Datasets:

staghado

/

ArXiv-tables

like 2

2106.11892v3

\begin{table}[h] \centering \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c} \hline & Tiny & Small & Medium & Large \\ \hline General leakage & 717 & 770 & 675 & 1494 \\ \hline Small leakage & 153 & 38 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Two different test sets for evaluating the performance of our generative models. For the definitions of different leakage~(tiny, small, medium, and large), please refer to Eq.~\eqref{eq:leakCases} and Fig.~\ref{fig:mass dis}.}%~\my{(Please complete this table.)} } \label{tab:TestData} \end{table}

1806.01259v1

\begin{table}[t] \centering { \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline Encoding Function Architecture & k & \ECacc & \Trueacc\\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\mlpcoder} & 2 & 0.9831 & 0.9279 \\ & 5 & 0.9817 & 0.9270 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\convcoder} & 2 & 0.9899 & 0.9295 \\ & 5 & 0.9869 & 0.9260 \\ \hline \end{tabular} } \caption{Test \ecacc and \trueacc for logistic regression \channelmodel on the \mnist dataset with $r=1$ and using KL-divergence as the loss function.} \label{table:app-logistic} \end{table}

1805.03441v1

\begin{table}[t] \caption{Candidate code features used in \cite{Magni:2014:AOT:2628071.2628087}.} \label{tbl:rawfeatures} \scriptsize \begin{tabularx}{\columnwidth}{X||X} \toprule \textbf{Feature Description} & \textbf{Feature Description}\\ \midrule \rowcolor{Gray} \# Basic Blocks & \# Branches \\ \# Divergent Instr. & \# Instrs. in Divergent Regions \\ \rowcolor{Gray} (\# instr. in Divergent regions)/(\# total instr.) & \# Divergent regions \\ \# Instrs & \# Floating point instr. \\ \rowcolor{Gray} Avg. ILP per basic block & (\# integer instr.) / (\# floating point instr.) \\ \# integer instr. & \# Math built-in func.\\ \rowcolor{Gray} Avg. MLP per basic block & \# loads \\ \# stores & \# loads that are independent of the coarsening direction \\ \rowcolor{Gray} \# barriers & \\ \bottomrule \end{tabularx} \end{table}

1805.03441v1

\begin{table}[t] \caption{Feature engineering techniques discussed in Section~\ref{sec:featureengineering}.} \label{tbl:fegineering} \begin{tabularx}{\columnwidth}{X X} \toprule \textbf{Problem} & \textbf{Techniques}\\ \midrule \rowcolor{Gray} Feature selection & Pearson correlation coefficient, mutual information, regression analysis. See Section~\ref{sec:fesecl}.\\ Feature dimensionality reduction & Principal component analysis (\PCA), factor analysis, linear discriminant analysis, autoencoder. See Section~\ref {sec:dimred}.\\ \bottomrule \end{tabularx} \end{table}

2008.06456v1

\begin{table}[H] \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline $\delta$ & 0.6 \\ \hline $\gamma_{pred}$ & 0.2 \\ \hline $\gamma_{succ}$ & 0.05 \\ \hline $K$ & 10 \\ \hline $p$ & 6 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Hyperparameters used for the MR\ algorithm. } \label{table2} \end{table}

2308.11910v2

\begin{table} \centering \caption{Main notations used in this paper.} \setlength{\tabcolsep}{1pt} \begin{tabular}{ |c|>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{7.5cm}| } \hline Symbols & Description \\ \hline $N_\text{p}$& Number of participants \\ $N_\text{s}$& Number of sessions for each participant \\ $N$& Number of ROIs \\ $T$& Number of volumes (i.e., time points) in each session \\ $\bm{x}_{t} \in \mathbb{R}^N$ & fMRI signal at time $t$\\ $\overline{x}_t$ & Average of $x_{t,i}$ over ROIs\\ $\sigma_{t}$ & Standard deviation of $x_{t,i}$ over ROIs\\ $K$ & Number of discrete states \\ $\bm{c}_{\ell} \in \mathbb{R}^N$ & Centroid of the $\ell$th cluster, where $\ell \in \{1,2, \ldots, K\}$\\ $L_t$ & Cluster label for $\bm{x}_t; L_t \in \{1, 2, \ldots, K\}$ \\ % $C_{\ell}$ & Set of $\bm{x}_t$'s in the $\ell$th cluster\\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:notation} \end{table}

1905.10737v3

\begin{table}[h] \centering \small \begin{tabular}{l|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} \cline{2-11} & \multicolumn{10}{c|}{Time (t)} \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{$x_0$}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{100} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{1,000} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{5,000} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{10,000} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{20,000} \\ \cline{2-11} \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Theo.} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Sim.} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Theo.} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Sim.} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Theo.} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Sim.} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Theo.} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Sim.} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Theo.} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Sim.} \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{10} & 81.87 & 82.10 & 98.02 & 97.97 & 99.60 & 99.61 & 99.80 & 99.76 & 99.90 & 99.87 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{100} & 13.53 & 13.02 & 81.87 & 81.85 & 96.08 & 96.11 & 98.02 & 98.04 & 99.00 & 99.03 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{1000} & 0.00 & 0.00 & 13.53 & 13.31 & 67.03 & 67.08 & 81.87 & 82.10 & 90.48 & 90.68 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{10000} & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.83 & 1.79 & 13.53 & 13.51 & 36.79 & 36.07 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Percentage of paths absorbed at origin over time for different values of $x_0$ with $t_0=0$, $\si^2=1$, $\Delta t_i=1$. (10,000 paths)} \label{tab:samplesim4} \end{table}

1905.10737v3

\begin{table}[h] \centering \small \begin{tabular}{l|r|r|r|r|r|} \cline{2-6} & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{\textbf{Time (t)}} \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{$x_0$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{100} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{1000} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{5000} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{10000} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{20000} \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{10} & 8.35 & 6.98 & 2.74 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{100} & 100.70 & 110.73 & 100.92 & 127.18 & 149.70 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{1000} & 1000.47 & 996.56 & 908.82 & 960.91 & 1011.71 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{10000} & 9956.68 & 9958.66 & 9752.99 & 9860.61 & 9775.20 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Average $x$ value for varying $x_0$ values with $t_0=0$, $\si^2=10$, $\Delta t_i=1$. (10,000 paths)} \label{tab:avgxvar10} \end{table}

1905.10737v3

\begin{table}[h] \centering \small \begin{tabular}{l|r|r|r|r|r|} \cline{2-6} & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{\textbf{Time (t)}} \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{$x_0$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{100} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{1000} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{5000} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{10000} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{20000} \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{10} & 10.07 & 11.07 & 10.29 & 12.68 & 14.92 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{100} & 100.05 & 99.72 & 90.96 & 96.19 & 99.01 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{1000} & 995.67 & 995.34 & 975.22 & 991.77 & 977.22 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{10000} & 9990.73 & 10000.84 & 10004.78 & 10049.72 & 9953.11 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Average $x$ value for varying $x_0$ values with $t_0=0$, $\si^2=1$, $\Delta t_i=1$. (10,000 paths)} \label{tab:avgxvar1} \end{table}

2302.00105v2

\begin{table}[] \centering \begin{tabular}{ |c|c|c|c| } \hline \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{The SWP leveraged the quantum neural classifier.} \\ \hline \#Patients & \#SW &\#Layers & Accuracy\\ \hline 3 & 2 & 2 & 70.3\\ 4 & 3 & 2 & 63.2\\ 5 & 2 & 2 & 57.7 \\ 5 & 3 & 2 & 48.1\\ 5 & 4 & 2 & 47.2\\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{We are solving the Social Workers' Problem (SWP) \cite{atchade2020using, adelomou2020formulation} with a quantum neural network classifier. } \label{tab:results_CBR_NN_SW_Full} \end{table}

