} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Simple} &\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Hybrid} \\ \hline & err(\%) & time & err(\%) & time & err(\%) & time \\ \hline AS-Skitter & 0.000 & 4.452 & 1.308 & 0.746 & 0.128 & 1.204 \\ \hline Flickr & 0.000 & 41.981 & 0.166 & 1.049 & 0.128 & 2.016 \\ \hline Livejournal-links & 0.000 & 50.828 & 0.309 & 2.998 & 0.116 & 9.375 \\ \hline Orkut-links & 0.000 & 202.012 & 0.564 & 6.208 & 0.286 & 21.328 \\ \hline Soc-LiveJournal & 0.000 & 38.271 & 0.285 & 2.619 & 0.108 & 7.451 \\ \hline Web-EDU & 0.000 & 8.502 & 0.157 & 2.631 & 0.047 & 3.300 \\ \hline Web-Google & 0.000 & 1.599 & 0.286 & 0.379 & 0.045 & 0.740 \\ \hline Wiki-2005 & 0.000 & 32.472 & 0.976 & 1.197 & 0.318 & 3.613 \\ \hline Wiki-2006/9 & 0.000 & 86.623 & 0.886 & 2.250 & 0.361 & 7.483 \\ \hline Wiki-2006/11 & 0.000 & 96.114 & 1.915 & 2.362 & 0.530 & 7.972 \\ \hline Wiki-2007 & 0.000 & 122.395 & 0.943 & 2.728 & 0.178 & 9.268 \\ \hline Youtube & 0.000 & 1.347 & 1.114 & 0.333 & 0.127 & 0.500 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \caption{\label{tab:degreeresults1}Results of experiments averaged over 5 Trials using only triple sampling.} \end{table}

1407.0375v1

\begin{table}[ht] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|p{2.5cm}|c|c|c|c|c|c|c}\hline & \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{Sparsified ($p = 0.1$)} \\ \hline Graph & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Exact} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Simple} &\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Hybrid} \\ \hline & err(\%) & time & err(\%) & time & err(\%) & time \\ \hline AS-Skitter & 2.188 & 0.641 & 3.208 & 0.651 & 1.388 & 0.877 \\ \hline Flickr & 0.530 & 1.389 & 0.746 & 0.860 & 0.818 & 1.033 \\ \hline Livejournal-links & 0.242 & 3.900 & 0.628 & 2.518 & 1.011 & 3.475 \\ \hline Orkut-links & 0.172 & 9.881 & 1.980 & 5.322 & 0.761 & 7.227 \\ \hline Soc-LiveJournal & 0.681 & 3.493 & 0.830 & 2.222 & 0.462 & 2.962 \\ \hline Web-EDU & 0.571 & 2.864 & 0.771 & 2.354 & 0.383 & 2.732 \\ \hline Web-Google & 1.112 & 0.251 & 1.262 & 0.371 & 0.264 & 0.265 \\ \hline Wiki-2005 & 1.249 & 1.529 & 7.498 & 1.025 & 0.695 & 1.313 \\ \hline Wiki-2006/9 & 0.402 & 3.431 & 6.209 & 1.843 & 2.091 & 2.598 \\ \hline Wiki-2006/11 & 0.634 & 3.578 & 4.050 & 1.947 & 0.950 & 2.778 \\ \hline Wiki-2007 & 0.819 & 4.407 & 3.099 & 2.224 & 1.448 & 3.196 \\ \hline Youtube & 1.358 & 0.210 & 5.511 & 0.302 & 1.836 & 0.268 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \caption{Results of experiments averaged over 5 trials using sparsification and triple sampling.} \label{tab:degreeresults2} \end{table}

1407.0375v1

\begin{table}[ht] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline Name & Vertices($n$) & Edges($m$) & Triangle Count($t$) & $\Delta$ & $t_{\max}$& $\sum_{e \in E(G)} \delta_e^2$ & 3$\Delta t$ \\ \hline AS & 7,716 & 12,572 & 6,584 & 344 & 2,047 & 595,632 & 6,794,688 \\ \hline Oregon & 11,492 & 23,409 & 19,894 & 537 & 3,638 & 2,347,560 & 32,049,234 \\ \hline Enron & 36,692 & 183,831 & 727,044 & 420 & 17,744 & 75,237,684 & 916,075,440 \\ \hline ca-HepPh & 12,008 & 118,489 & 3,358,499 & 450 & 39,633 & 1.8839 $\times 10^9$ & 4.534$\times 10^9$ \\ \hline AstroPh & 18,772 & 198,050 & 1,351,441 & 350 & 11,269 & 148,765,753 & 1.419$\times 10^9$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \caption{Values for the variables involved in our formulae for five real-world graphs. Typically, $\Delta$ and $t_{\max}$ are significantly less than the obvious upper bounds $n-2$ and ${n-1 \choose 2}$ respectively. Furthermore, $3\Delta t$ is significantly larger than $\sum_{e \in E(G)} \delta_e^2$. } \label{tab:colorfuldatasets} \end{table}

1407.0375v1

\begin{table}%[ht] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Name} & \textbf{Vertices} & \textbf{Edges} & \textbf{Description} \\ \hline \hline YahooWeb & 1,413 M & 6,636 M & WWW pages in 2002\\ \hline LinkedIn & 7.5 M & 58 M & person-person in 2006\\ & 4.4 M & 27 M & person-person in 2005\\ & 1.6 M & 6.8 M & person-person in 2004\\ & 85 K & 230 K & person-person in 2003\\ \hline Wikipedia & 3.5 M & 42 M & doc-doc in 2007/02 \\ & 3 M & 35 M & doc-doc in 2006/09 \\ & 1.6 M & 18.5 M & doc-doc in 2005/11 \\ \hline Kronecker & 177 K & 1,977 M & synthetic \\ & 120 K & 1,145 M & synthetic \\ & 59 K & 282 M & synthetic \\ & 19 K & 40 M & synthetic\\ \hline % & 6.6 K & 5 M & synthetic\\ WWW-Barabasi & 325 K & 1,497 K & WWW pages in nd.edu\\ \hline DBLP & 471 K & 112 K & document-document \\ \hline flickr & 404 K & 2.1 M & person-person \\ \hline Epinions & 75 K & 508 K & who trusts whom \\ \hline % YahooWeb & 1,413,511,390 & 6,636,600,779 & WWW pages crawled at 2002\\ % LinkedIn & 7,550,955 & 58,323,792 & person-person in 2006\\ % & 4,419,433 & 27,576,870 & person-person in 2005\\ % & 1,637,128 & 6,836,430 & person-person in 2004\\ % & 85,092 & 230,028 & person-person in 2003\\ % Wikipedia & 3,566,907 & 42,375,912 & document-document in 2007/02 \\ % & 2,983,494 & 35,048,116 & document-document in 2006/09 \\ % & 1,634,989 & 18,540,603 & document-document in 2005/11 \\ % Kronecker & 177,147 & 1,977,149,596 & synthetic\\ % & 120,552 & 1,145,744,786 & synthetic\\ % & 59,049 & 282,416,200 & synthetic\\ % & 19,683 & 40,333,924 & synthetic\\ % & 6,561 & 5,758,240 & synthetic\\ % DBLP & 471,514 & 112,378 & document-document \\ % flickr & 404,733 & 2,110,078 & person-person \\ % Epinions & 75,888 & 508,960 & who trusts whom \\ \end{tabular} \end{center} \caption{Order and size of networks. } \label{tab:datasets} \end{table}

1407.0375v1

\begin{table}[h] \begin{center} {\small \begin{tabular}{|r||r|r|r|l| } \hline \textbf{Graph} & \textbf{Nodes} & \textbf{Edges} & \textbf{File} & \textbf{Description} \\ \hline \hline YahooWeb & 1.4 B & 6.6 B & 116G & page-page \\ \hline LinkedIn & 7.5 M & 58 M & 1G & person-person\\ \hline Patents & 6 M & 16 M & 264M & patent-patent\\ \hline Kronecker & 177 K & 1,977 M & 25G & synthetic\\ & 120 K & 1,145M & 13.9G & \\ & 59 K & 282 M & 3.3G &\\ \hline Erd{\H o}s-R\'enyi & 177 K & 1,977 M & 25G & random $G_{n,p}$\\ & 120 K & 1,145 M & 13.9G &\\ & 59 K & 282 M & 3.3G &\\ \hline \end{tabular} } % small \end{center} \caption{Datasets (B: Billion, M: Million, K: Thousand, G: Gigabytes)} \label{tab:datasummary} \end{table}

2312.02632v1

\begin{table}[b] \centering \begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|} \hline \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{\textbf{Feature Matching Results}} \\ \hline \textbf{Metric}& \textbf{OSM} &\textbf{GeoDanmark} \\ \hline Count of matched segments & \num{351476} & \num{564661} \\ Length of matched segments (km) & \num{3490} & \num{5564} \\ Percent matched segments & \num{23}{\%} & \num{64}{\%} \\ Local min. of \% matched segments & \num{0}{\%} & \num{1}{\%} \\ Local max. of \% matched segments & \num{100}{\%} & \num{100}{\%} \\ Local average of \% matched segments & \num{53}{\%} & \num{83}{\%} \\ \hline \end{tabular} \smallskip \caption{\textbf{Feature matching summary}. Selected results from matching of corresponding segments in OSM and GeoDanmark data.} \label{table:fm_table} \end{table}

1508.04928v1

\begin{table}[htb] \small \begin{center} \caption{Requirement \changeHKK{assessment} of each method.} \begin{tabular}[width=\columnwidth]{l|c|c}\hline \shortstack{}&\multicolumn{2}{|c}{Requirements} \\ \hline \shortstack{Method}&\shortstack{\changeHKK{State duration}}&\shortstack{\changeHKK{State interval}} \\ \hline \hline HMM \cite{Eddy1996}&& \\ \hline IO-HMM \cite{Bengio1995}&& \\ \hline HSMM \cite{Yu2010}\cite{Murphy2002}&\checkmark& \\ \hline % FO-HMM \cite{Salzenstein2007}&& \\ \hline HMM-selftrans \cite{Xue2006} &\checkmark& \\ \hline EDM \cite{Yu2003}&\checkmark& \\ \hline DI-HMM \changeHK{(Proposal)}&\checkmark&\checkmark \\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:Satisfaction} \end{center} \end{table}

1508.04928v1

\begin{table}[htb] \normalsize \begin{center} \caption{\changeHKK{Generated Music Data.}} \begin{tabular}[width=\columnwidth]{c|c|c}\hline Index & Instrument & Minimum Length of Note\\ \hline \hline Data 1 & Grand Piano & 3/4 length of crotchet\\ \hline Data 2 & Grand Piano & 1/2 length of crotchet\\ \hline Data 3 & Puncy Grand Piano & 1/4 length of crotchet\\ \hline Data 4 & Electric Piano & 1/4 length of crotchet\\ \hline Data 5 & Drum & 1/4 length of crotchet\\ \hline Data 6 & Organ & 1/2 length of crotchet\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \end{table}

2106.13397v2

\begin{table}[h] \centering \begin{tabularx}{0.75\columnwidth}{|X|m{0.03\textwidth}|m{0.03\textwidth}|} \hline Features & HX & PM \\ \hline % \rowcolor{aliceblue}\multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Mapper graph computation and visualization} \\ \hline Mapper graph layout adjustment & \cellcolor{babypink}{N} & \cellcolor{babyblue}{Y} \\ \hline Interactive parameter adjustment & \cellcolor{babyblue}{Y} & \cellcolor{babyblue}{Y} \\ \hline On-the-fly mapper graph computation & \cellcolor{babyblue}{Y} & \cellcolor{babyblue}{Y} \\ \hline % \rowcolor{aliceblue}\multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Interactive visualization} \\ \hline Node selection & \cellcolor{babyblue}{Y} & \cellcolor{babyblue}{Y} \\ \hline Path selection & \cellcolor{babyblue}{Y} & \cellcolor{babyblue}{Y} \\ \hline Subgraph (connected component/cluster) selection & \cellcolor{babypink}{N} & \cellcolor{babyblue}{Y} \\ \hline Structural feature extraction (flares and special paths) & \cellcolor{babyblue}{Y} & \cellcolor{babypink}{N} \\ \hline Easily extensible GUI & \cellcolor{babypink}{N} & \cellcolor{babyblue}{Y} \\ \hline % \rowcolor{aliceblue}\multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Data analysis and ML modules} \\ \hline Semi-automatic hypothesis formulation & \cellcolor{babyblue}{Y} & \cellcolor{babyblue}{Y} \\ \hline Easily extensible analysis and ML modules & \cellcolor{babypink}{N} & \cellcolor{babyblue}{Y} \\ \hline Regression & \cellcolor{babypink}{N} & \cellcolor{babyblue}{Y} \\ \hline Feature selection & \cellcolor{babypink}{N} & \cellcolor{babyblue}{Y} \\ \hline Dimensionality reduction & \cellcolor{babypink}{N} & \cellcolor{babyblue}{Y} \\ \hline % \rowcolor{aliceblue}\multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Controls and other features} \\ \hline Import and export selected subpopulations & \cellcolor{babypink}{N} & \cellcolor{babyblue}{Y} \\ \hline Open source implementation & \cellcolor{babyblue}{Y} & \cellcolor{babyblue}{Y} \\ \hline \end{tabularx} \vspace{1mm} \caption{Comparing features of \textsf{Hippo-X} (HX) against {\tool}. Blue means ``yes'' (Y), pink means ``no'' (N).} \label{table:compare} \vspace{-6mm} \end{table}

1907.02335v1

\begin{table}[htbp]\centering \caption{Current and expected data rates of TAIGA setups, TB/year}\label{tab_taiga} \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|} \hline Setup & Current data rate & Expected data rate\\ \hline TAIGA-HiSCORE & 6.4 &18\\ TAIGA-IACT & 0.5 &1.5\\ Tunka-Grande, Tunka-133 and Tunka-Rex & 0.5 &0.5\\ \hline Total &7.4 &20\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2311.01875v1

\begin{table}[h] \caption{Prediction errors (mean squared errors) for continuous scalar response.} \label{tab1} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{ll | rrrrrr} \hline $q$ & type & SNN & FNN & FLM1 & FLM2 & FNLM & FAM \\ \hline 5 & linear & 1.39E-02 & 1.91E-02 & 4.70E-01 & 1.90E-02 & 9.47E-03 & \textbf{9.45E-03} \\ 9 & linear & \textbf{1.61E-02} & 1.97E-02 & 4.53E-01 & 2.00E-02 & 2.66E-02 & 2.62E-02 \\ 21 & linear & \textbf{2.69E-02} & 2.84E-02 & 4.53E-01 & 2.92E-02 & 6.74E-02 & 6.63E-02 \\ 5 & sin & 1.42E-02 & 1.89E-02 & 4.52E-01 & 1.91E-02 & 9.62E-03 & \textbf{9.60E-03} \\ 9 & sin & \textbf{1.57E-02} & 1.94E-02 & 4.37E-01 & 1.96E-02 & 2.33E-02 & 2.28E-02 \\ 21 & sin & \textbf{2.18E-02} & 2.43E-02 & 4.40E-01 & 2.47E-02 & 6.73E-02 & 6.55E-02 \\\hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \end{table}

2311.01875v1

\begin{table}[h] \caption{Prediction errors (mean squared errors) for binary scalar response.} \label{tab2} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{ll | rrr} \hline $q$ & type & SNN & FNN & FLM \\ \hline 5 & linear & 0.069 & 0.075 & \textbf{0.011} \\ 9 & linear & \textbf{0.083} & 0.135 & 0.148 \\ 21 & linear & \textbf{0.105} & 0.361 & 0.207 \\ 5 & sin & 0.072 & 0.067 & \textbf{0.013} \\ 9 & sin & \textbf{0.082} & 0.140 & 0.151 \\ 21 & sin & \textbf{0.170} & 0.405 & 0.230 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \end{table}