2007.09982v1

\begin{table}[htb] % \small % \centering % \begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c|c|c} % \hline % Dataset & examples & features & list & generator w. cache & generator \\ % \hline % Madelon & 6000 & 5000 & \makecell{24.4 s\\7.3 GB} & \makecell{28.0 s\\2.6 GB} & \makecell{60.5 s\\2.3 GB} \\ % \hline % Phishing & 11055 & 68 & \makecell{115.7 s\\23.9 GB} & \makecell{120.4 s\\6.2 GB} & \makecell{126.8 s\\5.7 GB} \\ % \hline % \end{tabular} % \caption{Computational time and memory usage of EasyMKL when trained with explicit kernels list and MKLpy generators.} % \label{tab:generators} % \vspace{-1.5em} % \end{table}

2401.13343v2

\begin{table}[ht] \def\arraystretch{1.5} \setlength\tabcolsep{0.2cm} \centering \caption{Hypothetical timings to build a CAD for a set of polynomials with six possible variable orderings} \label{tab:orderings} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{\textbf{Ordering}} & \textbf{Timing } \\ \hline $\succ_{123}$ & 22.16s \\ \hline $\succ_{132}$ & 17.14s \\ \hline $\succ_{213}$ & Timeout 30s \\ \hline $\succ_{231}$ & 24.87 \\ \hline $\succ_{312}$ & \textbf{16.06} \\ \hline $\succ_{321}$ & 22.58 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2401.13343v2

\begin{table}[ht] %\centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Short name} & \textbf{Training dataset} & \textbf{Testing dataset} & \textbf{Paradigm}\\\hline A & Imbalanced (see \Cref{sec:exploring classification dataset}) & Imbalanced & Classification\\\hline B & Imbalanced & Balanced & Classification\\\hline C & Balanced (see \Cref{sec:improving datasets}) & Balanced & Classification\\\hline D & Augmented (see \Cref{sec:improving datasets}) & Balanced & Classification\\\hline E & Regression orderings (See \Cref{sec:creating regression intance}) & Balanced & Regression\\\hline F & Regression variables (see \Cref{sec:regression variables}) & Balanced & Regression\\\hline \end{tabular} %\caption{Short name for available strategies.} %\label{tab:estrategies short name} %\end{table}

2311.15460v1

\begin{table}[!ht] \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1} \centering \caption{Modal verbs for Deontic Types}\label{tab:modalverbs} % \begin{tabular}{| p{1.5cm} | p{4cm}|} \hline Type & Model Verbs \\ \hline Obligation & shall be required, will be required, shall be obligated, shall, must, will, have to, should, ought to have, will be paid, shall be paid, agree, agrees, acknowledges, acknowledge, represents and warrants, shall be responsible for, will be responsible for \\ \hline Prohibition & shall not, will not, must not, may not, cannot, shall have no right, can not, shall not be allowed, will not be allowed, shall not assist, shall be prohibited, will be prohibited, nor shall, not to be, neither lessor nore lessee may, in no event shall, nor will, will not allow, nor may \\ \hline Permissions & shall be permitted, shall also be permitted, can, may, could, shall be allowed, will be allowed, is permitted, will allow, has the right, or at landlord's option, shall be permitted to \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2312.08493v1

\begin{table} \begin{tabular}{ |c|c|c|c|c| } \hline & Example 1 & Example 2 & Example 3 & Example 4 \\ \hline MSE & 0.0042 & 0.0035 & 0.4954 & 0.0007 \\ \hline $R^2$ & 0.9972 & 0.9987 & 0.9246 & 0.9934 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{\label{metrics} MSE and $R^2$ for real and predicted values.} \end{table}

2312.08493v1

\begin{table} \begin{tabular}{ |c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c| } \hline & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Example 1} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Example 2} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Example 3} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Example 4} \\ \hline & X real & X approx & X real & X approx & X real & X approx & X real & X approx \\ \hline empirical mean & 0.515 & 0.515 & 0.495 & 0.497 & 1.243 & 1.256 & 0.477 & 0.519 \\ \hline empirical std dev & 2.456 & 2.388 & 3.168 & 3.202 & 4.835 & 5.077 & 0.144 & 0.143 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{\label{histogram_values}Empirical distribution values for each example - mean and standard deviation} \end{table}

2312.08493v1

\begin{table} \begin{tabular}{ |c|c|c|c|c| } \hline & Example 1 & Example 2 & Example 3 & Example 4 \\ \hline KS statistics & 0.015 & 0.009 & 0.028 & 0.132 \\ \hline $p$-value of KS test & 0.99987 & 0.99999 & 0.82821 & 5.19e-08 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{\label{distance_measures} Comparison of distributions metrics for all the examples} \end{table}

2312.08493v1

\begin{table} \begin{tabular}{ |c|c|c|c|c| } \hline & Example 1 & Example 2 & Example 3 & Example 4 \\ \hline $L_{empirical}$ & 0.081 & 0.060 & 0.449 & 0.041 \\ \hline $R_{empirical}$ & 0.597 & 0.503 & 1.252 & 2.223 \\ \hline $C_{empirical}$ & 0.136 & 0.119 & 0.359 & 0.019 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{\label{theorem1_values} Empirical values for components of Theorem \ref{dist_X1X2} \& \ref{dist_X1X2_discont} inequality.} \end{table}

1807.06540v1

\begin{table}[htbp] %\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|}\hline ResNet-Depth & Before & Icing on the Cake \\ \hline 11 & 0.57 (0.010)& 0.64 (0.003)\\ \hline 20& 0.61 (0.014)&0.69 (0.005) \\ \hline 29 &0.63 (0.021)& 0.71 (0.005) \\ \hline 38& 0.64 (0.016)&0.72 (0.004) \\ \hline 47& 0.64 (0.020)&0.72 (0.003) \\ \hline 56& 0.66 (0.015)&0.73 (0.003) \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{The experiments in ResNet with varying depth from 11 to 56. Accuracies and stand deviations are written.}\label{tab: resnet-depth} \end{center} %\end{minipage} \end{table}

1807.06540v1

\begin{table}[htbp] \begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|}\hline & ResNet56& DenseNet \\ \hline Before& 0.66 (0.015) & 0.59 (0.023) \\ \hline ICK & 0.73 (0.003)& 0.79 (0.0049) \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{The classifications in Cifar100}\label{tab: result100} \end{center} \end{minipage} % \end{table}

1807.06540v1

\begin{table}[htbp] \begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|}\hline & ResNet56& DenseNet \\ \hline Before& 0.885 (0.012) & 0.86 (0.024) \\ \hline ICK & 0.92 (0.0025) & 0.91 (0.0057) \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{The classifications in Cifar10}\label{tab: result10} \end{center} \end{minipage} \end{table}

1807.06540v1

\begin{table}[htbp] %\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}\hline Before& Icing on the Cake \\ \hline 0.72 & 0.73 \\ \hline 0.72& 0.74 \\ \hline 0.72&0.74 \\ \hline 0.72& 0.73 \\ \hline 0.72& 0.73\\ \hline 0.72& 0.74 \\ \hline 0.73&0.74 \\ \hline 0.73& 0.74 \\ \hline 0.72 & 0.73 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{The experiments in WideResNet--16--8}\label{tab: wideresnet} \end{center} % \end{minipage} \end{table}

2101.11760v1

\begin{table}[h] \vspace*{-0.2cm} \centering \caption{Error metrics for the case study} \label{tab:errors} \scalebox{0.92}{ \begin{tabular}{ |c||c|c|c|c| } \hline Frequency & Layers & Train. MSE (dB) & Val. MAE (dB) & Test MAE (dB)\\ \hline 900\,MHz & 3 & 2.677 & 0.946 & 0.827 \\ \hline 900\,MHz & 4 & 1.677 & 0.785 & 0.725 \\ \hline 2.4\,GHz & 4 & 15.03 & 2.579 & 2.746 \\ \hline \end{tabular}} \end{table}

1703.07513v1

\begin{table}[ht] \centering \caption{Summary of Financial Agents.} \label{tab:centrality} \begin{tabular}{l | l| l | l} \hline Agent & Number of Agents &Avg. NAV & Avg. Leverage \\ \hline Banks & 100 & 1.66e8 & 3.781 \\ Hedge Funds & 200 & 1.71e7 & 1.000 \\ MMFs & 100 & 3.11e8 & 1.000\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

1901.00612v1

\begin{table} \tiny \caption{\small Functions $g(r)$ and $f(r)$ corresponding to particular $f$-GAN setups.\label{tab:list}} \begin{tabular}{ |p{2.0cm}||p{2.95cm}||p{1.95cm}| } \hline % \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Country List} \\ % \hline $f$-Divergence & $f(r)$ & $g(r)$ in $\theta$ update \\ \hline Kullback-Leibler (KL) & $r\log r$ & $r$ \\ Reverse KL & $-\log r$ & $\log r$ \\ Squared Hellinger & $(\sqrt{r}-1)^2$ & $\sqrt{r}$ \\ Total variation & $|r-1|/2$ & $\frac{1}{2}\mbox{sign}({r}-1)$ \\ Pearson $\chi^2$ & $(r-1)^2$ & $({r}-1)^2+2r$ \\ Neyman $\chi^2$ & $(r-1)^2/r$ & $-1/r$ \\ GAN & $r \log r - (r + 1) \log(r + 1)$ & $-\log\big[\frac{1}{1+{r}}\big]$ \\ \hline \end{tabular}\vspace{-2mm} \end{table}

1901.00612v1

\begin{table}[h!] \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.8} \centering \caption{Hyper-parameters in SQL.} \label{tab:env_params} \vspace{1mm} \begin{tabular}{ r|ccc } \hline Environment &Action &Reward & Replay \\ &Spcae &Scale & Pool Size\\ \hline Swimmer (rllab) &2 & 100 & $10^6$\\ Hopper-v1 &3 & 1 & $10^6$\\ HalfCheetah-v1 &6 & 1 & $10^7$\\ Walker2d-v1 &6 & 3 & $10^6$\\ Ant-v1 &8 & 10 & $10^6$\\ Humanoid (rllab) &21 & 100 & $10^6$\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2212.11728v1

\begin{table}[!htb] \centering \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline cluster & $a$ & $b$ & $c$ & $d$ & $e$ & $f$ & $g$ & $h$ & $i$ & $j$\\ \hline size & 4297 & 1572 & 9325 & 4033 & 2061 & 7686 & 1581 & 4075 & 7163 & 7049\\ \hline withinss & 4484.7 & 1849.6 & 8185.9 & 3919.8 & 1738.8 & 5156.8 & 1720.7 & 2490.5 & 5447.2 & 3701.6\\ \hline withinss\% & 11.58 & 4.77 & 21.15 & 10.12 & 4.49 & 13.32 & 4.44 & 6.43 & 14.07 & 9.56\\ \hline \end{tabular}\caption{Summary of the clusters of instances using k-means}\label{summary_adult} \end{table}

2312.12774v1

\begin{table}[ht] \centering \caption{ETL Load Plan for Data Collection and Processing} \begin{tabular}{|l|p{4cm}|} \hline \textbf{Field} & \textbf{Description} \\ \hline Name & ETL for Data Collection and Processing \\ \hline Description (Optional) & Load plan for collecting data through x, storing it in MySQL, and processing it for analysis using Github and Ionos. \\ \hline Load Plan Type (Optional) & Source Extract and Load (SDE, SIL and PLP) \\ \hline Source Instances (Optional) & Select MySQL as the source instance for data extraction. \\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:etl_load_plan} \end{table}

2312.12774v1

\begin{table}[ht] \centering \caption{Data collected } \begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline \textbf{Type} & \textbf{Items No.} & \textbf{Total Records} & \textbf{Flat File Size (MB)}\\ \hline Stocks & 359 & 19,910,499 & 1,228.8\\ \hline Commodities & 3 & 359,316 & 26.6\\ \hline Indexes & 3 & 111,900 & 8.24\\ \hline \textbf{ Total }& 365 & \textbf{20,381,715} & \textbf{1,263.64} \\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:first_data} \end{table}

2112.07893v3

\begin{table}[h]\small \centering \caption{Comparison of the prediction accuracy w/ and w/o resampled data.} \label{tab:sample} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline Models & Raw-data & Over-s & Under-s & Combined-s \\ \hline KNN & 0.1100 & 0.0957 & \textbf{0.1292} & 0.0861 \\\hline SVM & \textbf{0.1292} & 0.0287 & 0.1196 & 0.0667 \\\hline Random Forest & 0.1435 & \textbf{0.1531} & 0.1388 & 0.1483 \\\hline XGBoost & \textbf{0.1770} & 0.1579 & 0.1340 & 0.1483 \\\hline MLP & 0.1435 & 0.0718 & \textbf{0.1627} & 0.1005 \\\hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2112.07893v3

\begin{table}[htb] \centering \caption{Comparison of the prediction accuracy w/ and w/o feature G1,G2.} \label{tab:comp} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline Models & w/ Grade & w/o Grade \\ \hline KNN & 0.2679 & 0.1100 \\ \hline SVM & 0.3014 & 0.1292 \\ \hline Random Forest & 0.4019 & 0.1435 \\ \hline XGBoost & 0.4498 & 0.1770 \\ \hline MLP & 0.2679 & 0.1435 \\\hline Proposed Model & \textbf{0.4641} & \textbf{0.1866} \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2112.07893v3

\begin{table}[htb]\small \centering \caption{Comparison of the prediction accuracy between the proposed model and other models.} \label{tab:final} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline Models & Raw-data & Feature-selected-data\\ \hline SVM & 0.1292 & 0.1292 \\ \hline Random Forest & 0.1435 & 0.1675 \\ \hline XGBoost & 0.1770 & 0.1627 \\ \hline MLP & 0.1435 & 0.1483 \\\hline Proposed Model & \textbf{0.1866} & \textbf{0.1922} \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2102.00753v2

\begin{table} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \hline $i$ (index) & $x_1$ (protected) & $x_2$ & $x_3$ & $\ket{x_i^n}$ \\ \hline \hline 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & $\ket{111}$ \\ 2 & 1 & 1 & 0 & $\ket{110}$ \\ 3 & 1 & 0 & 1 & $\ket{101}$ \\ 4 & 1 & 0 & 0 & $\ket{100}$ \\ 5 & 0 & 1 & 1 & $\ket{011}$ \\ 6 & 0 & 1 & 0 & $\ket{010}$ \\ 7 & 0 & 0 & 1 & $\ket{001}$ \\ 8 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $\ket{000}$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} % \label{table:basisencoding} \end{center} \caption{Basis encoding of individuals with features $b_k$ into quantum states $\ket{x^n}$} \end{table}

1909.05125v1

\begin{table} [h] \centering \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|} \hline Name & \# Training & \# Test & \# Features \\ \hline MNIST & $50,000$ & $10,000$ & $784$ \\ FMNIST & $50,000$ & $10,000$ & $784$ \\ Spambase & $3,680$ & $921$ & $54$ \\ CIFAR-10 & $50,000$ & $10,000$ & $3,072$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Characteristics of the 4 datasets used in the experiments.} \label{tabDatasets} \end{table}