1808.10009v1

\begin{table}[H] \begin{tabular}{|L{4cm}|C{1.5cm}|C{1.2cm}|} \hline Feature Ablated & Success rate & Average Dialog Length \\ \hline \hline None & \textbf{0.44} & \textbf{12.95} \\ \hline Number of system turns used - normalized & 0.41 & \textbf{3.8} \\ \hline Density of object in label query & 0.4 & \textbf{12.89} \\\hline Fraction of previous dialogs using predicate in query that have succeeded & 0.39 & \textbf{5.46} \\ \hline Score (normalized) of top region & 0.39 & \textbf{6.3} \\ \hline Fraction of k nearest neighbors of the object in label query, which are unlabeled & 0.39 & \textbf{10.41} \\ \hline Indicator for guess action & 0.38 & \textbf{7.21} \\ \hline Minimum value of $C(p)$ for $p \in P_A$ & 0.37 & \textbf{6.37} \\ \hline Decision of $p_{sec}$ for object with highest score & 0.37 & \textbf{11.21} \\ \hline Difference between decision of $p_{best}$ for object with highest score, and the average of its decisions for objects in the active test set & 0.36 & \textbf{2.78} \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

1808.10009v1

\begin{table}[H] \begin{tabular}{|L{3.5cm}|C{1.5cm}|C{1.5cm}|} \hline Feature Ablated & Success rate & Average Dialog Length \\ \hline \hline Indicator of whether the question is on-topic & 0.36 & \textbf{5.25} \\ \hline Is decision of $p_{best}$ same for objects with top two scores & 0.36 & \textbf{5.32} \\ \hline Indicate of whether the predicate in the query has a classifier & 0.36 & \textbf{13.97} \\ \hline Frequency of use of the predicate in query - normalized & 0.35 & \textbf{4.48} \\ \hline Indicator for the action of asking a positive example & 0.35 & \textbf{5.36} \\ \hline Second highest value of $C(p)$ for $p \in P_A$ & 0.35 & \textbf{5.9} \\ \hline Current estimated F1 for classifier of the predicate in query & 0.35 & \textbf{6.53} \\ \hline Decision of $p_{best}$ for object with highest score & 0.34 & \textbf{3.85} \\ \hline Indicator for the action of asking a label & 0.34 & \textbf{7.05} \\ \hline Average value of $C(p)$ for $p \in P_A$ & 0.34 & \textbf{7.63} \\ \hline Margin of object in label query & 0.34 & \textbf{8.08} \\ \hline Maximum value of $C(p)$ for $p \in P_A$ & 0.33 & \textbf{6.31} \\ \hline Difference between decision of $p_{sec}$ for object with highest score, and the average of its decisions for objects in the active test set & 0.33 & \textbf{8.84} \\ \hline Difference between top two scores in the active test set & 0.32 & \textbf{8.05} \\ \hline Is decision of $p_{best}$ same for objects with top two scores & 0.32 & \textbf{10.01} \\ \hline Difference between top score and average score in the active test set & 0.31 & \textbf{7.18} \\ \hline Baseline & 0.29 & 16 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Results of individual feature ablation. Boldface indicates that the difference in that metric with respect to \textit{Static} is statistically significant according to an unpaired Welch t-test with $p < 0.05$.} \label{tab:individual_ablation} \end{table}

2107.09519v1

\begin{table} \centering \caption{Mean of AUC for the 5 experiments performed with each stationary machine and with the 'baseline', 'NMF' and 'nnCP' procedures.}\label{F-sta2} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline Machine & SNR & {\color{blue}Baseline} &{\color{c3}NMF} &{\color{c5}nnCP} \\ \hline \hline \multirow{2}{.2\columnwidth}{\centering Pump-00} & 0 dB & 0.62 & 0.67 & \textbf{0.86} \\ \cline{2-5} & -6 dB & 0.59 & 0.69 & \textbf{0.74 }\\ \hline \multirow{2}{.2\columnwidth}{\centering Pump-02} & 0 dB & 0.49 & 0.72 & \textbf{0.88} \\ \cline{2-5} & -6 dB & 0.53 & 0.65 & \textbf{0.73 }\\ \hline \multirow{2}{.2\columnwidth}{\centering Pump-04} & 0 dB & 0.94 & 0.97 & \textbf{0.98} \\ \cline{2-5} & -6 dB & 0.91 & \textbf{0.93 } & \textbf{0.93 }\\ \hline \multirow{2}{.2\columnwidth}{\centering Pump-06} & 0 dB & 0.81 & 0.83 & \textbf{0.87} \\ \cline{2-5} & -6 dB & \textbf{0.65} & 0.50 & 0.63 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{.2\columnwidth}{\centering Fan-00} & 0 dB & 0.63 & 0.57 & \textbf{0.70} \\ \cline{2-5} & -6 dB &0.56 & 0.51 &\textbf{ 0.61 }\\ \hline \multirow{2}{.2\columnwidth}{\centering Fan-02} & 0 dB &0.87 & 0.87 & \textbf{0.96} \\ \cline{2-5} & -6 dB &0.69 & 0.64 &\textbf{ 0.77 }\\ \hline \multirow{2}{.2\columnwidth}{\centering Fan-04} & 0 dB &0.77 & 0.72 & \textbf{0.90} \\ \cline{2-5} & -6 dB &0.59 & 0.50 &\textbf{ 0.68 }\\ \hline \multirow{2}{.2\columnwidth}{\centering Fan-06} & 0 dB & 0.99 & \textbf{1.00} & \textbf{1.00} \\ \cline{2-5} & -6 dB &0.88 & 0.90 &\textbf{ 0.97 }\\ \hline \hline \multirow{2}{.2\columnwidth}{\centering \textbf{Average}} & 0 dB & 0.77 & 0.80 & \textbf{0.90} \\ \cline{2-5} & -6 dB &0.67 & 0.66 &\textbf{ 0.76 }\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2107.09519v1

\begin{table} \centering \caption{Mean of AUC for the 5 experiments performed with each non-stationary machine and with the 'baseline', 'NMF' and 'nnCP' procedures.}\label{F-nons2} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline Machine & {\color{blue}Baseline} &{\color{c3}NMF} &{\color{c5}nnCP} \\ \hline \hline Valve-00 & 0.62 &\textbf{ 0.69} & 0.47 \\ \hline Valve-02 & 0.59 & 0.59 & \textbf{0.62} \\ \hline Valve-04 & \textbf{0.65} & 0.61 & 0.48 \\ \hline Valve-06 & 0.67 & \textbf{0.76} & 0.56 \\ \hline Slider-00 & 0.98 &\textbf{ 1.00} & 0.93 \\ \hline Slider-02 & 0.83 & 0.86 & \textbf{0.90} \\ \hline Slider-04 & 0.81 & \textbf{ 0.82} & 0.70 \\ \hline Slider-06 & 0.55 & \textbf{0.62 }& 0.45 \\ \hline \hline Average & 0.71 &\textbf{ 0.74 }& 0.64 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

1607.03456v1

\begin{table}[ht] \centering \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|} \hline Step & Operations & Storage (not including storage of $A$) \\ \hline \ref{alg2:init} & $O(mn)$ & $O(n)$ \\ \hline \ref{alg2:max_arg}& $O(ns-s^2)$ & $O(1)$ \\ \hline \ref{alg2:under_diag}& $O(s^2)$ & $O(s^2)$ \\ \hline \ref{alg2:above_diag1}& $O(m(ns-s^2))$ & $O(m)$\\ \hline \ref{alg2:above_diag2}& $O(s(ns-s^2))$ & $O(ns-s^2)$\\ \hline \ref{alg2:above_diag3}& $O(ns-s^2)$ & $O(1)$\\ \hline Total: & $O(mns) $ & $ O(ns) $\\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Computational and storage complexities of Algorithm~\ref{alg: q-less}.} \end{table}

1607.03456v1

\begin{table}[H] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{ |c|l|c|c| } \hline $\mu$ & & ICPQR-based DM & $\mu$IDM~\cite{Salhov:uIDM2014} \\ \hline & Dictionary size $s$ & $1,246$ & $2,305$ \\ $0.1$ & Execution time & $43$ sec. & $7$ hours \\ & Actual distortion & $0.01$ & $0.03$ \\ \hline & Dictionary size $s$ & $752$ & $1,293$ \\ $1$ & Execution time & $27$ sec. & $71$ minutes \\ & Actual distortion & $0.23$ & $0.61$ \\ \hline & Dictionary size $s$ & $382$ & $630$ \\ $5$ & Execution time & $17$ sec. & $15$ minutes \\ & Actual distortion & $3.91$ & $4.46$ \\ \hline & Dictionary size $s$ & $190$ & $284$ \\ $10$ & Execution time & $9$ sec. & $4$ minutes \\ & Actual distortion & $12.81$ & $13.24$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Comparison between ICPQR-based DM and $\mu$IDM algorithms related to dictionary size, execution time and actual distortion\protect\footnotemark, w.r.t. $\timel{\map\Psi}{1}$, for various distortion parameters. Clearly, the actual distortion is bounded by $2\mu$. Execution times are averaged over $10$ runs of the algorithms.} \label{tbl:compare_icpqr_idm} \end{center} \end{table}

1607.03456v1

\begin{table}[ht] \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline Set & Size & \# of anomalies & Accuracy [\%] & False Alarms [\%] \\ \hline $\set T_{mon}$ & $1,321$ & $1$ & $100$ & $0.68$\\ \hline $\set T_{tue}$ & $1,140$ & $53$ &$100$ & $0.53$\\ \hline $\set T_{wed}$ & $1,321$ & $16$ &$100$ & $0.08$\\ \hline $\set T_{thu}$ & $1,320$ & $24$ &$96$ & $1.74$\\ \hline $\set T_{fri}$ & $1,320$ & $18$ &$100$ & $0.15$\\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Anomaly detection performances.} \end{table}

2311.10962v1

\begin{table}[htbp] % \centering \caption{Classification accuracy percentage with different train sizes} \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{ {\begin{tabular} {crccccc|ccccc} \hline \hline & & & & PCA & & & & & LDA & & \\ \hline & \multicolumn{1}{l}{Train size (\%)} & 40 & 50 & 60 & 70 & 80 & 40 & 50 & 60 & 70 & 80 \\ \hline SVM & & 79.19 & 79.83 & 79.86 & 81.95 & 82.82 & 90.42 & 90.10 & 89.99 & 89.17 & 89.41 \\[+0.1em] RF & & 83.75 & 84.35 & 83.62 & 83.00 & 83.05 & 91.13 & 89.91 & 90.22 & 90.26 & 88.94 \\[+0.1em] \hline \hline \end{tabular}} } \end{table}

2303.03659v1

\begin{table}[htbp] %\captionsetup{font=small} \centering \caption{Subject distributed programs and test inputs used} %\small %\vspace{-5pt} %\resizebox{0.98\columnwidth}{!}{% \begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|l|l|} \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{Subject}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{\#SLOC}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{\#Method}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Scenario}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Tests}} \\ \hline NIOEcho & 412 & 27 & Client-server & Integration \\ \hline MultiChat & 470 & 37 & Peer-to-peer & Integration \\ \hline ADEN & 4,385 & 260 & Peer-to-peer & Integration \\ \hline Raining Sockets & 6,711 & 319 & Client-server & Integration \\ \hline OpenChord & 9,244 & 736 & Peer-to-peer & Integration \\ \hline Thrift & 14,510 & 1,941 & Client-server & Integration \\ \hline xSocket & 15,760 & 2,209 & Peer-to-peer & Integration \\ \hline & & & Client-server & Integration \\ \cline{4-5} ZooKeeper & 62,194 & 5,383 & N-tier & Load \\ \cline{4-5} & & & N-tier & System \\ \hline \multirow{2}[4]{*}{RocketMQ} & \multirow{2}[4]{*}{105,444} & \multirow{2}[4]{*}{6,198} & N-tier & Integration \\ \cline{4-5} & & & N-tier & System \\ \hline & & & Client-server & Integration \\ \cline{4-5} Voldemort & 115,310 & 20,406 & N-tier & Load \\ \cline{4-5} & & & N-tier & System \\ \hline Netty & 167,961 & 12,389 & N-tier & Integration \\ \hline \multirow{2}[4]{*}{HSQLDB} & \multirow{2}[4]{*}{326,678} & \multirow{2}[4]{*}{10,095} & Client-server & Integration \\ \cline{4-5} & & & N-tier & System \\ \hline \end{tabular}% %} \label{tab:flowdistsubjects}% % \vspace{-10pt} \end{table}

2303.03659v1

\begin{table}[tp] %\captionsetup{font=small} \small %\vspace{-10pt} \centering \caption{Numbers of intraprocess ({\em Ir}) source/sink pairs ({\em Pr}) and information flow paths ({\em Ps}), versus interprocess ({\em Int}) ones} \vspace{-0pt} \begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline \textbf{Execution} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{\textbf{\#IrPr}} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{\textbf{\#IrPs}} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{\textbf{\#IntPr}} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{\textbf{\#IntPs}} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{\textbf{IntPs/AllPs}} \\ \hline NioEcho & 66 & 21 & 12 & 6 & 22.22\% \\ \hline \textcolor[rgb]{ .502, .502, .502}{MultiChat} & \textcolor[rgb]{ .502, .502, .502}{42} & \textcolor[rgb]{ .502, .502, .502}{0} & \textcolor[rgb]{ .502, .502, .502}{12} & \textcolor[rgb]{ .502, .502, .502}{0} & \textcolor[rgb]{ .502, .502, .502}{0.00\%} \\ \hline \textcolor[rgb]{ .502, .502, .502}{ADEN} & \textcolor[rgb]{ .502, .502, .502}{0} & \textcolor[rgb]{ .502, .502, .502}{0} & \textcolor[rgb]{ .502, .502, .502}{5} & \textcolor[rgb]{ .502, .502, .502}{0} & \textcolor[rgb]{ .502, .502, .502}{0.00\%} \\ \hline Raining Sockets & 12 & 3 & 0 & 0 & 0.00\% \\ \hline \textcolor[rgb]{ .502, .502, .502}{OpenChord} & \textcolor[rgb]{ .502, .502, .502}{14} & \textcolor[rgb]{ .502, .502, .502}{0} & \textcolor[rgb]{ .502, .502, .502}{24} & \textcolor[rgb]{ .502, .502, .502}{0} & \textcolor[rgb]{ .502, .502, .502}{0.00\%} \\ \hline Thrift & 4 & 0 & 4 & 3 & 100.00\% \\ \hline xSocket & 10 & 8 & 26 & 2 & 20.00\% \\ \hline \textcolor[rgb]{ .502, .502, .502}{Zookeeper Integration} & \textcolor[rgb]{ .502, .502, .502}{9} & \textcolor[rgb]{ .502, .502, .502}{0} & \textcolor[rgb]{ .502, .502, .502}{33} & \textcolor[rgb]{ .502, .502, .502}{0} & \textcolor[rgb]{ .502, .502, .502}{0.00\%} \\ \hline Zookeeper Load & 1086 & 1 & 6522 & 64 & 98.46\% \\ \hline Zookeeper System & 124 & 0 & 1116 & 46 & 100.00\% \\ \hline RocketMQ Integration & 19 & 23 & 46 & 17 & 42.50\% \\ \hline RocketMQ System & 24 & 0 & 187 & 50 & 100.00\% \\ \hline Voldemort Integration & 198 & 30 & 193 & 138 & 82.14\% \\ \hline \textcolor[rgb]{ .502, .502, .502}{Voldemort Load} & \textcolor[rgb]{ .502, .502, .502}{6} & \textcolor[rgb]{ .502, .502, .502}{0} & \textcolor[rgb]{ .502, .502, .502}{6} & \textcolor[rgb]{ .502, .502, .502}{0} & \textcolor[rgb]{ .502, .502, .502}{0.00\%} \\ \hline Voldemort System & 80 & 30 & 77 & 42 & 58.33\% \\ \hline Netty & 9 & 3 & 7 & 2 & 40.00\% \\ \hline HSQLDB Integration & 140 & 10 & 668 & 0 & 0.00\% \\ \hline HSQLDB System & 7 & 2 & 11 & 4 & 66.67\% \\ \hline \end{tabular}% \label{tab:localremotepaths}% % \vspace{-10pt} \end{table}