2208.03112v1

\begin{table}[t] \caption{Baseline characteristics of the study subjects. Data was expressed as median (IQR) or mean (SD). The number (No.) was expressed as absolute value and \%.} \label{baseline} \vskip 0.15in \begin{center} \begin{small} \begin{sc} \begin{tabular}{c|ccc} \toprule & Total & Men & Women \\ \midrule No & 29,080 & 12,946 & 16,134 \\ \hline Follow-up & 4.7 & 4.6 & 4.8 \\ {}[years] & (2.4-7.9) & (2.3-7.7) & (2.5-8.0) \\ \hline Age & 52 & 55 & 49 \\ & (37-62) & (42-63) & (34-60) \\ \hline BMI[kg/m2] & 23.0 (4.2) & 23.7 (3.8) & 22.4 (4.3) \\ \hline %kg/m2 & (n=28105) & (n=12532) & (n=15573) \\ BIL & 0.65 & 0.70 & 0.60 \\ {}[mg/dL] & (0.50-0.82) & (0.54-0.90) & (0.50-0.80) \\ \hline Smoking & 8301 (32\%) & 6021 (52\%) & 2280 (16\%) \\ \hline %& (n=26144) & (n=11576) & (n=11576) \\ Diabetes & 5120 (18\%) & 2958 (23\%) & 2162 (13\%) \\ \bottomrule \end{tabular} \end{sc} \end{small} \end{center} \vskip -0.1in \end{table}

1503.07759v3

\begin{table}[ht] \centering \small \begin{tabular}{|l|l|} \hline Add 2014\_09 UniProtKB & 182 minutes \\ \hline Update to 2014\_10 UniProtKB & 144 minutes \\ \hline Retrieve UniProtKB& 36 minutes \\ \hline Retrieve cached UniProtKB & 12 minutes \\ \hline Retrieve incremental UniProtKB & 5 minutes \\ \hline Retrieve cached incremental UniProtKB & 26 seconds \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{GeStore add, update, and retrieve execution times.} \label{TAB1} \end{table}

1503.07759v3

\begin{table}[ht] \centering \small \begin{tabular}{|l|l|} \hline Get incremental UniProtKB and generate BLAST database & 9 minutes \\ \hline Get cached incremental UniProtKB & 26 seconds \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Generating incremental meta-databases} \label{TAB2} \end{table}

1503.07759v3

\begin{table}[ht] \centering \small \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|} \hline Versions & Compressed on disk & Uncompressed on disk & In HBase \\ \hline 2014-03 & 23 GB & 133 GB & 306 GB \\ \hline 2014-03 to 2014-04 & 47 GB & 268 GB & 240 GB \\ \hline 2014-03 to 2014-05 & 71 GB & 405 GB & 210 GB \\ \hline 2014-03 to 2014-06 & 99 GB & 568 GB & 234 GB \\ \hline 2014-03 to 2014-07 & 133 GB & 757 GB & 273 GB \\ \hline %??? HER BURDE DET VÆRT FLERE VERSJONER FOR BEDRE Å SE TRENDEN \end{tabular} \caption{Aggregate size of UniProtKB on disk and in HBase using snappy and delta compression with a replication factor of three.} \label{sizetab} \end{table}

1503.07759v3

\begin{table}[ht] \centering \small \begin{tabular}{|l|l|} \hline Full update without GeStore & 833 minutes \\ \hline Full update with GeStore & 965 minutes \\ \hline Full update with GeStore, cached DB & 859 minutes \\ \hline 1-month incremental update & 61 minutes \\ \hline 4-month incremental update & 99 minutes \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Application benchmarks for Meta-Pipe} \label{TAB4} \end{table}

1503.07759v3

\begin{table}[ht] \centering \small \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|} \hline & Ad hoc Script & GeStore \\ \hline\hline Write FASTA & 63 minutes & \\ \hline Formatdb & 34 minutes & \\ \hline Copy BLAST DB to nodes & 109 minutes & \\ \hline Total vs. GeStore add & 206 minutes & 80 minutes \\ \hline \hline Create SQLite DB & 142 minutes & \\ \hline Copy SQLite DB to nodes & 173 minutes & \\ \hline \hline Total vs. GeStore retrieve & 522 minutes & 191 minutes \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Ad hoc scripts vs. corresponding GeStore operations.} \label{TAB5} \end{table}

1706.08519v1

\begin{table} \centering \caption{The (minimal) impact of the type of decision on the Breir score}\label{tab:breir} \vspace{6pt} \begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|} \hline % after \\: \hline or \cline{col1-col2} \cline{col3-col4} ... Decision & $\ba=0$ & $\ba=1$ \\\hline Bayes decision & 0.1898 & 0.1820 \\ Bayes decision based on 2 categories & 0.2064 & 0.1990 \\ The non-discrimantory decision & 0.2092 & 0.2001 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

1706.08519v1

\begin{table} \centering \caption{} \vspace{6pt} \begin{tabular}{l|g|g|} \rowcolor{white} \multicolumn{1}{l}{} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{$\ba=$ female} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{$\ba=$ male} \\[12pt] \hhline{~|-|-|} \rowcolor{white} $\bz=$ female & \parbox[t]{60pt}{homosexual\\female} & \parbox[t]{60pt}{heterosexual\\male} \\[12pt] \hhline{~|-|-|} $\bz=$ male & \parbox[t]{60pt}{heterosexual\\female} & \parbox[t]{60pt}{homosexual\\male} \\[12pt] \hhline{~|-|-|} \end{tabular} \label{tab:gender-sexual-orientation} \end{table}

2202.12807v1

\begin{table} \caption{\label{Table1} PDF coverage for EXFOR and NSR references as of October 14, 2021. Reciprocal PDF contributions are shown as \# of complementary files.} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c} \hline \hline Database & \# of References & \# of PDF Files & \# of Complementary Files \\ \hline %EXFOR & 34,042 & 25,634 & 602 \\ EXFOR & 34,609 & 26,343 & 1,899 \\ NSR & 236,583 & 187,617 & 1,375 \\ %CINDA & 39,817 & 14,154 & \\ %IBANDL & 795 & 642 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \end{table}

2202.12807v1

\begin{table} \caption{\label{Table2} PDF files coverage for several types of NSR and EXFOR references as of October 14, 2021.} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{l|c|c} \hline \hline Reference Type & NSR: \#PDF/\#Total & EXFOR: \#PDF/\#Total \\ \hline %Journals & 157,424/188,064 (85\%) & 22,110/25,143 (88\%) \\ Reports & 14,761/27,895 (53\%) & 2,107/5,397 (39\%) \\ Conf. Proceedings & 13,352/20,143 (66\%) & 2,031/2,731 (74\%) \\ Theses & 654/2,051 (32\%) & 100/434 (23\%) \\ Books & 90/155 (58\%) & 34/102 (33\%) \\ Priv. Communications & 1,291/2,107 (61\%) & 1/815 (0.1\%) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \end{table}

2406.14075v1

\begin{table} \caption{Proportions of Complex Nuggets and Events} \label{tab:complex_demonstration} \begin{tabular}{l|rr} \toprule {\bf Forms} & Instances & Proportion \\ \midrule Inconsecutive nugget & 2,492 & 0.031 \\ Overlapped nugget & 27,229 & 0.337 \\ Reverse-ordered nugget & 819 & 0.010\\ Sub-event & 6,250 & 0.256 \\ \bottomrule \end{tabular} \end{table}

2406.14075v1

\begin{table} \caption{Model Ablation Studies (F1 values)} \label{tab:ablation} \begin{tabular}{l|rrrrr} \toprule ~ & TI & TC & AI & AC & EC \\ \midrule {\bf EXCEEDS} & 75.92 & 63.11 & 44.23 & 41.85 & 47.60 \\ \quad w/o Biaffine & 74.85 & 61.64 & 41.73 & 39.00 & 42.59 \\ \quad w/o BiAttention & 75.67 & 62.54 & 43.70 & 41.51 & 47.25 \\ \bottomrule \end{tabular} \end{table}

2406.14075v1

\begin{table}[htbp] \caption{Schema of Purpose (PUR)} \label{tab:event_type_pur} \begin{tabular}{c|c} \toprule {\bf Argument Type} & Constrained Nugget Types and Event Types \\ \midrule Aim & APP / MOD / FEA / DST / STR / WEA / TAK \\ Condition & LIM \\ Dataset & DST \\ \bottomrule \end{tabular} \end{table}

2406.14075v1

\begin{table}[htbp] \caption{Schema of IntroduceTarget (ITT)} \label{tab:event_type_itt} \begin{tabular}{c|c} \toprule {\bf Argument Type} & Constrained Nugget Types and Event Types \\ \midrule Target & APP / MOD / FEA / DST / STR / WEA / TAK \\ Condition & LIM \\ Dataset & DST \\ \bottomrule \end{tabular} \end{table}

2406.14075v1

\begin{table}[htbp] \caption{Schema of RelatedWorkStep (RWS)} \label{tab:event_type_rws} \begin{tabular}{c|c} \toprule {\bf Argument Type} & Constrained Nugget Types and Event Types \\ \midrule Subject & APP / MOD / FEA / DST \\ BaseComponent & APP / MOD / FEA / DST \\ TriedComponent & APP / MOD / FEA / DST \\ Condition & LIM / E-RWS \\ Dataset & DST \\ Target & E-PUR / TAK / STR / WEA / APP / FEA / MOD \\ \bottomrule \end{tabular} \end{table}

2406.14075v1

\begin{table}[htbp] \caption{Schema of RelatedWorkFault (RWF)} \label{tab:event_type_rwf} \begin{tabular}{c|c} \toprule {\bf Argument Type} & Constrained Nugget Types and Event Types \\ \midrule Concern & APP / FEA / STR / WEA / MOD / DST \\ Fault & APP / FEA / STR / WEA / MOD / DST \\ Condition & LIM / E-RWF / E-RWS \\ Dataset & DST \\ Target & E-PUR / TAK / STR / WEA \\ Extent & DEG \\ \bottomrule \end{tabular} \end{table}

2406.14075v1

\begin{table}[htbp] \caption{Schema of WorkStatement (WKS)} \label{tab:event_type_wks} \begin{tabular}{c|c} \toprule {\bf Argument Type} & Constrained Nugget Types and Event Types \\ \midrule Researcher & OG \\ Content & APP / MOD / FEA / DST / STR / WEA / TAK \\ Condition & LIM \\ Dataset & DST \\ Target & E-PUR / TAK / STR / WEA / APP / FEA / MOD \\ \bottomrule \end{tabular} \end{table}

2406.14075v1

\begin{table}[htbp] \caption{Schema of MethodStep (MDS)} \label{tab:event_type_mds} \begin{tabular}{c|c} \toprule {\bf Argument Type} & Constrained Nugget Types and Event Types \\ \midrule BaseComponent & APP / MOD / FEA / DST \\ TriedComponent & APP / MOD / FEA / DST \\ Condition & LIM / E-MDS \\ Dataset & DST \\ Target & E-PUR / TAK / STR / WEA / APP / FEA / MOD \\ \bottomrule \end{tabular} \end{table}

2406.14075v1

\begin{table}[htbp] \caption{Schema of Propose (PRP)} \label{tab:event_type_prp} \begin{tabular}{c|c} \toprule {\bf Argument Type} & Constrained Nugget Types and Event Types \\ \midrule Proposer & OG \\ Content & APP / FEA / MOD / DST / TAK \\ Target & E-PUR / TAK / FEA / WEA \\ \bottomrule \end{tabular} \end{table}

2406.14075v1

\begin{table}[htbp] \caption{Schema of Finding (FIN)} \label{tab:event_type_fin} \begin{tabular}{c|c} \toprule {\bf Argument Type} & Constrained Nugget Types and Event Types \\ \midrule Finder & OG \\ Content & E-FAC / E-CMP \\ \bottomrule \end{tabular} \end{table}

2406.14075v1

\begin{table}[htbp] \caption{Metrics in SciEvents} \label{tab:metrics} \begin{tabular}{c|ccccc} \toprule {\bf Metrics} & TI & TC & AI & AC & EC \\ \midrule trigger & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark \\ event type &&\checkmark&\checkmark&\checkmark&\checkmark\\ argument &&&\checkmark&\checkmark&\\ argument type &&&&\checkmark&\\ trigger-trigger &&&&&\checkmark\\ trigger-trigger type &&&&&\checkmark\\ \bottomrule \end{tabular} \end{table}

2406.14075v1

\begin{table}[htbp] \caption{An Illustrative Example} \label{tab:example} \begin{tabular}{c|cc} \toprule ~ & Event 1 & Event 2 \\ \midrule trigger & A & C2 \\ event type & M & N \\ argument & BT: B & DT: D\\ argument & CT: C1& ~\\ \bottomrule \end{tabular} \end{table}

2406.14075v1

\begin{table}[htbp] \caption{Extraction Results of the Illustrative Example} \label{tab:example} \begin{tabular}{c|lll} \toprule Metric & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Results} \\ \midrule TI & A & C2 & ~\\ TC & A+M & C2+N & ~\\ AI & A+M+B & A+M+C1 & C2+N+D\\ AC & A+M+B+BT & A+M+C1+CT & C2+N+D+DT\\ EC & A+M+C1(=C2)+N+CT& &\\ \bottomrule \end{tabular} \end{table}

1702.07138v1

\begin{table} \caption{Architectural decisions and motivation behind them} \label{T:attr} \begin{tabular}{m{3cm}|m{9cm}} \hline \textbf{Attribute name} & \textbf{Arguments} \\ \hline Extensibility & Proposed architecture allows to add new agents and new analysis tools without downtime or reconfiguration. %To start collecting data from a new IDE we need create a new agent and implement basic JSON document structure described above. %To start using new analysis tool we need to create a new data unifier and/or a new data exporter. \\ \hline Security and Privacy & The system could be deployed in multiple organizations. %And some organizations may not want to share their information with others. So we need to provide reasonable authorization, roles and access restriction settings. \\ \hline Performance & We need high-performance on write. There could be thousands of agents trying to write their data into document-oriented database at the same time. \\ \hline Consistency & We do not require strong consistency, eventual consistency should be fine. \\ \hline Modifiability & We require high modifiability of database schema. \\ \hline Scalability & We need horizontal scalability in terms of volume of data. \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2310.13240v2

\begin{table}[] \caption{\label{table1}Results of refutation tests} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|} \hline & ATE estimate \\ \hline Randomise w & \$9 (\$256) \\ \hline Randomise y & \$-716 (\$535) \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \end{table}

2308.01486v1

\begin{table}[!h] \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline Number of days $T$ & $1$ & $7$ & $25$ & $75$ & $150$ \\ \hline \hline Benchmark & -0.16 & 0.43 & -0.05 & -0.58 & -0.79 \\ \hline PDV (SS regression) & 0.35 & 0.53 & 0.17 & -0.44 & -0.95 \\ \hline PDV (linear regression) & \textbf{0.36} & 0.55 & 0.29 & 0.0 & -0.07 \\ \hline SS Path Shadowing & 0.32 & \textbf{0.56} & \textbf{0.33} & \textbf{0.07} & \textbf{0.01} \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Prediction of realized daily volatility ($R^2$ score). The PS-MC method based on the Scattering Spectra (SS) model outperforms the recently introduced PDV model at all time-scales $\geq$ 7 days, and upholds predictive power up to a period of $\approx$ 150 days. For $T=1$ day, however, the PDV model performs best. The benchmark is the realized variance on the $T$ previous days. The PDV model was calibrated using two different methods, see Appendix \ref{app:pdv}. } \label{tab:vol-prediction} \end{table}