2303.03659v1

\begin{table}[htbp] \captionsetup{font=small} %\scriptsize \centering % \vspace{-40pt} \caption{Time (in seconds) and storage (in MB) costs of {\flowdist}} % \vspace{-10pt} \begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\multirow{2}[2]{*}{\textbf{Executions}}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Norm} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Phase 1 Time} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Phase 2 Time} & \multicolumn{1}{r|}{\multirow{2}[2]{*}{Stor.}} \\ \cline{3-9} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Run} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Static} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Run} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Slowdown} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Query} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Static} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Coverage} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Query} & \\ \hline NioEcho & 39 & 53 & 41 & 5.16\% & 0.2 & 50 & 1 & 1.0 & 1.6 \\ \hline MultiChat & 26 & 55 & 28 & 6.12\% & 0.2 & 50 & 1 & 0.1 & 1.0 \\ \hline ADEN & 21 & 117 & 23 & 10.23\% & 0.3 & 59 & 3 & 0.3 & 4.0 \\ \hline Raining Sockets. & 6 & 40 & 6 & 7.67\% & 0.3 & 122 & 6 & 0.4 & 14.5 \\ \hline OpenChord & 54 & 177 & 59 & 8.54\% & 0.3 & 740 & 41 & 4.7 & 26.7 \\ \hline Thrift & 8 & 146 & 10 & 24.83\% & 0.5 & 79 & 45 & 0.6 & 26.1 \\ \hline xSocket & 11 & 101 & 19 & 63.99\% & 0.5 & 70 & 14 & 0.1 & 29.3 \\ \hline Zookeeper Integration & 71 & 292 & 121 & 70.16\% & 0.5 & 193 & 108 & 1.8 & 231.2 \\ \hline Zookeeper Load & 99 & 292 & 177 & 78.83\% & 0.6 & 137 & 67 & 2.0 & 404.0 \\ \hline Zookeeper System & 98 & 292 & 178 & 81.87\% & 0.5 & 250 & 93 & 1.1 & 417.5 \\ \hline RocketMQ Integration & 105 & 56 & 196 & 87.05\% & 0.6 & 704 & 49 & 21.5 & 291.0 \\ \hline RocketMQ System & 339 & 156 & 753 & 122.09\% & 0.6 & 727 & 52 & 34.0 & 463.2 \\ \hline Voldemort Integration & 28 & 1206 & 58 & 106.06\% & 0.6 & 566 & 317 & 9.1 & 560.4 \\ \hline Voldemort Load & 11 & 1206 & 23 & 113.37\% & 0.6 & 435 & 260 & 14.4 & 523.1 \\ \hline Voldemort System & 31 & 1206 & 65 & 109.81\% & 0.6 & 618 & 344 & 22.2 & 545.1 \\ \hline Netty & 12 & 1132 & 22 & 81.65\% & 0.6 & 381 & 317 & 30.1 & 417.6 \\ \hline HSQLDB Integration & 9 & 659 & 19 & 107.46\% & 0.7 & 2227 & 96 & 41.5 & 591.1 \\ \hline HSQLDB System & 15 & 684 & 36 & 142.71\% & 0.7 & 2771 & 408 & 49.7 & 733.7 \\ \hline \textbf{Overall Average} & \textbf{55} & \textbf{437} & \textbf{102} & \textbf{68.20\%} & \textbf{0.5} & \textbf{565} & \textbf{124} & \textbf{13.0} & \textbf{293.4} \\ \hline \end{tabular}% \label{tab:fdcosts}% % \vspace{-5pt} \end{table}

2303.03659v1

\begin{table}[htbp] %\captionsetup{font=small} \centering %\vspace{-5pt} \caption{New vulnerabilities discovered by {\flowdist}} %\vspace{-5pt} %\small %\resizebox{0.85\columnwidth}{!}{% \begin{tabular}{|l||r|r|r|} \hline {\textbf{Subject}} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{\textbf{\#Fixed}} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{\textbf{\#Confirmed}} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{\textbf{\#Pending}} \\ \hline HSQLDB & 0 & 5 & 2 \\ \hline Netty & 1 & 1 & 0 \\ \hline Raining Sockets & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ \hline RocketMQ & 0 & 4 & 0 \\ \hline Thrift & 0 & 5 & 0 \\ \hline Voldemort & 0 & 0 & 4 \\ \hline xSocket & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ \hline Zookeeper & 1 & 1 & 0 \\ \hline \end{tabular}% %} \label{tab:newbugs}% %\vspace{-10pt} \end{table}

2303.03659v1

\begin{table}[tp] \centering %\vspace{-20pt} \caption{Experimental subjects} %\vspace{-15pt} % \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{% \begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|c|} \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{Subject (Version)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{\#Method}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{\#SLOC}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Test Type}} \\ \hline NioEcho (r69) & 27 & 412 & Integration \\ \hline MultiChat (r5) & 37 & 470 & Integration \\ \hline OpenChord (v1.0.5) & 736 & 9,244 & Integration \\ \hline Thrift (v0.11.0) & 1,941 & 14,510 & Integration \\ \hline xSocket (v2.8.15) & 2,209 & 15,760 & Integration \\ \hline ZooKeeper (v3.4.11) & 5,383 & 62,194 & Integration, Load, System \\ \hline Netty (v4.1.19) & 12,389 & 167,961 & Integration \\ \hline Voldemort (v1.9.6) & 20,406 & 115,310 & Integration, Load, System \\ \hline \end{tabular}% % } \label{tab:seadssubjects}% %\vspace{-10pt} \end{table}

2303.03659v1

\begin{table}[tp] \centering %\vspace{-10pt} %\caption{\small{The number of iterations and learning time (in seconds) of Q-learning in {\seads}}} \caption{The number of iterations and learning time (in seconds) of Q-learning} %\vspace{-10pt} \begin{tabular}{l||r|r} \hline \multicolumn{1}{c||}{\textbf{Execution}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{\#Iteration}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{Time}} \\ \hline NIOEcho & 1 & 36.73 \\ \hline MultiChat & 1 & 41.38 \\ \hline OpenChord & 2 & 327.19 \\ \hline Thrift & 2 & 316.70 \\ \hline xSocket & 3 & 639.37 \\ \hline ZooKeeper\_integration & 4 & 1013.73 \\ \hline ZooKeeper\_load & 4 & 1097.26 \\ \hline ZooKeeper\_system & 4 & 1053.82 \\ \hline Netty & 4 & 1132.98 \\ \hline Voldemort\_integration & 3 & 697.35 \\ \hline Voldemort\_load & 3 & 632.42 \\ \hline Voldemort\_system & 3 & 621.94 \\ \hline \textbf{Overall Average:} & \textbf{3} & \textbf{634.24} \\ \hline \end{tabular}% \label{tab:seadsitime}% %\vspace{-10pt} \end{table}

2303.03659v1

\begin{table}[htbp] \centering %\vspace{-10pt} \caption{System-level IPC measurement results} %\vspace{-10pt} %\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{% \begin{tabular}{|l||r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c||}{\textbf{Subject Executions}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{RMC}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{RCC}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{CCC}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{IPR}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{CCL}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{PLC}} \\ \hline XNIO & 16.82 & 58.96 & 2.76 & 0.51 & 74.43 & 41.10 \\ \hline OpenChord & 3.14 & 67.15 & 5.29 & 0.78 & 267.36 & 255.78 \\ \hline xSocket & 20.74 & 76.77 & 3.63 & 0.36 & 257.98 & 208.19 \\ \hline QuickServer & 2.12 & 36.21 & 2.42 & 0.40 & 113.27 & 70.85 \\ \hline Thrift & 11.59 & 25.27 & 3.17 & 0.56 & 23.40 & 41.59 \\ \hline Grizzly & 39.68 & 152.09 & 2.16 & 0.67 & 665.13 & 673.34 \\ \hline Karaf & 2.85 & 22.31 & 1.06 & 0.45 & 70.16 & 78.32 \\ \hline ZooKeeper & 6.26 & 191.83 & 3.04 & 0.42 & 506.32 & 461.36 \\ \hline ZooKeeper Load & 4.01 & 90.02 & 1.19 & 0.37 & 391.41 & 369.29 \\ \hline ZooKeeper System & 4.84 & 131.32 & 2.62 & 0.39 & 382.56 & 332.70 \\ \hline Voldemort & 40.17 & 301.54 & 5.02 & 0.54 & 528.32 & 569.79 \\ \hline Netty & 1.00 & 129.00 & 2.38 & 0.54 & 863.39 & 765.36 \\ \hline Derby & 3.31 & 29.45 & 2.22 & 0.72 & 717.70 & 734.12 \\ \hline % \textbf{Average:} & \textbf{12.04} & \textbf{100.92} & \textbf{2.84} & \textbf{0.52} & \textbf{373.96} & \textbf{353.98} \\ \end{tabular}% %} \label{tab:rmcrccipr}% %\vspace{-15pt} \end{table}

2303.03659v1

\begin{table}[tp] \centering %\vspace{-10pt} \caption{The effectiveness of unsupervised learning ($k$-means) classification for %significant correlations between IPC and dynamic predictable quality metrics} % \vspace{-10pt} %bagging model for all quality metrics} \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{% \begin{tabular}{|lr||r|r|r||r|r|r|} \hline \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{\textbf{Model}} & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{\textbf{Hold-out Validation}} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{10-fold Cross-validation}} \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{IPC Metric}} & \multicolumn{1}{c||}{\textbf{Quality Metric}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Precision}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Recall}} & \multicolumn{1}{c||}{\textbf{F1}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Precision}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Recall}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{F1}} \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{CCC} & \multicolumn{1}{l||}{Execution Time} & 100.00\% & 37.84\% & 54.90\% & 83.33\% & 41.27\% & 55.20\% \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{RMC, CCC} & \multicolumn{1}{l||}{Cyclomatic Complexity} & 73.23\% & 84.91\% & 78.64\% & 99.68\% & 66.85\% & 80.03\% \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{CCC} & \multicolumn{1}{l||}{Attack Surface} & 90.87\% & 83.22\% & 86.88\% & 98.10\% & 77.73\% & 86.73\% \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{CCL, PLC} & \multicolumn{1}{l||}{Attack Surface} & 99.73\% & 61.47\% & 76.06\% & 71.70\% & 81.01\% & 76.07\% \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{|l||}{\textbf{Average:}} & \textbf{90.96\%} & \textbf{66.86\%} & \textbf{74.12\%} & \textbf{88.20\%} & \textbf{66.71\%} & \textbf{74.51\%} \\ \hline \end{tabular}% } \label{tab:kmeanss}% %\vspace{-10pt} \end{table}

2303.03659v1

\begin{table}[htbp] \centering %\vspace{-5pt} \caption{The effectiveness of supervised learning (bagging) classification for dynamic predictable quality metrics} %\vspace{-10pt} %bagging model for all quality metrics} \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{% \begin{tabular}{|lr||r|r|r||r|r|r|} \hline \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{\textbf{Model}} & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{\textbf{Hold-out Validation}} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{10-fold Cross-validation}} \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{IPC Metric}} & \multicolumn{1}{c||}{\textbf{Quality Metric}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Precision}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Recall}} & \multicolumn{1}{c||}{\textbf{F1}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Precision}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Recall}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{F1}} \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{CCC} & \multicolumn{1}{l||}{Execution Time} & 99.80\% & 99.80\% & 99.80\% & 99.70\% & 99.70\% & 99.70\% \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{RMC, CCC} & \multicolumn{1}{l||}{Cyclomatic Complexity} & 99.10\% & 99.10\% & 99.10\% & 99.70\% & 99.70\% & 99.70\% \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{CCC} & \multicolumn{1}{l||}{Attack Surface} & 96.50\% & 96.50\% & 96.50\% & 95.20\% & 95.20\% & 95.20\% \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{CCL, PLC} & \multicolumn{1}{l||}{Attack Surface} & 97.50\% & 97.50\% & 97.50\% & 96.80\% & 96.80\% & 96.80\% \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{|l||}{\textbf{Average:}} & \textbf{98.23\%} & \textbf{98.23\%} & \textbf{98.23\%} & \textbf{97.85\%} & \textbf{97.85\%} & \textbf{97.85\%} \\ \hline \end{tabular}% } \label{tab:baggings}% %\vspace{-10pt} \end{table}

1703.06212v1

\begin{table}[t] \tabcolsep 1pt \caption{Important Notations} \vspace*{4pt} \centering \tabcolsep 0.5mm %\vspace*{-12pt} \begin{tabular}{c||l} \hline Symbol & Definition\\ \hline $G$ & the network graph\\ $x_i(0)$ & node $i$'s initial state\\ $x(0)$ & the initial state vector of all nodes\\ $f_i(\cdot)$ & the distributed iteration algorithm\\ $\Theta_i$ & the domain of random variable $\theta_i$\\ $f_{\theta_i}(\cdot)$ & the PDF of random variable $\theta_i$\\ $\mathcal{I}_{i}^{in}(k)$ & the noise input of node $i$ until iteration $k$\\ $\mathcal{I}_{i}^{out}(k)$ & the information output of node $i$ until iteration $k$\\ $\hat{x}_i^*(k)$ & the optimal distributed estimation of $x_i(0)$ until iteration $k$ \\ $\epsilon$ & the measure on estimation accuracy\\ $\delta$ & the disclosure probability\\ $\mathcal{I}_{\nu}^{out} $ & the possible output when the initial input is $\nu$\\ $\mathcal{I}_{j}^{i}(k)$ & the information available to node $j$ to estimate \\ &$x_i(0)$ until iteration $k$\\ \hline \end{tabular} \vspace*{-4pt} \label{table:definitions} \end{table}

2405.14233v1

\begin{table}%[!ht] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{c||c|c|c|} \cline{2-4} & Pizza Margherita & Meat White Pizza & Hawaiian Pizza \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c||}{flour} & 490 & 490 & 490 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c||}{yeast} & 5 & 5 & 5 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c||}{water} & 355 & 355 & 355 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c||}{salt} & 8 & 8 & 8 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c||}{oil} & 3 & 3 & 3 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c||}{tomato sauce} & 80 & 0 & 70 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c||}{alfredo sauce} & 0 & 70 & 0 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c||}{mozzarella} & 90 & 0 &0 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c||}{fontina} & 20 & 40 & 70 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c||}{parmesan} & 0 & 20 & 30 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c||}{mushrooms} & 0 & 0 & 30 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c||}{onions} & 0 & 20 & 0 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c||}{peppers} &0& 0 & 20 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c||}{olives} & 20 & 10 & 0 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c||}{basil} & 20 & 0 & 10 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c||}{pineapple} & 0& 0 & 90 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c||}{sausage} & 0 & 60 & 0 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c||}{ham} & 0& 30 & 60 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c||}{chicken} & 0 & 40 & 0 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c||}{meatballs} & 0 & 40 &0 \\ \hline %anchovies & a & b & 0 & 450 & a & b & 0 & 450 & a & b & 0 & 450 \\ %\hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \caption{Pizzas as vectors of their ingredients} \label{Table:pizzavec} \end{table}

2405.14233v1

\begin{table}[!ht] \begin{center} %\hspace{-.25cm}{\footnotesize \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|} \hline domain & $\JJJ$ & $\UUU$ & $\sf Val$ & $C_{iu}$\\ \hline \hline text analysis & documents & terms & $\NNn$ & occurrence \\ \hline concept analysis & objects & attributes & $\{0,1\}$ & property \\ \hline recommender system & items & users & $\{0,1,2,3, 4\}$ & rating \\ \hline topic search & authorities & hubs & $\NNn$ & hyperlinks \\ \hline measurement & instances & quantities & $\RRr$ & outcome \\ \hline elections & candidates & voters & $\{1,\ldots, n\}$ & preference \\ \hline market & producers & consumers & $\ZZz$ & deliveries \\ \hline digital images & positions & pixels & $[0,1]$ & intensity \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Domains of information retrieval} \label{Table:domains} \end{center} \end{table}

2405.14233v1

\begin{table}[ht] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{c||c|c|} \cline{2-3} & SVD & neural network \\ \hline\hline \multicolumn{1}{|l||}{(1): what is mined} & data matrix $M$ & continuous vector function $F$ \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l||}{(2): construction} & finitary & infinitary\\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l||}{(3): separate components} & multiplied by different $\lambda_{j}$s & mapped by the same $\sigma$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center}\caption{Differences between concept mining by SVD and by wide neural networks} \label{Table:differences} \end{table}

2405.14233v1

\begin{table}%[htdp] %\caption{We say that} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c} \hline the grammar is of & and call it & if all of its rules are in the form & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{i.e. \eqref{eq:rule} is restricted to} \\ \hline \hline Type-0 & unrestricted & $\alpha \beta \gamma ::= \alpha \delta\gamma$ & \\ \hline Type-1 & context-sensitive & $\alpha X \gamma ::= \alpha \delta\gamma$ & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\beta\in \Type$} \\ \hline Type-2 & context-free & $X ::= \delta$ & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\ldots and also $\alpha = \gamma = <>$} \\ \hline Type-3 & regular & $X ::= aX$ or $X ::= a$ & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\ldots and $\delta \in (\Term\times\Type)\cup \Term$}%\{ aX, a\}$} \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} %\label{Table:hierarchy} %\end{table}