2308.01486v1

\begin{table}[!h] \centering \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|} \hline & full period & $2015$-$2017$ & $2018$-$2020$ & $2021$-$2023$ \\ \hline \hline PDV & 0.071 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.13 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.0 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.10 $\pm$ 0.02 \\ \hline SS & \textbf{0.13} $\pm$ 0.03 & \textbf{0.14} $\pm$ 0.02 & \textbf{0.14} $\pm$ 0.04 & \textbf{0.11} $\pm$ 0.02 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Average $\mathrm{P\&L}$ of the trading game against the S\&P market using the PDV model (re-optimized for each $T$) or using the Scattering Spectra (SS) model, both calibrated using data from 2000 to 2014. Detailed $\mathrm{P\&Ls}$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:smile-prediction-avg}.} \label{tab:smile-prediction} \end{table}

2302.06361v1

\begin{table} \centering \caption{Online communication volume of \schemename{} versus \gazelle{} during the inference of a single input in MB. Note that \schemename's communication volume is independent of the number of input providers.} \label{tab:communication_cost} \begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c|c|c} \hline Framework / Model& A & B & C & D & F \\ \hline \schemename & \textbf{0.1} & \textbf{0.1} & \textbf{0.1} & \textbf{0.1} & \textbf{0.4} \\ \minionn{} & 43.8 & 12.2 & - & 636.6 & 6226 \\ \gazelle{} & 0.5 & 0.5 & 2.1 & 22.5 & 296 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2403.03099v1

\begin{table}[h!] \footnotesize \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline $p$ & 0.80 & 0.82 & 0.84 & 0.86 & 0.88 & 0.90 \\ \hline K-means for weighted observations & 0.9185&0.9388&0.9558&0.9661&0.9803&0.9883\\ \hline K-means for raw data & 0.9185&0.9388&0.9558&0.9661&0.9803&0.9883\\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:p8} \caption{Correct Cluster Classification Simulation Results} \end{table}

2403.03099v1

\begin{table}[h!] \footnotesize \centering \label{table: accuracy} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|} \hline & Cluster 1 & Cluster 2 & Cluster 3 & Cluster 4 \\ \hline cluster size & 500000 & 500000 & 50000 & 2000 \\ \hline cluster center & $(1,0,0,0,1,1)$ & $(0,1,0,1,1,0)$ & $(1,1,0,0,1,0)$ & $(0,0,1,1,0,1)$ \\ \hline Variance on each dim & 0.25 & 0.25 & 0.25 & 0.25 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Cluster information for the simulated data} \end{table}

2107.08096v2

\begin{table} \centering \small % \vspace{-.5cm} \resizebox{7cm}{!}{ \begin{tabular}{ |c|c|c|c|c| } \hline \textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{\# Users} & \textbf{\# Items} & \textbf{Item type} & \textbf{Sparsity} \\ \hline MovieLens-L & 5000 & 17400 & movie & 1.7\% \\ MovieLens-S & 1000 & 11529 & movie & 2.6\% \\ GoogleLocal-L & 1500 & 265807 & business & 0.1\% \\ GoogleLocal-S & 500 & 104766 & business & 0.3\% \\ \hline \end{tabular}} \caption{Dataset statistics.} \vspace{-1cm} \label{dataset_info} \end{table}

2305.04162v1

\begin{table}[ht!] \centering \begin{tabular}{|l*{9}{|c}r} \hline {Step size} & $2^{0}$ & $2^{-1}$& $2^{-2}$& $2^{-3}$& $2^{-4}$& $2^{-5}$& $2^{-6}$ & $2^{-7}$\\ \hline {\# of Nodes} & $5$ & $13$& $41$& $145$& $545$& $2113$& $8321$& $33025$\\ \hline {\# of Triangles} & $4$ & $16$& $64$& $256$& $1024$& $4096$& $16384$ & $65536$\\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{The number of nodes and triangles of the multigrid with the edge refinement for each level.} \label{2d:MG} \end{table}

1801.04385v1

\begin{table}[b] \centering \caption{Number of data points in each group} \label{tab:sesfreq} \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{% \begin{tabular}{c|cccccccccc} \toprule \textbf{Session Length}&1&2&3&4&5&6&7&8\\ \midrule %[7248481, 2571860, 1267290, 710064, 437615, 283716, 194075, 142360, 102897, 76790] \textbf{Data points}& 7.2M & 2.6M & 1.3M & 0.7M & 0.4M & 0.3M & 0.2M & 0.1M\\ \bottomrule \end{tabular} } \end{table}

2212.00061v1

\begin{table}[ht] \begin{center} \caption{Test Results for Cat \& Dog Classifier with Auxiliary Learning} \label{TestReultsAuxiliaryLearning} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline Loss function & Test Accuracy & Test Loss \\\hline Categorical Cross-Entropy & 0.95880 & 0.76609 \\\hline Weighted Categorical Cross-Entropy & 0.94783& 0.24978 \\\hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \end{table}

2212.00061v1

\begin{table}[ht] \begin{center} \caption{Test Results for Cat \& Dog Binary Classifier without Auxiliary Learning} \label{TestReultsBinaryCLassifier} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline Model & Test Accuracy & Test Loss \\\hline Cat \& Dog Binary Classifier & 0.90939 & 0.78215 \\\hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \end{table}

2212.00061v1

\begin{table}[ht] \begin{center} \caption{Precision ,Recall and F1-Score} \label{PRF1} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline Class & Model & Precision & Recall & F1-Score \\\hline \multirow{3}{*}{Cat} & Binary Classifier & 0.89 & 0.94 & 0.91 \\\cline{2-5} & Auxiliary Learning & 0.90 & 0.85 & 0.88 \\\cline{2-5} & AL with weighted loss & 0.93 & 0.77 & 0.84 \\\hline \multirow{3}{*}{Dog} & Binary Classifier & 0.93 & 0.88 & 0.91 \\\cline{2-5} & Auxiliary Learning & 0.87 & 0.83 & 0.85 \\\cline{2-5} & AL with weighted loss & 0.87 & 0.76 & 0.81 \\\hline \multirow{3}{*}{Others} & Binary Classifier & NA & NA & NA \\\cline{2-5} & Auxiliary Learning & 0.97 & 0.99 & 0.98 \\\cline{2-5} & AL with weighted loss & 0.96 & 0.99 & 0.97 \\\hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \end{table}

2212.00061v1

\begin{table}[ht] \begin{center} \caption{Distribution of data} \label{Distribution} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline Class & No. of images used for training & No. of images used for testing\\\hline Cat & 9999 ($\sim$10000) & 2501 $\sim$2500)\\\hline Dog & 10001 ($\sim$10000) & 2499 ($\sim$2500)\\\hline Others & 87500 (8.75 x 10000) & 21875 (8.75 x 2500)\\\hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \end{table}

2103.13226v1

\begin{table}[] \centering \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|} \hline Metrics & Mean Accuracy & Mean Recall \\ \hline Centralized Approach& 75.40 & 69.22 \\ \hline Distributed Approach& 71.83 & 63.35 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Final evaluation of ResNet-18 on test dataset} \label{test-result} \end{table}

1902.07742v1

\begin{table}[tb] \caption{Success rates (in percentages) across task categories. Each result is averaged over 3 seeds. Test-Task refers to testing on novel tasks within the same houses as training, whereas Test-House refers to testing novel tasks in novel houses. The AGILE method is described in~\citep{Bahdanau18}} \label{tbl:results_main} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{c||c|c|c||c|c|c||c|c|c} \hline & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Train} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Test-Task} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Test-House} \\ \hline & PICK & NAV & Total & PICK & NAV & Total & PICK & NAV& Total \\ %\hline %DAgger \citep{DAgger} & 14.5 & 51.2 & 32.1 & 5.5 & 23.3 & 14.1 & 0.0 & 17.6 & 8.7 \\ \hdashline Optimal Policy Cloning & 20.7 & 61.6 & 40.3 & 10.1 & 29.4 & 19.6 & 0.0 & 17.2 & 8.5 \\ \hdashline AGILE & 0.0 & 40.9 & 18.0 & 0.0 & 34.1 & 16.8 & 0.0 & 30.6 & 15.1 \\ \hline GAIL-Exact & 59.4 & \textbf{73.5} & \textbf{66.9} & 49.1 & \textbf{50.4} & 49.8 & 23.5 & 35.4 & 28.3 \\ \hdashline LC-RL (ours) & \textbf{63.8} & 69.7 & \textbf{66.9} & \textbf{56.7} & 47.8 & \textbf{51.9} & \textbf{32.1} & \textbf{39.4} & \textbf{36.4}\\ \hline Reward Reg. (Oracle) & 87.0 & 85.0 & 86.1 & 82.5 & 67.0 & 74.1 & 70.6 & 62.3 & 65.7\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \end{table}