1811.02659v2

\begin{table}[htbp] \caption{Data Splits} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline & \textbf{Number of} &\textbf{Number of} \\ \textbf{Label} & \textbf{training frames} & \textbf{validation frames} \\ \hline Septic & 8191 & 2410 \\ Non-septic & 14026 & 2613 \\ \hline %\hline \end{tabular} \label{tab1} \end{center} \end{table}

1809.07430v3

\begin{table}[!t] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{l | c | c} \toprule \HighlightCell{Program} & \HighlightCell{\#Species} & \HighlightCell{\#Reactions} \\ \midrule Discrete Counter & $25$ & $31$ \\ Factorial & $26$ & $33$ \\ Integer Division & $32$ & $39$ \\ Integer Square Root & $26$ & $32$ \\ Euler & $24$ & $20$ \\ $\pi$ & $29$ & $29$ \\ \bottomrule \end{tabular} \end{center} \caption{Size of CRNs.} \label{table:crn-size} \end{table}

1911.00776v1

\begin{table}[htbp!] \centering\small\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{ \begin{tabular}{l||c|c} \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf Model} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf Clinical} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\bf Genomic} \\ \hline\hline Baseline & 71.43 & \textbf{65.00} \\ Self-Training & 71.43 & 63.57 \\ Co-Training & \textbf{72.14} & - \\ \end{tabular}} \caption{Results on testset (last 10\% of whole dataset).} \label{tbl:semi} \end{table}

1911.00776v1

\begin{table}[htbp!] \centering \caption{\textbf{Summary of Baseline Algorithms on Clinical Data.}} \begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|} \hline \textbf{Model}&\textbf{Val}&\textbf{Test} \\ \hline K-nearest Neighbors & 59.7 & 55.8 \\ \hline Logistic Regression & 66.5 & 60.1 \\ \hline Linear SVC & 67.1 & \textbf{65.9} \\ \hline Radial SVC & 67.2 & 64.8 \\ \hline MLP Classifier & \textbf{68.3} & 65.4 \\ \hline Random Forest & 66.3 & 59.5 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

1911.00776v1

\begin{table}[htbp!] \centering \caption{\textbf{Summary of Baseline Algorithms on Genomic Data.}} \begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|} \hline \textbf{Model}&\textbf{Val}&\textbf{Test} \\ \hline K-nearest Neighbors & 50.7 & 52.1 \\ \hline Logistic Regression & 60.1 & \textbf{61.9} \\ \hline Linear SVC & 60.1 & 60.5 \\ \hline Radial SVC & 60.5 & 56.8 \\ \hline MLP Classifier & \textbf{62.6} & 57.8 \\ \hline Random Forest & N/A & 52.0 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

1911.00776v1

\begin{table}[htbp!] \centering\small\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{ \begin{tabular}{l||c|c} \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf Model} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf Clinical} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\bf Genomic} \\ \hline\hline MLP Baseline & 72.82 & \textbf{68.45} \\ Grasshopper MLP & \textbf{74.11} & \textbf{68.45} \\ \end{tabular}} \caption{Results on val set} \label{tbl:goamlpdev} \end{table}

1911.00776v1

\begin{table}[htbp!] \centering\small\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{ \begin{tabular}{l||c|c} \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf Model} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf Clinical} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\bf Genomic} \\ \hline\hline MLP Baseline & \textbf{70.70} & \textbf{62.60} \\ Grasshopper MLP & 68.03 & 56.74 \\ \end{tabular}} \caption{Results on test set} \label{tbl:goamlptest} \end{table}

1911.00776v1

\begin{table}[htbp!] \centering\small\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{ \begin{tabular}{l||c|c} \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf Model} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf Clinical} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\bf Genomic} \\ \hline\hline Sklearn GBDT & 68.62 & 60.53 \\ Xgboost & \textbf{74.74} & \textbf{73.38} \\ \end{tabular}} \caption{AUC scores on val set} \label{tbl:Xgb dev set} \end{table}

1911.00776v1

\begin{table}[htbp!] \centering\small\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{ \begin{tabular}{l||c|c} \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf Model} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf Clinical} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\bf Genomic} \\ \hline\hline Sklearn GBDT & 60.57 & 53.10 \\ Xgboost & \textbf{70.84} & \textbf{67.12} \\ \end{tabular}} \caption{AUC scores on test set} \label{tbl:Xgb test set} \end{table}

1911.00776v1

\begin{table}[htbp!] \centering\small\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{ \begin{tabular}{l||c|c} \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf Model} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf Clinical} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\bf Genomic} \\ \hline\hline Sklearn GBDT & 64.65 & 57.38 \\ Xgboost & \textbf{73.36} & \textbf{68.43} \\ \end{tabular}} \caption{5 Folds CV avg AUC scores } \label{tbl:Xgb 5 Folds CV} \end{table}

2312.06005v1

\begin{table} \renewcommand\thetable{I} \caption{\textit{Definition of Concepts}} \label{definition} \begin{tabular}{|c|L|} \hline Concepts & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Description}} \\ \hline Issue ID & This concept refers to the identification number assigned to each issue report. \\ \hline Issue state & This refers to the current state of the issue reported in an issue-tracking system that indicate whether an issue has been acknowledged, assigned to someone, resolved, or closed. \\ \hline Issue title & This is a brief summary of the issue that gives an idea of what the issue or bug is, but not so long as it becomes difficult to read. \\ \hline Issue body & This refers to the details of the problem being reported, steps to reproduce the issue, any error messages, and other relevant information. \\ \hline Labels & This refers to keywords or tags used to categorize an issue or bug report. Labels can be used to indicate the type of issue or bug, its severity, or other relevant information. \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2312.06005v1

\begin{table} \renewcommand\thetable{III} \caption{\textit{Keyword groups}} \label{grouptable} \begin{tabular}{|c|L|} \hline Group & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Description}} \\ \hline Compilation Issues & These are related to problems in compiling the code. This can occur if there are missing dependencies, syntax errors, or other issues that prevent the code from being properly compiled. \\ \hline Build Issues & These issues are similar to compilation issues, but occur during the process of building software. This can include linking, packaging, or other steps involved in creating a distributable version of the software. \\ \hline Runtime Issues & These issues occur when software encounters problems while running. This can include crashes, errors, and unexpected behavior. \\ \hline Performance Issues & These issues are related to the speed or efficiency of the software. This can include slow response times, high CPU usage, and other issues that affect the performance. \\ \hline Testing Issues & This type of issue can occur during software testing. This can include issues with test cases, test data, or the testing environment. \\ \hline Validation Issues & This type of issue is related to problems in ensuring that the software meets the desired specifications or requirements. This can include issues with the functionality, compatibility, or other aspects of the software that are important to the end user.\\ \hline Algorithm Issues & Issues that can occur when there are problems with the underlying algorithms used in software. This can include issues with the accuracy, efficiency, or other aspects of the algorithm that impact its performance. \\ \hline Functional Issues & These type of issues are related to software functionality problems. This can include issues with specific features, user interfaces, and other aspects of software that impact its functionality. \\ \hline Miscellaneous Issues & These type of issues do not fit into any of the above mentioned categories. This can include issues with documentation, user experience, discussion, questions, or other aspects of the software that are important to the users. \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2308.13176v1

\begin{table}[ht] \label{perf} \centering \caption{Performance Evaluation of CNC, JC, and AAI Metrics on Different Datasets} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|} \hline Metric & Training Set & Testing Set & Validation Set \\ \hline CNC & & & \\ AUC-ROC & 0.6469 & 0.6473 & 0.6832 \\ P@K=50 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ AUPR & 0.7728 & 0.7703 & 0.8167 \\ \hline JC & & & \\ AUC-ROC & 0.7478 & 0.8349 & 0.8323 \\ P@K=50 & 0.8 & 0.9 & 0.8 \\ AUPR & 0.7858 & 0.8472 & 0.8414 \\ \hline AAI & & & \\ AUC-ROC & 0.8571 & 0.8897 & 0.8878 \\ P@K=50 & 1 & 1 & 0.9064 \\ AUPR & 0.9099 & 0.9107 & 0.9096 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2308.13176v1

\begin{table}[ht] \centering \caption{Performance Comparison of SVM, GradientBoosting, and Random Forest Algorithms} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|} \hline Metric & SVM & GradientBoosting & Random Forest \\ \hline 0-precision & 0.81 & 0.81 & 0.79 \\ 0-recall & 0.74 & 0.76 & 0.84 \\ 0-f1\_score & 0.78 & 0.78 & 0.81 \\ 1-precision & 0.82 & 0.83 & 0.87 \\ 1-recall & 0.87 & 0.86 & 0.84 \\ 1-f1\_score & 0.84 & 0.85 & 0.85 \\ accuracy & 0.82 & 0.82 & 0.84 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2406.16131v1

\begin{table}[h] \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline & $\Pi_0$& $\Pi_1$ & $\Pi_2$ \\ \hline $\lambda$ & $0$ & $1$ & $2$ \\ \hline $H$ & $0.10$ & $0.223$ & $0.302$ \\ \hline $\nu$ & $0.40$ & $0.481$ & $0.647$ \\ \hline $\rho$ & $-0.65$ & $-0.65$ & $-0.65$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Parameter values for the different parameter sets.} \label{tab:params} \end{table}

1912.12186v2

\begin{table}[htbp] \caption{Datasets used in the anomaly detection task} \label{ad-datasets} \begin{center} \scalebox{0.75}{ \begin{tabular}{l|cccl} \hline \textbf{Data} & \textbf{N} & \textbf{D} & \textbf{Anomaly (\%)} & \textbf{Link} \\ \hline \textbf{DDoS} & 464,976 & 66 & 3.75\% & http://www.csmining.org/cdmc2018/index.php \\ \textbf{Donors} & 619,326 & 10 & 5.92\% & https://www.kaggle.com/c/kdd-cup-2014-predicting-excitement-at-donors-choose \\ \textbf{Backdoor} & 95,329 & 196 & 2.44\% & https://www.unsw.adfa.edu.au/unsw-canberra-cyber/cybersecurity \\ \textbf{Ad} & 3,279 & 1,555 & 13.99\% & https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/internet+advertisements \\ \textbf{Apascal} & 12,695 & 64 & 1.38\% & http://vision.cs.uiuc.edu/attributes/ \\ \textbf{Bank} & 41,188 & 62 & 11.26\% & https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/Bank+Marketing \\ \textbf{Celeba} & 202,599 & 39 & 2.24\% & http://mmlab.ie.cuhk.edu.hk/projects/CelebA.html \\ \textbf{Census} & 299,285 & 500 & 6.20\% & https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/Census-Income+\%28KDD\%29 \\ \textbf{Creditcard} & 284,807 & 29 & 0.17\% & https://www.kaggle.com/mlg-ulb/creditcardfraud \\ \textbf{Lung} & 145 & 3,312 & 4.13\% & https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/Lung+Cancer \\ \textbf{Probe} & 64,759 & 34 & 6.43\% & http://kdd.ics.uci.edu/databases/kddcup99/kddcup99.html \\ \textbf{R8} & 3,974 & 9,467 & 1.28\% & http://csmining.org/tl\_files/Project\_Datasets/r8\_r52/r8-train-all-terms.txt \\ \textbf{Secom} & 1,567 & 590 & 6.63\% & https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/secom \\ \textbf{U2R} & 60,821 & 34 & 0.37\% & http://kdd.ics.uci.edu/databases/kddcup99/kddcup99.html \\\hline \end{tabular} } \end{center} \end{table}

1912.12186v2

\begin{table}[h] \caption{Testing runtime (in seconds) on 14 anomaly detection datasets.} \label{tab:runtime_ad} \begin{center} % \resizebox{\textwidth}{25mm}{ \scalebox{0.80}{ \setlength{\tabcolsep}{1mm}{ \begin{tabular}{lcc|ccccc|c} \hline \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{Data Characteristics}} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{ \textbf{RDP and Its Five Competing Methods}} \\ \hline \textbf{Data} & \textbf{N} & \textbf{D} & \textbf{iForest} & \textbf{AE} & \textbf{REPEN} & \textbf{DAGMM} & \textbf{RND} & \textbf{RDP} \\ \hline \textbf{DDoS} & 464,976 & 66 & 54.06 & 86.86 & 172.47 & 197.85 & 31.86 & 28.93 \\ \textbf{Donors} & 619,326 & 10 & 28.17 & 52.31 & 226.14 & 194.45 & 44.31 & 36.84 \\ \textbf{Backdoor} & 95,329 & 196 & 26.51 & 51.66 & 36.43 & 187.61 & 12.26 & 29.95 \\ \textbf{Ad} & 3,279 & 1,555 & 6.71 & 14.71 & 3.24 & 31.54 & 8.12 & 30.83 \\ \textbf{Apascal} & 12,695 & 64 & 6.53 & 4.27 & 6.30 & 69.35 & 3.62 & 22.88 \\ \textbf{Bank} & 41,188 & 62 & 9.72 & 6.87 & 17.25 & 170.56 & 9.31 & 28.47 \\ \textbf{Celeba} & 202,599 & 39 & 20.54 & 26.70 & 71.60 & 223.70 & 18.05 & 33.91 \\ \textbf{Census} & 299,285 & 500 & 155.77 & 225.29 & 121.08 & 236.21 & 42.83 & 57.74 \\ \textbf{Creditcard} & 284,807 & 29 & 22.45 & 29.38 & 103.18 & 235.93 & 20.97 & 30.84 \\ \textbf{Lung} & 145 & 3,312 & 6.20 & 13.11 & 2.16 & 39.75 & 1.44 & 24.29 \\ \textbf{Probe} & 64,759 & 34 & 9.55 & 10.06 & 28.14 & 131.40 & 9.90 & 29.61 \\ \textbf{R8} & 3,974 & 9,467 & 59.70 & 45.48 & 7.81 & 31.99 & 8.26 & 14.33 \\ \textbf{Secom} & 1,567 & 590 & 7.32 & 5.78 & 2.83 & 18.22 & 3.23 & 22.52 \\ \textbf{U2R} & 60,821 & 34 & 8.95 & 9.38 & 26.55 & 185.88 & 9.90 & 28.10 \\ \hline \end{tabular}}} % } \end{center} \end{table}

1912.12186v2

\begin{table}[h] \caption{Testing runtime (in seconds) on five clustering datasets.} \label{tab:runtime_clu} \begin{center} % \resizebox{\textwidth}{23mm}{ \scalebox{0.80}{ \setlength{\tabcolsep}{1mm}{ \begin{tabular}{lcc|cccc|c} \hline \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{Data Characteristics}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{RDP and Its Four Competing Methods}} \\ \hline \textbf{Data} & \textbf{N} & \textbf{D} & \textbf{Org} & \textbf{HLLE} & \textbf{SRP} & \textbf{AE} & \textbf{RDP} \\ \hline \textbf{R8} & 7,674 & 17,387 & - & 9,658.85 & 1.16 & 1.08 & 0.89 \\ \textbf{20news} & 18,846 & 130,107 & - & 94,349.20 & 2.26 & 11.49 & 6.85 \\ \textbf{Olivetti} & 400 & 4,096 & - & 166.02 & 0.73 & 0.03 & 0.03 \\ \textbf{Sector} & 9,619 & 55,197 & - & 24,477.80 & 1.40 & 4.28 & 2.87 \\ \textbf{RCV1} & 20,242 & 47,236 & - & 47,584.79 & 2.80 & 8.91 & 5.04 \\ \hline \end{tabular}}} \end{center} \end{table}

1912.12186v2

\begin{table}[htbp] \caption{NMI and F-score performance of K-means clustering using RDP, Doc2Vec, and Doc2Vec+RDP based feature representations of the text datasets R8 and news20.} \label{tab:raw_clu_txt} \begin{center} % \resizebox{\textwidth}{23mm}{ \scalebox{0.80}{ \setlength{\tabcolsep}{1mm}{ \begin{tabular}{lcc|ccc} \hline \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Data Characteristics} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{NMI Performance}} \\ \hline \textbf{Data} & \textbf{N} & \textbf{D} & \textbf{Doc2Vec} & \textbf{RDP} & \textbf{Doc2Vec+RDP} \\ \hline \textbf{R8} & 7,674 & 17,387 & 0.241 $\pm$ 0.022 & \textbf{0.539 $\pm$ 0.040} & 0.250 $\pm$ 0.003 \\ \textbf{20news} & 18,846 & 130,107 & 0.080 $\pm$ 0.003 & 0.084 $\pm$ 0.005 & \textbf{0.198 $\pm$ 0.009} \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Data Characteristics} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{F-score Performance}} \\ \hline \textbf{Data} & \textbf{N} & \textbf{D} & \textbf{Doc2Vec} & \textbf{RDP} & \textbf{Doc2Vec+RDP} \\ \hline \textbf{R8} & 7,674 & 17,387 & 0.317 $\pm$ 0.014 & \textbf{0.360 $\pm$ 0.055} & 0.316 $\pm$ 0.007 \\ \textbf{20news} & 18,846 & 130,107 & 0.115 $\pm$ 0.006 & 0.119 $\pm$ 0.006 & \textbf{0.126 $\pm$ 0.009}\\ \hline \end{tabular}}} \end{center} \end{table}