1902.07742v1

\begin{table}[h] \label{tbl:img_sweep} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{c|c|c} \hline & Train & Test-Task \\ \hline 32 by 24 & 67.3 & 49.7 \\ \hdashline 64 by 64 & 70.6 & 51.1 \\ \end{tabular} \end{center} \end{table}

2402.05885v1

\begin{table}[!h] \caption{Transfer Learning (off-diagonal) -- \textsc{H$^2$MN} (RMSE); \pki{diagonals show cases of train and test sets drawn from the same dataset.}}\label{tab:transferability_h2mn} % \vspace{-2mm} \centering \scalebox{0.75}{ \begin{tabular}{p{2.3cm}p{1cm}p{2.3cm}p{2.5cm}|p{1.3cm}} \toprule & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{Train Set}} & \textbf{\name}\\ \textbf{Test Set} & \texttt{AIDS} & \texttt{ogbg-molhiv} & \texttt{ogbg-molpcba}\\ \midrule \texttt{AIDS} & \textcolor{lightgray}{1.14} & 3.61 & 2.90 & 0.83\\ \texttt{ogbg-molhiv} & NA & \textcolor{lightgray}{12.01} & \cellcolor{yellow}{11.01} & 2.93\\ \texttt{ogbg-molpcba} & NA & 5.95 & \textcolor{lightgray}{5.50} & 2.98\\ \bottomrule \end{tabular}} % \vspace{-4mm} \end{table}

2102.04757v1

\begin{table}[!hp] \caption{Comparing Typical Risks Between Handcrafted and Machine Learning Methods}\label{typicalriskstable} \begin{longtable}{|p{25mm}|p{45mm}|p{45mm}|} \hline \thead{Risk} & \thead{Handcrafted} & \thead{Machine Learning} \\ \hline Structural Risk & Lower dimensional models which are easy to calibrate, but fail to capture all aspects of the market's behaviour. Generally a higher bias than variance and more prone to underfitting. & High dimensional models which require large amounts of data to calibrate, but can capture fine detail when fitted well. Can often incorporate new sources of information in a convenient manner. Generally a higher variance than bias and more prone to overfitting. \\ \hline Model Sensitivity & Few parameters and model inputs. Model outputs vary smoothly with calibration and input. Well understood sensitivities to erroneous inputs. & High-dimensional parameters and data inputs. Model outputs can vary sharply with inputs. Sensitivities to erroneous inputs can vary significantly. \\ \hline Adversarial Attacks & Reasonably robust calibration and not susceptible to data poisoning attacks. Calibration can be easily monitored by users. Adversarial defenses not a key part of most models. & Susceptible to attacks, require robust training and adversarial defences, but these can be incorporated as a key part of the model. Not easily monitored by users. \\ \hline Model Drift & Models naturally incorporate economic intuition and underpinnings. Few parameters to update online, but do not often incorporate updating as a core part of the model. & Model based on data patterns which may change over time. Many parameters need to be updated dynamically, which can lead to unstable behaviour. Model updating can be included as a core part of the approach. \\ \hline \end{longtable} \end{table}

2102.04757v1

\begin{table}[!hp] \caption{Examples of Adversarial Attacks in Finance}\label{attackstable} \begin{longtable}{|p{25mm}|p{30mm}|p{70mm}|} \hline \thead{Failures} & \thead{Description} & \thead{Example} \\ \hline Reward Hacking & When training, the stated reward differs from a true reward. & A learning agent was trained to create a perfect hedge, however transaction costs were poorly modelled, leading to poor performance. \\ \hline Side Effects & A reinforcement learning system disrupts the environment by advancing its goal. & A model has learned an order execution strategy for an illiquid asset, but by executing this strategy, changes the dynamics of the order book significantly, leading to increased risk.\\ \hline Distributional Shifts & The system is trained on one environment, but unable to adapt to changes. & A pricing model was trained on data during normal times, and is unable to react to the higher correlations between assets during crises. \\ \hline Natural Adversarial Examples. & Even without being attacked the system fails from natural errors. & A pricing model was trained individually for each strike and maturity, resulting in arbitrageable prices being offered in the market. \\ \hline Common Corruptions & The system is not able to deal with common corruptions. & A pricing model failed due to a halt on trading being placed on a closely related underlying instrument. \\ \hline Incomplete Testing & The system is not tested on the right environment nor over multiple periods. & A pricing model is tested only on one exchange, but is deployed in multiple locations with differing market behaviours. \\ \hline Poisoning attack & Contaminate training phase. & Contaminated data is introduced into a pricing model, for example when using sentiment analysis based on social media. \\ \hline Model stealing & Recover the entire model. & A proprietary model is trained and can be queried online by counterparties. By repeated queries it is possible that the inputs can be matched with the outputs, to reverse engineer the original model. \\ \hline Model inversion & Recover hidden features. & A pricing model is trained using proprietary trading data on market impact. The fitted model is then made public, without the underlying data. By repeated queries, it may be possible to extract the training data used \citep{fredrikson2015model}. \\ \hline Reprogramming system & Repurpose system for other use. & An online pricing model is used to identify expected future market volatility. \\ \hline \end{longtable} \end{table}

2102.04757v1

\begin{table}[!ht] \begin{longtable}{|p{25mm}|p{30mm}|p{70mm}|} \hline Adversarial example in physical domain & Fool a system by changing some interface component. & An adversary determines that a pricing model has sensitivity to the volumes deep in the order book -- by posting to this part of the book, they influence the model's behaviour.\\% A regime-shifting options model has been tricked into thinking that there is a change in regime by an agent that hacked the broker and adjusted all interfacing strike-prices to be $10 \%$ higher. \\ \hline Exploit software dependencies & The use of traditional software exploits. & The model relies on code dependencies, these dependencies are exploited by modifying the code to introduce nonsensical values, leading to a trading halt. (The 2016 NPM/left-pad debacle illustrates this external dependency risk, where a disgruntled developer deleted a tiny piece of code that `broke' the internet \citep{Collins2021Feb}.) \\ \hline \end{longtable} \end{table}