2302.04386v1

\begin{table}[ht] \caption{MIMIC Variables - Based on SAPSII} \label{table_example} \centering \begin{tabular}{|c||c|} \hline Feature & Healthy normal = 0\\ \hline AIDS & Absent = 0, Present = 1\\ Heme Malignancy & Absent = 0, Present = 1\\ Metastatic Cancer & Absent = 0, Present = 1\\ Glasgow coma scale (1-15) & 15 = 0, $\leq$ 14 = 1\\ WBC Minimum ($*10^9$/L) & 4-10 = 0\\ WBC Maximum ($*10^9$/L) & 4-10 = 0\\ Na Minimum (mmol/L)& 135-145 = 0\\ Na Maximum (mmol/L)& 135-145 = 0\\ K Minimum (mmol/L)& 3.5-5 = 0\\ K Maximum (mmol/L) & 3.5-5 = 0\\ Bili Maximum (mg/dL)& $\leq$ 1.52 = 0\\ HCO$_3$ Minimum (mmol/L) & 24-30 = 0\\ HCO$_3$ Maximum (mmol/L)& 24-30 = 0\\ BUN Minimum (mg/dL)& 7-22 = 0\\ BUN Maximum (mg/dL)& 7-22 = 0\\ PO$_2$ (mmHg)& 85-105 = 0\\ FiO$_2$ (\%) & 21 = 0, $\leq$ 21 = 1\\ Mean heart rate (bpm) & 60-100 = 0\\ Mean systolic blood pressure (mmHg) & 95-145 = 0\\ Maximum temperature ($^{\circ}$C) & 36.5-37.5 = 0\\ Urine Output (mL/24h)& 800-2000 = 0\\ Sex (M/F) & M=1, F=0\\ Age (yrs) & $\leq$ 65 = 0, $>$ 65 = 1\\ Admission type & Emergency = 1, else = 0 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2302.04386v1

\begin{table}[!h] \caption{Summary of CAT Information} \centering \begin{tabular}{ |p{2cm}||p{3cm}|p{2cm}| } \hline Component & Parameters & Returns\\ \hline Initializer & 25th percentile item & CDI$_0$ \\ \hline Selector & Item bank, administered items, CDI$_t$, & Index of next item\\ \hline Estimator & item bank, CDI$_t$, administered items, response vector & CDI$_{t+1}$\\ \hline Stopper & administered items, SE$_M$ & True or False\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2007.03606v1

\begin{table}% \tbl{Some key terms in data science.\label{tab:keyterms}}{% \begin{tabular}{|l|l|} \hline Key terms & Description \\ \hline Advanced analytics & Refers to theories, technologies, tools and processes that enable an in-depth\\ & understanding and discovery of actionable insights in big data, which \\ & cannot be achieved by traditional data analysis and processing theories, \\ & technologies, tools and processes. \\ \hline Big data & Refers to data that are too large and/or complex to be effectively and/or \\ & efficiently handled by traditional data-related theories, technologies and tools. \\ \hline Data analysis & Refers to the processing of data by traditional (e.g., classic statistical,\\ & mathematical or logical) theories, technologies and tools for obtaining \\ & useful information and for practical purposes. \\ \hline Data analytics & Refers to the theories, technologies, tools and processes that enable an \\ & in-depth understanding and discovery of actionable insight into data. \\ & Data analytics consists of descriptive analytics, predictive analytics, \\ & and prescriptive analytics. \\ \hline Data science & Is the science of data. \\ \hline Data scientist & Refers to those people whose roles very much center on data. \\ \hline Descriptive analytics & Refers to the type of data analytics that typically uses statistics to \\ & describe the data used to gain information, or for other useful purposes.\\ \hline Predictive analytics & Refers to the type of data analytics that makes predictions about unknown future \\ & events and discloses the reasons behind them, typically by advanced analytics. \\ \hline Prescriptive analytics & Refers to the type of data analytics that optimizes indications and recommends \\ & actions for smart decision-making. \\ \hline Explicit analytics & Focuses on descriptive analytics typically by reporting, descriptive\\ & analysis, alerting and forecasting. \\ \hline Implicit analytics & Focuses on deep analytics, typically by predictive modeling, optimization,\\ & prescriptive analytics, and actionable knowledge delivery. \\ \hline Deep analytics & Refers to data analytics that can acquire an in-depth understanding of why \\ & and how things have happened, are happening or will happen, which cannot \\ & be addressed by descriptive analytics. \\ \hline \end{tabular}} \end{table}

2007.03606v1

\begin{table}% \tbl{Explicit-to-implicit analytics.\label{tab:one}}{% \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|} \hline Categories & Explicit analytics & Implicit analytics \\\hline Nature & Sighted people recognize an elephant & Blind people do not recognize an elephant\\\hline Goal & We know what we know & We do not know what we do not know\\\hline Approach & Hypothesis + data & Data + environment (incl. domain)\\\hline Outcome & Description of data & In-depth representation of data\\\hline \end{tabular}} %\begin{tabnote}% %\Note{Source:}{This is a table %sourcenote. This is a table sourcenote. This is a table %sourcenote.} %\vskip2pt %\Note{Note:}{This is a table footnote.} %\tabnoteentry{$^a$}{This is a table footnote. This is a %table footnote. This is a table footnote.} %\end{tabnote}% \end{table}

1606.07345v1

\begin{table}[ht] \label{} \centering {\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline No. of Local PCs from $G_{S0}$ & No. of Local PCs from $G_{S1}$ & No. of Global PCs taken for\\ && the reconstruction of data\\ \hline 2 (4) & 2 (3) & 4 \\ \hline 2 (4) & 3 (3) & 5 \\ \hline 3(4) & 3 (3) & 6 \\ \hline 4 (4) & 3 (3) & 7 \\ \hline \end{tabular}} \caption{Global PCs from the different combinations of local PCs.} \end{table}

1606.07345v1

\begin{table}[ht] \label{} \centering {\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline fac& fou & kar & mor & pix & zer & Transmission Cost Among the Nodes \\ \hline 1 & 1 & 1 &1 &1 &1 & 3.0$\times 10^4$\\ \hline 4 &1 & 1 & 1 & 4 & 1 & 6.0$\times 10^4$\\ \hline 6 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 6 & 2 & 9.6$\times 10^4$\\ \hline 10 & 4 & 4 & 1 & 10 & 4 & 1.46$\times 10^5$\\ \hline 10 & 4 & 4 & 1 & 13 & 6 & 1.84$\times 10^5$\\ \hline 14 & 5 & 7 & 1 & 14 & 8 & 2.46$\times 10^5$\\ \hline 15 & 6 & 10 & 1 & 20 & 10 & 3.08$\times 10^5$\\ \hline \end{tabular}} \caption{mfeat transmission cost} \end{table}

1803.10205v1

\begin{table}[t] \begin{raggedright} \begin{tabular}{|@{\hspace*{1mm}}p{0.2\linewidth}@{}|@{\hspace*{1mm}}p{0.75\linewidth}|} \hline \multicolumn{2}{|>{\color{white}\columncolor{black}}l|}{\textbf{A: Model summary}}\tabularnewline \hline \textbf{Populations} & Three: excitatory $\mathrm{EX}$, inhibitory $\mathrm{IN}$, external stimulus $\mathrm{STIM}$\tabularnewline \hline \textbf{Topology} & $\mathrm{EX}$/$\mathrm{IN}$: random neuron positions on square domain of size $L\times L$; $\mathrm{STIM}$: random neuron positions inside a circle with radius $R_{\mathrm{STIM}}$ at the center of the domain; periodic boundary conditions\tabularnewline \hline \textbf{Connectivity} & Random ($\mathrm{EX}$/$\mathrm{IN}$: convergent, fixed in-degree; $\mathrm{STIM}$: divergent, fixed out-degree) connections described by distance-dependent probability kernels and cut-off masks\tabularnewline \hline \textbf{Neuron model} & $\mathrm{EX}$/$\mathrm{IN}$: leaky integrate-and-fire (LIF), fixed threshold, absolute refractory time; $\mathrm{STIM}$: parrot\tabularnewline \hline \textbf{Synapse model} & Static weights, $\mathrm{EX}$/$\mathrm{IN}$: alpha-shaped postsynaptic currents, distance-dependent delays\tabularnewline \hline \textbf{Input} & Independent fixed-rate Poisson spike trains to all neurons\tabularnewline \hline \textbf{Measurement} & Spike activity\tabularnewline \hline \end{tabular} \par\end{raggedright} \begin{raggedright} \begin{tabular}{|@{\hspace*{1mm}}p{0.2\linewidth}@{}|@{\hspace*{1mm}}p{0.75\linewidth}|} \hline \multicolumn{2}{|>{\color{white}\columncolor{black}}l|}{\textbf{B: Network model}}\tabularnewline \hline \textbf{Subthreshold dynamics} & $\mathrm{EX}$/$\mathrm{IN}$:\newline If $t>t^{*}+\tau_{\mathrm{ref}}$\begin{itemize}\item[]$\frac{\mathrm{d}V}{\mathrm{d}t}=-\frac{V-E_{L}}{\tau_{\mathrm{m}}}+\frac{I_{\mathrm{syn}}\left(t\right)}{C_{\mathrm{m}}}$\item[]$I_{\mathrm{syn}}\left(t\right)=\sum_{j}J_{j}\alpha\left(t-t_{j}^{*}-d_{j}\right)$\item[] with connection strength $J_{j}$, presynaptic spike time $t_{j}^{*}$ and conduction delay $d_{j}$ \item[]$\alpha\left(t\right)=\mathrm{\frac{t}{\tau_{\mathrm{s}}}e}^{1-t/\tau_{\mathrm{s}}}\Theta\left(t\right)$ with Heaviside function $\Theta$\end{itemize} else \begin{itemize} \item[] $V\left(t\right)=V_{\mathrm{reset}}$\end{itemize}\tabularnewline \hline \textbf{Spiking} & If $V\left(t-\right)<V_{\theta}\wedge V\left(t+\right)\geq V_{\theta}$\begin{enumerate}\item set $t^{*}=t$ \item emit spike with timestamp $t^{*}$ \item reset $V\left(t\right)=V_{\mathrm{reset}}$\end{enumerate}\tabularnewline \hline \textbf{Distance-dependent connectivity} & Neuronal units $j\in X$ at location $\left(x_{j},y_{j}\right)$ and $i\in Y$ at $\left(x_{i},y_{i}\right)$ in pre- and postsynaptic populations $X$ and $Y$, respectively.\newline Distance between units $i$ and $j$:\begin{itemize} \item[]$r_{ij}=\sqrt{\left(x_{i}-x_{j}\right)^{2}+\left(y_{i}-y_{j}\right)^{2}}$\end{itemize} Gaussian kernel for connection probability: \begin{itemize} \item[] $p_{YX}(r_{ij})=\mathrm{e}^{-r_{ij}^{2}/2\sigma_{YX}^{2}}$ \end{itemize} $R$ is the radius of a cut-off mask.\newline Transmission delay function: \begin{itemize} \item[] $d_{YX}(r_{ij})=d_{YX}^{0}+r_{ij}/v_{YX}$\end{itemize}\tabularnewline \hline \end{tabular} \par\end{raggedright} \caption{Description of the network model following the guidelines of \citet{Nordlie2009}. \label{tab:netwdescription}} \end{table}

1508.07416v1

\begin{table} \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1} \caption{\small The performance of MRI completion evaluated by PSNR and RRSE under missing ratios of 50\% and 80\%. } \label{tab:MRIresults} \centering %\resizebox{1\textwidth}{!} %{ \begin{tabular}{ c |c | c | c | c } \hline & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{50\% missing} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{80\% missing} \\ \cline{2-5} Methods & PSNR & RRSE & PSNR & RRSE \\ \hline BTC & {\bf 26.40} & {\bf 0.12} & {\bf22.33} & {\bf 0.19} \\ WTucker & 23.18 & 0.18 & 21.53 & 0.21 \\ gHOOI & 21.57 & 0.21 & 19.77 & 0.26 \\ HaLRTC & 23.12 & 0.18 & 17.06 & 0.36 \\ \hline \end{tabular} %} \end{table}

2304.02539v2

\begin{table}[!h] \caption{Simulated annotator sets for each RQ.} \label{tab:annotator-simulation} \setlength{\tabcolsep}{9.2pt} \footnotesize \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c||c|} \toprule \textbf{Adversarial} & \textbf{Common} & \textbf{Cluster-specialized} & \textbf{Class-specialized} & \textbf{Random} & \textbf{Annotation Ratio} \\ \midrule \hline \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{\cellcolor{datasetcolor!10} \textsc{independent} (RQ1)}\\ \hline 1 & 6 & 2 & 1 & 0 & 0.2\\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{\cellcolor{datasetcolor!10} \textsc{correlated} (RQ2)}\\ \hline 11 copies & 6 & 1 + 11 copies & 11 copies & 0 & 0.2\\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{\cellcolor{datasetcolor!10} \textsc{random-correlated} (RQ2)}\\ \hline 1 & 6 & 2 & 1 & 90 copies & 0.2 \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{\cellcolor{datasetcolor!10} \textsc{inductive} (RQ3)}\\ \hline 10 & 60 & 20 & 10 & 0 & 0.02\\ \hline \bottomrule \end{tabular} \end{table}

2104.01395v1

\begin{table}[tb] \caption{Classification Results (mAP).} \label{tab:class_results} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l||l|} \hline & \texttt{agric.} & \texttt{cloud} & \texttt{desert} & \texttt{dense-urban} & \texttt{forest} & \texttt{mountain} & \texttt{ocean} & \texttt{snow} & \texttt{wetland} & All\\ \hline \hline \cite{ben2019toward} & 0.48 & 0.66 & 0.5 & 0.86 & 0.57 & 0.64 & 0.83 & 0.57 & 0.23 & 0.59 \\ \hline Ours & 1.0 & 0.95 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 0.99 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 0.82 & 0.98\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

1901.03802v1

\begin{table}[h] \centering \caption{Implemented active learning strategies in different settings.} \label{table:strategies} \begin{tabular}{p{0.35\columnwidth}| p{0.6\columnwidth}} \toprule \hline \textbf{AL with Instance Selection} & Uncertainty (\cite{LewisG94}), Query By Committee (\cite{AbeM98}), Expected Error Reduction (\cite{RoyM01}), Random, Graph Density (\cite{EbertFS12}), BMDR (\cite{WangY13})), QUIRE (\cite{HuangJZ10}), LAL (\cite{KonyushkovaSF17}), SPAL (\cite{TH2019})\\ \hline \textbf{AL for Multi-Label Data} & AUDI (\cite{HuangZ13}), QUIRE (\cite{HuangJZ14}), MMC (\cite{YangSWC09}), Adaptive (\cite{LiG13}), Random\\ \hline \textbf{AL by Querying Features}& AFASMC (\cite{HuangXXSNC18}), Stability (\cite{ChakrabortyZBPDY13}), Random \\ \hline \textbf{AL with Different Costs}& HALC (\cite{YanH18}), Random, Cost performance \\ \hline \textbf{AL with Noisy Oracles}& CEAL (\cite{HuangCMZ17}), IEthresh (\cite{DonmezCS09}), Repeated (\cite{ShengPI08}), Random \\ \hline \textbf{AL with Novel Query Types}& AURO (\cite{HuangCZ15}) \\ \hline \textbf{AL for Large Scale Tasks}& Subsampling \\ \hline \bottomrule \end{tabular} \end{table}

2407.14335v1

\begin{table}[h] \caption{ On-chain data for Algorand from January 2019 to September 2023 via BitQuery’s open APIs, and for Ethereum 2.0 from June 2019 to September 2023 through Beacon Explorer using the SPIDER framework.} \label{table:5} \begin{minipage}[t]{0.5\textwidth} \vspace{0pt} % Ensures alignment at the top \flushright \small \resizebox{0.98\textwidth}{!}{% Resize to fit within minipage \begin{tabular}{% >{\columncolor{col1}}p{1.4cm} >{\columncolor{col2}}p{1.9cm} >{\columncolor{col3}}p{2cm} >{\columncolor{col4}}p{0.5cm} >{\columncolor{col5}}p{0.9cm} >{\columncolor{col6}}p{1.3cm} >{\columncolor{col7}\color{black}}p{3.3cm} >{\columncolor{col8}\color{black}}p{5.0cm} } \toprule \textbf{Data Type} & \textbf{Data Frame} & \textbf{Description} & \textbf{Unit} & \textbf{Type} & \textbf{Frequency} & \textbf{Range} & \textbf{File Name} \\ \midrule Block & Daily Block Count & Numbers of blocks produced per day & NA & Integer & Daily & 0\textasciitilde{}7180 & daily\_block\_count.csv \\ & Average Block Time & Average consensus time per block & S & Float & Daily & 4.46\textasciitilde{}30.57 & avg\_blk\_time.csv \\ & Average Gas Used by Blocks & Average gas used per block & NA & Float & Daily Sum & 0\textasciitilde{}15511762.25 & gas\_used\_avg\_by\_blk.csv \\ Transaction & Transaction Count & Transaction count per day & NA & Integer & Daily & 0\textasciitilde{}1932226 & daily\_transactions.csv \\ & Gas Limit & Gas limit amount per day & Eth & Integer & Daily Sum & 5000\textasciitilde{}30076713.92 & gas\_limit.csv \\ & Burned Fees & Used tokens for transactions per day & Eth & Float & Daily & 0\textasciitilde{}71718.88 & burned\_fees.csv \\ Account & Validator Count & Validator counts per day & NA & Integer & Daily & 21063\textasciitilde{}771738 & validator\_data.csv \\ & Average Validator Balance & Average account balance of validators per day & Eth & Float & Daily & 32.00953203\textasciitilde{}34.00950871 & validator\_avg\_balance.csv \\ & Participation Rate & Overall participation rate per day & NA & Float & Daily(\%) & 0.941524213\textasciitilde{}0.99728444 & participation\_rate.csv \\ Network & Network Liveness & Block count for confirmation & NA & Integer & Daily & 2\textasciitilde{}12 & network\_Liveness.csv \\ Block & Block Info & Block timestamp, address, height & NA & String & Daily & NA & al\_block\_data.csv \\ & Proposer Count & Proposer count per day & NA & Integer & Daily & 31\textasciitilde{}130 & al\_block\_data\_proposercount\_reward.csv \\ Transaction & Transaction Count & Transaction count per day & NA & Float & Daily & 913\textasciitilde{}9271981 & al\_transac\_data\_count\_fee.csv \\ & Burned Fees & Tokens used for transactions & Algo & Float & Daily & 1.47588\textasciitilde{}33113.44687 & al\_transac\_data\_count\_fee.csv \\ Account & Block Reward & Reward for block proposal per day & Algo & Float & Daily & 141.059024\textasciitilde{}5184.994864 & al\_block\_data\_reward.csv \\ Contract & Contract Calls & Overall contract calls per day & NA & Integer & Daily & 1\textasciitilde{}197459 & al\_contracts\_calls\_unique\_calls.csv \\ & Unique Calls & Unique contract calls & NA & Integer & Daily & 1\textasciitilde{}10149 & al\_contracts\_calls\_unique\_calls.csv \\ \bottomrule \end{tabular}% } \end{minipage} \label{tab: dictionary} \end{table}

2005.05537v1

\begin{table}[tb] \centering \begin{tabular}{c|cccc} \toprule[1pt] & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\bf CCI900}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{\bf CCI950}\\ \midrule &AUC&AP&AUC&AP\\ \midrule DeepCCI & 0.925&0.918&0.957&0.957\\ DeepDDI & 0.891 & 0.886&0.916&0.915\\ MR-GNN & 0.927 & 0.921 & 0.934 & 0.924\\ MLRDA & 0.922&0.907&0.959&0.948\\ SEAL & 0.894 & 0.886 &0.941 & 0.937\\ {\bf GoGNN}& {\bf 0.937} & {\bf 0.932} & {\bf 0.963} & {\bf 0.962}\\ \midrule GoGNN-M &0.914 & 0.909 &0.938&0.931\\ GoGNN-I &0.921&0.898&0.929&0.912\\ GoGNN-noPool &0.931&0.930&0.958&0.954\\ GoGNN-noAttn &0.909&0.905&0.956&0.948\\ \bottomrule[1pt] \end{tabular} \vspace{-2mm} \caption{Result of chemical-chemical interaction prediction task. } \vspace{-1mm} \label{tab:cci} \end{table}

2210.02631v3

\begin{table}[h!] % \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|r|c} % <-- Alignments: 1st column left, 2nd middle and 3rd right, with vertical lines in between \textbf{Experiment } & \textbf{Description } \\ \textbf{No.} & \\ \hline & \\ \textbf{E5.1} & Transfer learning with all \\ & augmentation datasets added\\ & to training set as per E2.4\\ & \\ \textbf{E5.2} & As per E5.1 but with the custom loss \\ & function defined by (\ref{AdjustedLoss}) \\ & \\ \textbf{E5.3} & As per E5.2 but with \\ & $\alpha$ coefficient of 2 \\ \end{tabular} \caption{Summary of the Experiment 5. For each of our pre-trained models (M1 to M5 in Table~\ref{tab:paper1results}), we perform further training. We begin by enlarging the training set with all augmented datasets. We then combine this approach with the use of our custom loss function. Finally, we modify the loss function to use and $\alpha$ of 2. Each part of the experiment is repeated six times to account for randomness in the way dropout nodes are assigned.} \label{tab:Experiment5} % \end{center} \end{table}

2006.11325v1

\begin{table} \caption{Accuracy (\%) of unsupervised pre-training methods on $N$-way $K$-shot classification tasks on Omniglot and mini-Imagenet on a Conv-4 architecture. For detailed results, see Tables \ref{tab:omni_full} and \ref{tab:mini_full} in the Appendix. Results style: \textbf{best} and \underline{second best}.} %\begin{adjustbox}{width=\columnwidth,center} \centering \begin{tabular}{l c c c c|c c c c} \toprule {\bf Method \quad (N,K)} & {\bf (5,1)} & {\bf (5,5)} & \bf{(20,1)} & \bf{(20,5)} & {\bf (5,1)} & {\bf (5,5)} & \bf{(5,20)} & \bf{(5,50)}\\ \midrule &\multicolumn{4}{c}{\bf Omniglot} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\bf mini-ImageNet} \\ \midrule {\em Training (scratch)} & 52.50 & 74.78 & 24.91 & 47.62 & 27.59 & 38.48 & 51.53 & 59.63\\ \midrule %\hline CACTUs-MAML & 68.84 & 87.78 & 48.09 & 73.36 & 39.90 & 53.97 & \underline{63.84} & \underline{69.64} \\ CACTUs-ProtoNet & 68.12 & 83.58 & 47.75 & 66.27 & 39.18 & 53.36 & 61.54 & 63.55 \\ UMTRA & 83.80 & 95.43 & \underline{74.25} & \underline{92.12} & 39.93 & 50.73 & 61.11 & 67.15\\ AAL-ProtoNet & 84.66 & 89.14 & 68.79 & 74.28 & 37.67 & 40.29 & - & - \\ AAL-MAML++ & \underline{88.40} & \underline{97.96} & 70.21 & 88.32 & 34.57 & 49.18 & - & - \\ UFLST & \textbf{97.03} & \textbf{99.19} & \textbf{91.28} & \textbf{97.37} & 33.77 & 45.03 & 53.35 & 56.72 \\ ULDA-ProtoNet & - & - & - & - & 40.63 & \underline{55.41} & 63.16 & 65.20 \\ ULDA-MetaOptNet & - & - & - & - & \underline{40.71} & 54.49 & 63.58 & 67.65 \\ ProtoTransfer (ours) & 88.00 & 96.48 & 72.27 & 89.08 & \textbf{45.67} & \textbf{62.99} & \textbf{72.34} & \textbf{77.22} \\ \midrule {\small \em Supervised training} & & & & & & & & \\ {\em MAML} & 94.46 & 98.83 & 84.60 & 96.29 & 46.81 & 62.13 & 71.03 & 75.54\\ {\em ProtoNet} & 97.70 & 99.28 & 94.40 & 98.39 & 46.44 & 66.33 & 76.73 & 78.91 \\ {\em Pre+Linear} & 94.30 & 99.08 & 86.05 & 97.11 & 43.87 & 63.01 & 75.46 & 80.17 \\ \bottomrule \end{tabular} %\end{adjustbox} \label{tab:ResultsOmniglotMini} \end{table}

2006.11325v1

\begin{table} \centering \caption{Accuracy (\%) of methods on $N$-way $K$-shot $(N,K)$ classification tasks on mini-ImageNet with a Conv-4 architecture for different training image batch sizes, number of training queries ($Q$) and optional finetuning on target tasks (FT). UMTRA-MAML results are taken from \cite{khodadadeh2019unsupervised}, where UMTRA uses AutoAugment \citep{cubuk2019autoaugment} augmentations. For detailed results see Table \ref{tab:ResultsAblation_full} in the Appendix. Results style: \textbf{best} and \underline{second best}.} \begin{tabular}{l l c c c|c c c c} \toprule {\bf Training} & {\bf Testing} & {\bf batch size} & {\bf Q} & {\bf FT} & {\bf (5,1)} & {\bf (5,5)} & \bf{(5,20)} & \bf{(5,50)}\\ \midrule %\hline n.a. & ProtoNet & n.a. & n.a. & no & 27.05 & 34.12 & 39.68 & 41.40 \\ UMTRA & MAML & $N(=5)$ & 1 & yes & 39.93 & 50.73 & 61.11 & 67.15\\ UMTRA & ProtoNet & $N(=5)$ & 1 & no & 39.17 & 53.78 & 62.41 & 64.40 \\ ProtoCLR & ProtoNet & 50 & 1 & no & 44.53 & 62.88 & 70.86 & 73.93 \\ ProtoCLR & ProtoNet & 50 & 3 & no & 44.89 & \textbf{63.35} & \underline{72.27} & \underline{74.31} \\ ProtoCLR & ProtoTune & 50 & 3 & yes & \textbf{45.67} & \underline{62.99} & \textbf{72.34} & \textbf{77.22} \\ \bottomrule \end{tabular} %\end{adjustbox} \label{tab:ResultsAblation} \end{table}

2006.11325v1

\begin{table} \centering \caption{ProtoTransfer hyperparameter summary.} \begin{tabular}{l r r | r r} \toprule &\multicolumn{2}{c}{in-domain} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{cross-domain} \\ Hyperparameter & Omniglot & mini-ImageNet & mini-ImageNet & CUB \\ \midrule Model architecture & Conv-4 & Conv-4 & ResNet-10 & Conv-4\\ Image input size & $28\times28$ & $84\times84$ & $224\times224$ & $84\times84$\\ Optimizer & Adam & Adam & Adam & Adam\\ Learning rate & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001\\ Learning rate decay factor & 0.5 & 0.5 & / & 0.5 \\ Learning rate decay period & 25,000 & 25,000 & / & 25,000\\ Support examples & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\ Augmented queries ($Q$) & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3\\ Training batch size ($N$) & 50 & 50 & 50 & 50\\ Augmentation appendix & \ref{app:OmniTransforms} & \ref{app:MiniTransforms} & \ref{app:CDFSLTransforms} & \ref{app:MiniTransforms}\\ \midrule Fine-tuning optimizer & Adam & Adam & Adam & Adam\\ Fine-tuning learning rate & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001\\ Fine-tuning batch size & 5 & 5 & 5 & 5\\ Fine-tuning epochs & 15 & 15 & 15 & 15\\ Fine-tune last layer & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark \\ Fine-tune backbone & & & \checkmark & \\ \bottomrule \end{tabular} \label{tab:hyperparameters} \end{table}

2105.11410v1

\begin{table}[h] \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3} %%\begin{table}[h] \centering \scriptsize %\vspace{-20pt} \begin{tabular}{|m{1cm}|m{1.34cm}|m{2.2cm}|m{1.5cm}|m{1.7cm}|m{1.5cm}|} %\begin{tabular}{|m{0.5cm}|m{2.8cm}|m{2.6cm}|m{0.8cm}|} \hline \textbf{L1} & Community & Degree Centrality & Closeness Centrality & Substructure Discovery & Complement (NOT)\\ \hline \textbf{L2} & Community & Degree Centrality & Closeness Centrality & Substructure Discovery & Complement (NOT) \\ \hline ... & & & & & \\ \hline %%\hline %%\textbf{L3} & Community & Degree Centrality & Closeness Centrality & Substructure Discovery & Complement (NOT) \\ %%\hline %%\textbf{L4} & Community & Degree Centrality & Closeness Centrality & Substructure Discovery & Complement (NOT) \\ %%\hline %%\textbf{L5} & Community & Degree Centrality & Closeness Centrality & Substructure Discovery & Complement (NOT) \\ %%\hline %%\textbf{L6} & Community & Degree Centrality & Closeness Centrality & Substructure Discovery & Complement (NOT) \\ %%\hline \textbf{L7} & Community & Degree Centrality & Closeness Centrality & Substructure Discovery & Complement (NOT) \\ \hline \hline \textbf{Layer IDs} & \multicolumn{5}{m{10cm}|}{ \textbf{L1:}AUTHOR-Collaborates-With, \textbf{L2:}AUTHOR-Collaborates-in-VLDB, \textbf{L3:}AUTHOR-Collaborates-in-SIGMOD, \textbf{L4:}AUTHOR-Collaborates-in-DASFAA, \textbf{L5:}AUTHOR-Collaborates-in-DaWaK, \textbf{L6:}PAPER-Same-Conference, \textbf{L7:}YEAR-Same-Interval} \\ \hline \end{tabular} %\vspace{-10pt} \caption{$\Psi$ Lookup Table for DBLP MLN Layers} \vspace{-10pt} \label{table:PsiLookUp-DBLP} %%\end{table}

2105.11410v1

\begin{table}[h] \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3} %%\begin{table}[h] \centering \scriptsize \vspace{-20pt} \begin{tabular}{|*{8}{c|}} \cline{1-2} \textbf{L1} & \\ \cline{1-3} \textbf{L2} & AND, OR & \\ \cline{1-4} \textbf{L3} & AND, OR & AND, OR & \\ \cline{1-5} \textbf{L4} & AND, OR & AND, OR & AND, OR & \\ \cline{1-6} \textbf{L5} & AND, OR & AND, OR & AND, OR & AND, OR & \\ \cline{1-7} \textbf{L6} & MWM & MWM & MWM & MWM & MWM & \\ \cline{1-8} \textbf{L7} & MWM & MWM & MWM & MWM & MWM & MWM & \\ \cline{1-8} \hline & \textbf{L1} & \textbf{L2} & \textbf{L3} & \textbf{L4} & \textbf{L5} & \textbf{L6} & \textbf{L7} \\ \hline \hline \textbf{Layer IDs} & \multicolumn{7}{m{10cm}|}{ \textbf{L1:}AUTHOR-Collaborates-With, \textbf{L2:}AUTHOR-Collaborates-in-VLDB, \textbf{L3:}AUTHOR-Collaborates-in-SIGMOD, \textbf{L4:}AUTHOR-Collaborates-in-DASFAA, \textbf{L5:}AUTHOR-Collaborates-in-DaWaK, \textbf{L6:}PAPER-Same-Conference, \textbf{L7:}YEAR-Same-Interval} \\ \hline \end{tabular} %\vspace{-10pt} \caption{$\Theta$ Lookup Table for DBLP MLN Layer Pairs} \vspace{-20pt} \label{table:ThetaLookUp-DBLP} %%\end{table}

2105.11410v1

\begin{table}[h] \centering \begin{tabular}{|m{4.8cm}|m{4cm}|} \hline \textbf{Keywords/Phrases} & \textbf{Mapped to $\Psi$/$\Theta$} \\ \hline \textit{group}, \textit{cluster}, \textit{strong/dense group} & $\Psi$ = Community \\ \hline \textit{coverage} & $\Psi$ = Closeness Centrality \\ \hline \textit{direct neighbors, hubs} & $\Psi$ = Degree Centrality \\ \hline \textit{frequent/interesting patterns} & $\Psi$ = Substructure Discovery \\ \hline \textit{never}, \textit{not} & $\Psi$ = Complement (NOT) \\ \hline % Conjunctions = \textbf{and}, \textbf{but}, \textbf{yet}, \textbf{who} & $\Theta$ = AND for HoMLN layers\\ \textbf{and}, \textbf{but}, \textbf{yet} & $\Theta$ = AND for HoMLN layers\\ \hline \textbf{or}, \textbf{either} & $\Theta$ = OR for HoMLN layers\\ \hline % Conjunctions = \textbf{who}, \textbf{when}, \textbf{and}, \textbf{but}, \textbf{yet}; Adverbs = \textbf{for each}, \textbf{-wise} & $\Theta$ = MWM for HeMLN layers\\ \textbf{and}, \textbf{but}, \textbf{yet}, \textbf{for each, for every} & $\Theta$ = MWM for HeMLN layers\\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Keyword-based Lookup for Operators} \vspace{-20pt} \label{table:keyword-map} \end{table}

2105.11410v1

\begin{table}[h] \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1} %\vspace{-20pt} \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Layer} & \textbf{Number of Nodes} & \textbf{Number of Edges} \\ \hline American-Direct-Flight & 270 & 746 \\ \hline Southwest-Direct-Flight & 270 & 717 \\ \hline Delta-Direct-Flight & 270 & 688 \\ \hline Frontier-Direct-Flight & 270 & 346 \\ \hline Spirit-Direct-Flight & 270 & 189 \\ \hline Allegiant-Direct-Flight & 270 & 379 \\ \hline \end{tabular} %\vspace{-10pt} \caption{US-Airlines HoMLN Layer Statistics} \label{tab:USAirlineHoMLNStats} %\vspace{-10pt} \end{table}

2105.11410v1

\begin{table}[h!t] \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1} \centering %\vspace{-10pt} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Layer} & \textbf{Number of Nodes} & \textbf{Number of Edges} \\ \hline AUTHOR-Collaborates-With & 16,918 & 2,483 \\ \hline PAPER-Same-Conference & 10,326 & 12,044,080 \\ \hline YEAR-Same-Interval & 18 & 18 \\ \hline AUTHOR-Collaborates-in-VLDB & 5116 & 3912 \\ \hline AUTHOR-Collaborates-in-SIGMOD & 5116 & 3303 \\ \hline AUTHOR-Collaborates-in-DASFAA & 5116 & 1519 \\ \hline AUTHOR-Collaborates-in-DaWaK & 5116 & 679 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{DBLP MLN Statistics} \label{table:DBLPMLNStats} %\vspace{-15pt} \end{table}

2105.11410v1

\begin{table}[h!t] \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1} \centering %\vspace{-10pt} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Layer} & \textbf{Number of Nodes} & \textbf{Number of Edges} \\ \hline ACTOR-Acts-with & 9485 & 45,581\\ \hline ACTOR-SimilarAverageRating & 9485 & 13,945,912\\ \hline ACTOR-Similar-Genre & 9485 & 996,527\\ \hline DIRECTOR-Similar-Genre & 4510 & 250,845\\ \hline MOVIE-Similar-Rating & 7951 & 8,777,618 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{IMDb MLN Statistics} \label{table:IMDbMLNStats} %\vspace{-10pt} \end{table}

2105.11410v1

\begin{table}[h!t] \vspace{-20pt} \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1} \centering \begin{tabular}{|p{5cm}|p{2.8cm}|} \hline \textbf{Actors/Actresses} & \textbf{Common Prominent Genres} \\ \hline Willem Dafoe, Russell Crowe & Action, Crime\\%, Drama \\ \hline Hilary Swank, Kate Winslet & Drama \\ \hline Tom Hanks, Reese Witherspoon, Cameron Diaz & Comedy, Romance\\%, Drama\\ \hline % Anne Hathaway, Salma Hayek & \\ % \hline \textcolor{blue}{Johnny Depp, Tom Cruise} & \textcolor{blue}{Adventure, Action}\\%, Drama \\ \hline % Brad Pitt, Will Smith & \\ % \hline Leonardo DiCaprio, Ryan Gosling & Crime, Romance\\%, Drama\\ \hline Nicolas Cage, Antonio Banderas & Action, Thriller \\%, Drama \hline Hugh Grant, Kate Hudson, Emma Stone & Comedy, Romance \\%Drama \hline \end{tabular} \caption{{\bf (A5)}: Highly rated genre actors who have \textbf{not co-acted}} \label{table:actorcollab} \vspace{-30pt} %\end{table}

1402.4442v1

\begin{table}[h!] \begin{center} \scriptsize \begin{tabular}{| c | c | c | c | c | } \hline \textbf{} & \textbf{NSGAII} & \textbf{$\epsilon$-NSGA II } & \textbf{$\epsilon$-MOEA} & \textbf{Hyper-MOEA} \\\hline \textbf{Elitist} & \textbf{0.72} & \textbf{ 0.75} & \textbf{0.51} & \textbf{0.47} \\ \hline \textbf{Caste} & \textbf{0.70} & \textbf{0.73} & \textbf{0.52} & \textbf{0.47} \\ \hline \textbf{Random } & \textbf{0.67} & \textbf{0.66 } & \textbf{0.43} &\textbf{0.44} \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Sputnik (Elitist \& Caste) hypervolume on MOEA} \label{tableresult1} \end{center} \end{table}

2308.13983v2

\begin{table}[h] \centering \caption{RMSE of forecast services and observational data. Upper columns represent surrounding points and lower columns represent mountain points. Tenki (3775m) is the weighted average of ``Tenki to Kurasu'' from 3100m and from 4400m, the others are from ``Weathernews''.} \label{tab:RMSETest} \footnotesize \begin{tabular}{c|cc|cc}\hline\hline & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Temperature} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Precipitation} \\ &2 hours &8 hours &2 hours &8 hours \\ \hline Fuji&0.867 &1.595 &1.033 &0.614 \\ Gotenba&1.247 &1.294 &0.685 & 0.303 \\ Odawara&1.363 &1.387 &0.393 &0.315 \\ Yanamaka&1.467 &1.193 &0.973 &0.349 \\ \hline Mt. Fuji&7.133 &4.852 &- &- \\ Hakone& -&- &1.457 &0.443 \\ Tenki (3775m)&4.296&3.627&&\\ \end{tabular} \end{table}

2308.13983v2

\begin{table}[h] \centering \caption{RMSE and training times (iterations) of the models. The upper and lower numbers are the averages of the RMSE on the three validation data in Fold 1 to 3, and training times on the training data in test set respectively. The unit of training time is seconds. Iterations are gained by early stopping on Fold 3.} \label{tab:models} \footnotesize \begin{tabular}{c|cc|cc} \hline\hline & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\begin{tabular}[c|]{@{}c@{}}Temperature \\ at Mt. Fuji \end{tabular}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Precipitation \\ at Hakone \end{tabular}} \\ &2 hours &8 hours &2 hours &8 hours \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Elastic Net} &1.178 &2.188 &1.063 &1.093 \\ &3.2 & 6.2 &\textbf{0.1} & \textbf{0.1} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{LightGBM} &\textbf{1.109} & \textbf{2.006} &\textbf{0.951}& 0.999 \\ &3.2 (124) & 8.2 (174) & 0.8 (27) & 0.9 (16) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{XGBoost} &1.133 & 2.069 &0.971&\textbf{0.995} \\ &\textbf{1.1} (43) & \textbf{3.0} (39) &0.8 (24) & 0.7 (6) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Extra Trees} &1.140 & 2.101 &1.024 & 1.085 \\ &79.1 & 170.8 &76.0 &81.5 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Neural Net} & 1.260& 2.187 & 1.014 & 1.086 \\ &84.6 (74) & 36.3 (31) &49.0 (42) & 45.7 (39) \end{tabular} \end{table}

2308.13983v2

\begin{table}[h] \centering \caption{RMSE losses of precipitation prediction at Hakone. The values are calculated as the average of the RMSE of the three validation data.} \label{tab:binary_val} \footnotesize \begin{tabular}{l|cccc} \hline\hline Model & 2 hours & 7 hours & 8 hours & 9 hours \\ \hline LGBM (all) & \textbf{0.946} & 0.994 & 0.998 & \textbf{0.997} \\ LGBM (top) & 0.958 & 0.999 & \textbf{0.987} & 0.998 \\ LGBM binary (all) & 0.965 & 0.996 & 0.998 & 1.002 \\ LGBM binary (top) & 0.960 & \textbf{0.990} & 1.001 & 1.001 \\ \end{tabular} \end{table}

1802.09225v1

\begin{table}[h] % \small % \begin{center} % \begin{tabular}{ | p{4.2cm} | l | l} % \hline % \toprule % GBDT Features & Score \\ \hline % \midrule % ReadNum\_stdDevVal & 154 \\ \hline % ReadNum\_meanVal & 151 \\ \hline % ReadNum\_meanVal\_CUSUM\_ARL & 150 \\ \hline % ReadNum\_meanVal\_FC\_ERROR & 111 \\ \hline % ReadNum\_meanVal\_FC\_PREDICTION & 88 \\ \hline % UserSeen\_FC\_ALPHA & 85 \\ \hline % UserFeature\_bcookieAge\_max & 84 \\ \hline % UserSeen\_FC\_ERROR & 80 \\ \hline % UserAge & 79 \\ \hline % ReadNum\_meanVal\_FC\_ALPHA & 77 \\ % \bottomrule % \end{tabular} % \caption{Feature Importance - GBDT \label{tab:mailfeatures1}} % \end{center} % \end{table}

1802.09225v1

\begin{table}[h] % \small % \begin{center} % \begin{tabular}{ | p{4.0cm} | l | l | l | l } % \hline % \toprule % Interpretation Features & Interval & T-Test & GBDT Score\\ \hline % \midrule % ReadNum\_meanVal\_CUSUM\_ARL & [0,102] & -3030.06 & 150 \\ \hline % ReadNum\_meanVal\_CUSUM\_ARL & [103,999] & 3030.06 & 150\\ \hline % UserSeen & [213,958] & -2404.71 & --- \\ \hline % MailActionsCount & [213,958] & -2404.71 & 73 \\ \hline % MailActionsCount & [0,190] & 2276.71 & 73 \\ \hline % UserSeen & [0,190] & 2276.71 & --- \\ \hline % ReadNum\_meanVal & [532,941] & -2170.19 & 151\\ \hline % CityId\_totalValue & [191,962] & -2099.33 & 23 \\ \hline % ReadNum\_totalVal & [514,919] & -1958.32 & 72\\ \hline % ReadNum\_meanVal\_FC\_ERROR & [553,919] & -1736.10 & 111 \\ % \bottomrule % \end{tabular} % \caption{Feature Importance - Interpretation \label{tab:mailfeatures2}} % \end{center} % \end{table}

2008.11327v1

\begin{table} \centering \caption{\bf Abbreviation and the description of the five kinds of time-series} \scalebox{0.9}{ \begin{tabular}{c|l} Abbreviation&Description\\ \hline P&Price per unit quantity (yen/m$\ell$)\\ Q&Quantity purchased (m$\ell$)\\ Visit&Visit to related web sites via mobile device or PC (seconds) \\ TVAd&Exposure to TV advertising (seconds) \\ Search&Search frequency via mobile device or PC (times) \\ \hline \end{tabular}} % \caption{Abbreviation and the description of the five kinds of time-series} \label{tab:abbs} \end{table}

2307.01390v1

\begin{table}[] \centering % \caption{Taxonomy of the most notable evasion attacks in adversarial machine learning literature. White box attacks do not require any input from the model, as the assumption is that they already know everything about it } \caption{Taxonomy of evasion attacks in AML} %adversarial machine learning}%; note that white box attacks do not require any input from the model, as the assumption is that they already know everything about it } \vspace{-6pt} \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{ \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|} \hline Attack & Attacker's knowledge & Norm & Required input \\ \hline L-BFGS & White box & $ L_2$ & / \\ \hline FSGM & White box & $L_1$, & / \\ \hline DeepFool & White box & $L_1$, $L_2$, $L_\infty$, & / \\ \hline JSMA & White box & $L_1$, & / \\ \hline C\&W & White box & $L_0$, $L_1$,$L_\infty$, & / \\ \hline Elastic-Nets & White box & $L_1$, & / \\ \hline ZOO & Black box & $L_0$, $L_1$, $L_\infty$, & Logits \\ \hline Decision-Based & Black box & $L_2$ & Decisions \\ \hline OPT attack & Black box & $L_2$, $L_\infty$, & Decisions \\ \hline Substitute model & Black box & / & Decisions \\ \hline Mimicry & Black/Gray box & / & / \\ \hline \end{tabular}} \label{tab:Taxonom} \end{table}

2004.01504v1

\begin{table}[htp!] \centering \small \caption{Regulatory constraints relevant to ML for financial asset price forecasting} \label{table:investor_constraints} \begin{tabular}{ |p{5cm}|p{10cm}| } \hline \textbf{Regulatory constraints} & \textbf{Relevant literature solutions} \\ \hline Transparency and \newline Explainability \cite{goodman_2016, kush_2016,kou_2019, Johnson_2019, Citron_2014}. & Finance practitioners and academics have focussed on modifying ML algorithm loss functions to incorporate traditional finance theory to allow for greater transparency. \cite{chen_2019, pelger_2019} for example demonstrate an improvement of algorithm performance when they incorporate no-arbitrage pricing theory constraints from traditional finance \cite{ross_1976}. Additionally \cite{Feng_2017, kelly_2017} systematically utilise modern ML and statistical algorithms to reduce the number of features or ``factors" used in asset pricing - this ultimately serves to improve model transparency in the face of high dimensionality and large unstructured data. \newline \newline In the ML literature there has been a drive to develop domain agnostic software packages and tools to explain trained ML models \cite{2018_Adadi}. Most notably techniques such as LIME \cite{ribeiro_2016} and SHAP \cite{Lundberg_2017} have been implemented in multiple popular programming languages to allow for detailed explanations of any supervised learning model. \\ \hline Risk Management \cite{Schmaltz_2013, Johnson_2018, Ang_2011, Shredian_2017}. & There have been a broad array of solutions relating to risk management for ML in the finance literature: \cite{Chandrinos_2018, Aziz_2018} explore how we can develop and incorporate supplementary ML models to statistically account for financial risk in our investment and trading systems. Recent papers such as \cite{kou_2019, Coulombe2019HowIM, Berge_2013} explore how ML can be used to directly forecast macroeconomic variables to identify systematic risk and economic recessions. \cite{Alberg_2017} also demonstrates how transparent models can be built by forecasting company fundamentals (cash flow, and balance sheet line items) rather than asset prices directly. \newline \newline In the ML literature there has also been a movement away from the development of point forecasts models to Bayesian techniques which allow for probabilistic forecasts \cite{gal_2015, Zhu_2017,Duan2019NGBoostNG, Ghahramani_2015}. These Bayesian algorithms inherently allow the end user to account for risk through posteriori probability distributions: \cite{Spiegeleer_2018,Ruf_2019} review how these Bayesian techniques have been utilized for option pricing and derivatives hedging strategies. \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2004.01504v1

\begin{table}[htp!] \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3} \caption{Overview of the implemented Machine Learning models and optimized hyperparameters} \label{tab:example} \centering \small \begin{tabular}{|p{4cm}|p{4.2cm}| p{7cm} |} \hline ML Algorithm & Optimization Algorithms & Optimized Hyperparameters \\ \hline \hline NGBoost \cite{Duan2019NGBoostNG}. & Grid Search. & Number of tree estimators (weak base learners). \\ \hline XGBoost. & HyperOpt implementation of the Tree of Parzen Algorithm for $n=50$ trials \cite{Bergstra_2013}. & Number of tree estimators, maximum depth for each tree, learning rate, regularization parameters, data sampling parameters. \\ \hline Catboost \cite{Prokhorenkova_2018}. & HyperOpt implementation of the Tree of Parzen Algorithm for $n=50$ trials \cite{Bergstra_2013}. & Number of tree estimators, maximum depth for each tree, learning rate, regularization parameters, data sampling parameters. \\ \hline LightGBM \cite{XGboost_2016}. & HyperOpt implementation of the Tree of Parzen Algorithm for $n=50$ trials \cite{Bergstra_2013}. & Number of tree estimators, maximum depth for each tree, learning rate, regularization parameters, data sampling parameters. \\ \hline Shallow Feed-Forward \newline Neural Network (Shallow FNN). \cite{chollet2015keras} & HyperOpt implementation of the Tree of Parzen Algorithm for $n=100$ trials \cite{Bergstra_2013}. & Number of hidden layers where $n \in [1,2]$, number of nodes per hidden layer where $n \in [256, 1024]$, Batch normalization configurations for each hidden layer, regularization parameters, activation function configurations for each hidden layer. \newline \\ \hline Deep Feed-Forward Neural Network (Deep FNN) \cite{chollet2015keras}. & HyperOpt implementation of Tree Parzen Algorithm for $n=100$ trials \cite{Bergstra_2013}. & Number of hidden layers where $n \in [3,5]$, number of nodes per hidden layer where $n \in [256, 1024]$, Batch normalization configurations for each hidden layer, regularization parameters, activation function configurations for each hidden layer. \newline \\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{table:ml_model_parameters} \end{table}

2004.01504v1

\begin{table}[htp!] \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3} \caption{Model Results} \label{tab:example} \centering \begin{tabular}{|p{5cm}|p{5cm}| } \hline Optimized Model & Mean Squared Error (MSE)\\ \hline \hline CAPM & $1.6001$\\ \hline NGBoost & $0.3572$\\ \hline XGBoost & $0.3280$\\ \hline Catboost & $0.3125$\\ \hline LightGBM & $0.3131$\\ \hline Shallow FNN & $0.3628$\\ \hline Deep FNN & $0.3531$\\ \hline \end{tabular} \figuredesc{} \end{table}

2311.03309v2

\begin{table}[] \centering { \begin{tabular}{l|l} \hline \textbf{Method} & \textbf{AUROC} \\ \hline PCMCI+ & 0.530 $\pm$ 0.002 \\ NGM & 0.611 $\pm$ 0.002 \\ CUTS & 0.543 $\pm$ 0.003 \\ Rhino & 0.685 $\pm$ 0.003 \\ SCOTCH & \textbf{0.752 $\pm$ 0.008} \\ LSDE & 0.496 $\pm$ 0.021 \\ \end{tabular}} \caption{Performance comparison between methods on DREAM3 Ecoli1 dataset. LSDE refers to latent SDE + extracting first layer weights.} \label{tab: latent sde graph} \end{table}

2311.03309v2

\begin{table}[!h] \caption{Performance comparison with original Glycolysis data} \centering \begin{tabular}{l|lll} \hline & \multicolumn{1}{c}{AUROC} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{TPR $\uparrow$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{FDR $\downarrow$} \\ \hline \ModelName{} & \textbf{0.7352$\pm$0.019} & \textbf{0.3623$\pm$0.007} & \textbf{0.1575$\pm$0.05} \\ NGM & 0.5248$\pm$0.057 & 0.3478$\pm$0.035 & 0.4559$\pm$0.094 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab: glycolysis unnormalized results} \end{table}

2207.02960v1

\begin{table}[htbp] \centering \footnotesize \begin{tabular}{ | p{4cm} | p{2.5cm} | p{2.2cm} | p{2.3cm} | p{2.5cm} | } \hline \textbf{Project} & \textbf{Collection Medium} & \textbf{ML Task} & \textbf{Audience} & \textbf{Deliverable Form} \\ \hline \textbf{The Real Face of White Australia} & Document Scans (Gov't Documents) & Facial Recognition & Public & ``Wall of Faces'' Online Interface \\ \hline \textbf{Citizen DJ} & Audio (Music, Field Recordings, etc.) & Audio Extraction \& Similarity & Public & Online Hip Hop Sampler \& Exploratory Interface \\ \hline \textbf{The Distant Viewing project} & Video (TV Sitcoms) & Facial Recognition \& Image Classification (at frame level) & Scholars \& ML Researchers & The Distant Viewing Toolkit \& Scholarly Output \\ \hline \textbf{The Transkribus platform} & Document Scans (Handwritten \& Typewritten) & OCR \& Handwriting Recognition & Scholars, Librarians \& Archivists, ML Researchers & Online Platform \\ \hline \textbf{Newspaper Navigator} & Document Scans (Newspapers) & Visual Content Extraction \& Similarity & Scholars, ML Researchers \& Public & The Newspaper Navigator Dataset \& Search Interface + Scholarly Output \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{A table categorizing the selected projects as case studies for the ``Collections as ML Data'' checklist developed in this paper.}\label{tab:projects} \end{table}

2111.06353v2

\begin{table}[ht] % \centering % \begin{tabular}{l|c} % \toprule % Model & Test Error(\%) \\ % \hline % LFM-DARTS, L2 & 17.91$\pm$0.30 \\ % LFM-DARTS, cosine & 18.02$\pm$0.25 \\ % LFM-DARTS, dot production & \textbf{17.65$\pm$0.45} \\ % \hline % LFM-PdARTS, L2 & 16.71$\pm$0.01 \\ % LFM-PdARTS, cosine & 16.67$\pm$0.09 \\ % LFM-PdARTS, dot production & \textbf{16.44$\pm$0.11} \\ % \bottomrule % \end{tabular} % \end{table}

2007.03018v1

\begin{table}[h] \centering \footnotesize \caption{Evaluation metrics for T1 with 128 electrodes.} \begin{tabular}{|c||r|r|r|r|} \hline & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{D-bar} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Calder\'on} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Smooth} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{TV} \\ \hline \hline DR & 95.25\% & 116.89\% & 162.62\% & 143.16\% \\ \hline MSE & 0.0305 & 0.0373 & 0.0141 & 0.0124 \\ \hline MS-SSIM & 0.8126 & 0.8324 & 0.8984 & 0.8978 \\ \thickhline LE & 0.0008 & 0.0008 & 0.0021 & 0.0007 \\ \hline RVR & 0.4435 & 0.3734 & 0.5088 & 0.6255 \\ \hline \end{tabular}% \label{tab:T7}% \end{table}

2007.03018v1

\begin{table}[h!] \centering \footnotesize \caption{Evaluation metrics for the high-contrast example T3 across all electrode configurations considered.} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c||r|r|r|r|} \hline \multicolumn{1}{|r|}{} & & & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{D-bar} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Calderon} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Smooth} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{TV} \\ \hline \hline \multirow{6}[0]{*}{LE} & \multirow{3}[0]{*}{ conductor} & L=128 & 0.1267 & 0.1181 & 0.0264 & 0.0191 \\ \cline{3-7} & & L=64 & 0.1522 & 0.1566 & 0.0085 & 0.0136 \\ \cline{3-7} & & L=32 & 0.1559 & 0.1548 & 0.0111 & 0.0093 \\ \clineB{2-7}{2.5} & \multirow{3}[6]{*}{ resistor} & L=128 & 0.0853 & 0.0861 & 0.0128 & 0.0074 \\ \cline{3-7} & & L=64 & 0.1072 & 0.1107 & 0.0050 & 0.0061 \\ \cline{3-7} & & L=32 & 0.1465 & 0.1062 & 0.0057 & 0.0109 \\ \hline \hline \multirow{6}[0]{*}{RVR} & \multirow{3}[0]{*}{ conductor} & L=128 & 0.4672 & 0.4690 & 0.4122 & 0.6124 \\ \cline{3-7} & & L=64 & 0.5357 & 0.4343 & 0.4456 & 0.5490 \\ \cline{3-7} & & L=32 & 0.5883 & 0.5580 & 0.5492 & 0.6912 \\ \clineB{2-7}{2.5} & \multirow{3}[0]{*}{ resistor} & L=128 & 1.6747 & 1.6273 & 0.9951 & 1.0290 \\ \cline{3-7} & & L=64 & 1.9706 & 1.6022 & 1.0895 & 1.0479 \\ \cline{3-7} & & L=32 & 2.1047 & 2.0931 & 1.4676 & 1.1714 \\ \hline \end{tabular}% \label{tab:T6}% \end{table}

2012.03472v1

\begin{table}[H] \tiny \begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{c|l|l|X|X|X} \textbf{Feature Dimension} & \textbf{Algorithm} & \textbf{Backend} & \textbf{Time (Seconds, rounded)} & \textbf{Accuracy (\%)} & \textbf{Only one Class Predicted?} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{2} & SVM, Linear Kernel, scaled & Local Processor & 0 & 100.0 & False \\ & SVM, RBF Kernel, scaled & Local Processor & 0 & 100.0 & False \\ & QSVM & qasm\_simulator & 6 & 100.0 & False \\ & VQC & qasm\_simulator & 32 & 71.43 & False \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{3} & SVM, Linear Kernel, scaled & Local Processor & 0 & 100.0 & False \\ & SVM, RBF Kernel, scaled & Local Processor & 0 & 92.86 & False \\ & QSVM & qasm\_simulator & 14 & 64.29 & False \\ & VQC & qasm\_simulator & 58 & 42.86 & False \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{4} & SVM, Linear Kernel & Local Processor & 0 & 92.86 & False \\ & SVM, Linear Kernel, scaled & Local Processor & 0 & 92.86 & False \\ & SVM, RBF Kernel & Local Processor & 0 & 100.0 & False \\ & SVM, RBF Kernel, scaled & Local Processor & 0 & 100.0 & False \\ & VQC & qasm\_simulator & 128 & 50.0 & False \\ \end{tabularx} \caption{Results of trials of the Wine data set, with increasing feature dimension. Feature dimensions higher than 3 are not supported for QSVMs.} \end{table}

1905.13672v2

\begin{table}[h!] \begin{smallermathTable} \centering \begin{tabular}[t]{@{ }l@{ }|p{1.8cm}<{\centering}|p{1.8cm}<{\centering}} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Ontology Variability} & \multicolumn{2}{|c}{$\nabla(\mathcal{D}_{S},\mathcal{D}_{T})$} \\%\cline{2-3} & $variant$ & $invariant $ \\\hline $Road(r_3)$ & & \checkmark \\ $Cleared(r_1)$ & \checkmark &\\ $Disrupted(r_0)$ & \checkmark &\\ \end{tabular} \caption{\label{tab:streamSimilarity} Examples for Entailment-based %Ontology Domain Variability. } \end{smallermathTable} \end{table}

1605.08833v1

\begin{table}[tp]%{l}{0.9\linewidth} \begin{tabular} {| M{0.15\linewidth} || M{0.12\linewidth} || M{0.15\linewidth} || M{0.10\linewidth} || M{0.30\linewidth} |} \hline Dataset & \# labeled & \# unlabeled & Dim. & Comments \\ \hline \hline \multirow{1}{*}{\texttt{kagg-prot}} & 3750 & & 1776 & Kaggle challenge \cite{kagg2} \\ \hline \multirow{1}{*}{\texttt{ssl-text}} & 1500 & & 11960 & \cite{CSZ06} \\ \hline %\multirow{1}{*}{\texttt{ssl-usps}} & 1500 & & 241 & \cite{CSZ06}; imbalanced \\ \hline \multirow{1}{*}{\texttt{kagg-cred}} & 150K & & 10 & Kaggle challenge \cite{kagg1}; imbalanced (< 10\% positives) \\ \hline \multirow{1}{*}{\texttt{adult}} & 32561 & & 123 & LibSVM \\ \hline %\multirow{1}{*}{\texttt{w1a}} & 2477 train, 47272 test & & 300 & LibSVM \\ \hline \multirow{1}{*}{\texttt{covtype}} & 581012 & & 54 & LibSVM \\ \hline \multirow{1}{*}{\texttt{ssl-secstr}} & 83679 & 1189472 & 315 & \cite{CSZ06} \\ \hline \multirow{1}{*}{\texttt{cod-rna}} & 59535 train, 271617 test & 157413 & 8 & LibSVM \\ \hline \multirow{1}{*}{\texttt{SUSY}} & 5M & & 18 & UCI \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Information about the datasets used. } \label{tab:allauc} \end{table}

2403.13380v1

\begin{table}[hb] \centering \caption{Settings and results of the validation cases} \begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c|c|c|c} \toprule Cases & (a) & (b) & (c) & (d) & (e) & (f) \\ \hline Material & Si & Al & Fe & Be & C & Si \\ \hline Sim. Method & MD & MD & MD & MULTI & MULTI & MD \\ \toprule $\rho_0~(g/cm^3)$ & 2.318 & 2.698 & 8.014 & 1.84 & 3.16 & 2.318 \\ \hline $P_H$~(GPa) & 73.4 & 116.9 & 117.5 & 128 & 334 & 56.5 \\ \hline $U_H~(km/s)$ & 3.5 & 4.0 & 2.0 & 5.06 & 6.17 & 3.0 \\ \hline $a_H~(km/s)$ & 2.86 & 4.46 & 2.33 & 6.112 & 6.105 & 2.40 \\ \hline $\rho_H~(g/cm^3)$ & 3.871 & 4.278 & 10.98 & 2.91 & 4.94 & 3.681 \\ \hline $\rho_R~(g/cm^3)$ & 2.55 & 2.305 & 6.52 & 1.45 & 3.10 & 2.63 \\ \toprule err mode~1~(\%) & 22.96 & 7.40 & 6.53 & 28.92 & 30.05 & 16.37 \\ \hline err mode~2~(\%) & 5.81 & 6.75 & 8.66 & 6.70 & 11.39 & 15.67 \\ \hline err mode~3~(\%) & 1.64 & 0.55 & 0.97 & 1.08 & 2.42 & 11.23 \\ \toprule \end{tabular} \label{tab:1} \end{table}

2111.05714v1

\begin{table}[!htbp] \centering \caption{Distribution of the range of missing values over SNPs (e.g. There are 81 SNPs each having $m$ missing values with $1\leq m\leq 9$).} \vspace{8pt} \begin{tabular}{c|ccccc} \hline Range of numbers &\multirow{2}{*}{0}&\multirow{2}{*}{1-9}&\multirow{2}{*}{10-19}&\multirow{2}{*}{20-29}&\multirow{2}{*}{30-32}\\ of missing values &&&&&\\\hline Number of SNPs &50 & 81 & 44 & 30 &2\\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{Table3} \end{table}

2008.03069v2

\begin{table}[t] \fontsize{9.5}{9.5}\selectfont \centering \caption{Evaluation of team sesc's approach, as additional steps were added and combinations tested. Loss evaluations on the competition's public leaderboard included. Risk values clipped at -6.00001 (-6.001 in LRP).} \label{tab:manual_eng} \begin{tabular}{lrrr|rrrr} \toprule {\textbf{Combinations of steps}} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{Train set}} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\textbf{Test set}} \\ {} & \MSE & $F_2$ & loss & \MSE & $F_2$ & loss & leaderboard \\ \midrule LRP baseline & 0.330 & 0.411 & 0.804 & 0.513 & 0.739 & 0.694 & 0.718 \\ steps: 0 (raise to -5.95) & 0.330 & 0.430 & 0.768 & 0.512 & 0.753 & 0.680 & 0.703 \\ steps: 0 + 1 (raise to -5.60) & 0.305 & 0.392 & 0.779 & 0.498 & 0.764 & 0.653 & 0.670 \\ steps: 0 + 1 + 2 (raise to -5.00) & 0.290 & 0.296 & 0.982 & 0.445 & 0.738 & 0.603 & 0.612 \\ steps: 0 + 1 + 2 + 3 (safe c\_object\_type) & 0.290 & 0.301 & 0.966 & 0.426 & 0.735 & 0.579 & 0.587 \\ steps: 0 + 1 + 2 + 4 (safe t\_span) & 0.290 & 0.298 & 0.974 & 0.447 & 0.735 & 0.608 & 0.611 \\ steps: 0 + 1 + 2 + 5 (safe miss\_distance) & 0.325 & 0.304 & 1.070 & 0.444 & 0.733 & 0.607 & 0.613 \\ steps: 0 + 1 + 2 + 6 (clip high risks) & 0.293 & 0.296 & 0.990 & 0.424 & 0.738 & 0.575 & 0.581 \\ steps: 0 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 & 0.327 & 0.311 & 1.050 & 0.414 & 0.728 & 0.569 & 0.564 \\ steps: 0 + 1 + 2 + 5 + 6 & 0.327 & 0.304 & 1.077 & 0.424 & 0.733 & 0.578 & 0.581 \\ steps: 0 + 1 + 2 + 5 + 6 + 7 (manual adjustment) & 0.327 & 0.304 & 1.077 & 0.407 & 0.733 & 0.555 & 0.555 \\ \bottomrule \end{tabular} \end{table}