2004.11149v7

\begin{table}[htpb] \centering \caption{Testing accuracy of black-box adaptation meta-learning methods on 5-way 5-shot miniImageNet classification.} \label{tabblackbox} \begin{tabular}{|m{10cm}|m{2.3cm}|} \hline Method & Accuracy \\ \hline \cite{Qiao2018} Activation to parameter with neural network & $67.87\pm 0.20\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Qiao2018} with wide residual network WRN & $73.74\pm 0.19\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Munkhdalai2018} AdaCNN with DF & $62.00\pm 0.55\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Munkhdalai2018} AdaResNet with DF & $71.94\pm 0.57\%$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2004.11149v7

\begin{table}[htpb] \centering \caption{Testing accuracy of metric-based meta-learning methods on 5-way 5-shot miniImageNet classification. } \label{tabsimilarity} \begin{tabular}{|m{10cm}|m{2.3cm}|} \hline Method & Accuracy \\ \hline \cite{Vinyals2016} Matching Net & $60.0\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Mishra2018} SNAIL & $68.88\pm 0.92\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Sung2018} Relation Net & $65.32\pm 0.70\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Snell2017} Prototypical Net & $68.20\pm 0.66\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Das2020} & $70.91\pm 0.85\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Li2020} Prototypical Net+TRAML & $77.94\pm 0.57\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Li2020} AM3+TRAML & $79.54\pm 0.60\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Guan2020} DAPNA & $84.07 \pm 0.16\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Oreshkin2018} TADAM with $\alpha$, AT and TC & $76.7\pm 0.3\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Oreshkin2018} TADAM without tuning & $74.2\pm 0.2\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Gidaris2018} Dynamic few-shot with C128F feature extractor & $73.00\pm 0.64\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Gidaris2018} with ResNet feature extractor & $70.13\pm 0.68\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Gidaris2018} with cosine classifier and attention based weight generator & $74.92\pm 0.36\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Gidaris2018} with cosine classifier and no weight generator & $72.83\pm 0.35\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Triantafillou2017} mAP-SSVM & $63.94\pm 0.72\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Triantafillou2017} mAP-DLM & $63.70\pm 0.70\%$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2004.11149v7

\begin{table}[htpb] \centering \caption{Testing accuracy of layered meta-learning methods on 5-way 5-shot miniImageNet classification.} \label{tabmetalearner} \begin{tabular}{|m{10cm}|m{2.3cm}|} \hline Method & Accuracy \\ \hline \cite{Finn2017} MAML & $63.11\pm 0.92\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Li2017} Meta-SGD & $64.03 \pm 0.94\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Nichol2018a} Reptile without transduction & $61.98 \pm 0.69\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Nichol2018a} Reptile with transduction & $66.00 \pm 0.62\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Ravi2019a} Meta-LSTM & $60.60 \pm 0.71\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Kim2018} Auto-Meta (without Transduction F=10) & $65.09 \pm 0.24\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Kim2018} Auto-Meta (with Transduction F=12) & $74.65 \pm 0.19\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Bertinetto2019} R2-D2 & $68.4\pm 0.2\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Bertinetto2019} LR-D2 with 5 iterations & $68.7\pm 0.2\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Bertinetto2019} LR-D2 with 1 iteration & $65.6\pm 0.2\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Lee2019} MetaOptNet-RidgeReg & $77.88 \pm 0.46\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Lee2019} MetaOptNet-SVM & $78.63 \pm 0.46\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Lee2019} MetaOptNet-SVM-trainval & $80.00 \pm 0.45\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Liu2019} TPN & $69.86\pm 0.65\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Rusu2019} LEO & $77.59 \pm 0.12\%$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2004.11149v7

\begin{table}[htpb] \centering \caption{Testing accuracy of meta-learning methods on 5-way 1-shot miniImageNet classification.} \label{tabbayes} \begin{tabular}{|m{10cm}|m{2.3cm}|} \hline Method & Accuracy \\ \hline \cite{Grant2018} LLAMA & $49.40\pm 1.83\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Yoon2018a} BMAML & $53.8\pm 1.46\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Finn2018} PLATIPUS & $50.13\pm 1.86\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Gordon2018} VERSA & $53.40\pm 1.82\%$ \\ \hline\hline \cite{Qiao2018} Activation to parameter with neural network & $54.53 \pm 0.40\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Qiao2018} wide residual network WRN & $59.60 \pm 0.41\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Munkhdalai2018} AdaCNN with DF & $48.34 \pm 0.68\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Munkhdalai2018} AdaResNet with DF & $56.88 \pm 0.62\%$ \\ \hline\hline \cite{Vinyals2016} Matching Net & $46.6\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Snell2017} Prototypical Net & $46.61\pm 0.78\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Das2020} PVRT & $52.68\pm 0.51\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Li2020} Prototypical Network+TRAML & $60.31\pm 0.48\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Sung2018} Relation Net & $50.44\pm 0.82\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Mishra2018} SNAIL & $45.1\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Oreshkin2018} TADAM with $\alpha$, AT and TC & $58.5 \pm 0.3\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Oreshkin2018} TADAM without tuning & $56.5 \pm 0.4\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Gidaris2018} Dynamic few-shot with C128F feature extractor & $55.95 \pm 0.84\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Gidaris2018} with ResNet feature extractor & $55.45 \pm 0.89\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Gidaris2018} with cosine classifier and attention based weight generator & $58.55 \pm 0.50\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Gidaris2018} with cosine classifier and no weight generator & $54.55 \pm 0.44\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Triantafillou2017} mAP-SSVM & $50.32\pm 0.80\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Triantafillou2017} mAP-DLM & $50.28\pm 0.80\%$ \\ \hline\hline \cite{Finn2017} MAML & $48.7\pm 1.84\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Munkhdalai2017} MetaNet & $49.21 \pm 0.96\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Nichol2018} Reptile & $49.97\pm 0.32\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Li2017} Meta-SGD & $50.47\pm 1.87\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Ravi2019a} Meta-LSTM & $43.44\pm 0.77\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Kim2018} Auto-Meta (without Transduction F=10) & $49.58\pm 0.20\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Kim2018} Auto-Meta (with Transduction F=12) & $57.58\pm 0.20\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Bertinetto2019} R2-D2 & $51.8\pm 0.2\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Bertinetto2019} LR-D2 with 5 iterations & $51.9\pm 0.2\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Bertinetto2019} LR-D2 with 1 iteration & $51.0\pm 0.2\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Lee2019} MetaOptNet-RidgeReg & $61.41 \pm 0.61\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Lee2019} MetaOptNet-SVM & $62.64 \pm 0.61\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Lee2019} MetaOptNet-SVM-trainval & $64.09 \pm 0.62\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Liu2019} TPN & $55.51\pm 0.86\%$ \\ \hline \cite{Rusu2019} LEO & $61.76 \pm 0.08\%$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2201.08183v1

\begin{table}[h!] \centering \caption{Summary of CMS collider datasets used from CERN Open Data Portal} \begin{tabular}{ |c|l|c| } \hline $\sqrt{s}$ & \multirow{2}{*}{Dataset} & \multirow{2}{*}{Ref.} \\ (TeV) & & \\ \hline \hline 0.9 & /MinimumBias/Commissioning10-07JunReReco\_900GeV/RECO & \cite{data900GeV} \\ \hline 7 & /MinimumBias/Run2010A-Apr21ReReco-v1/AOD & \cite{data7TeV} \\ \hline 8 & /MinimumBias/Run2012B-22Jan2013-v1/AOD & \cite{data8TeV} \\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:RECOdatasets} \end{table}

2201.08183v1

\begin{table}[h!] \centering \caption{Summary of Monte Carlo datasets used from CERN Open Data Portal} \begin{tabular}{ |c|l|c| } \hline $\sqrt{s}$ & \multirow{2}{*}{Dataset} & \multirow{2}{*}{Ref.} \\ (TeV) & & \\ \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{0.9} & /MinBias\_TuneZ2\_900GeV\_pythia6\_cff\_py & \multirow{2}{*}{\cite{mc900GeV}}\\ & \_GEN\_SIM\_START311\_V2\_Dec11\_v2 & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{7} & /MinBias\_TuneZ2star\_7TeV\_pythia6/Summer12-LowPU2010 & \multirow{2}{*}{\cite{mc7TeV}} \\ & \_DR42-PU\_S0\_START42\_V17B-v1/AODSIM & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{8} & /MinBias\_TuneZ2star\_8TeV-pythia6/Summer12\_DR53X-PU & \multirow{2}{*}{\cite{mc8TeV}} \\ & \_S10\_START53\_V7A-v1/AODSIM & \\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:MCdatasets} \end{table}

2303.05840v1

\begin{table}[h!] \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{% \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline Algorithm & Objective value & $\err_{L^2}$ & $\err_{H^1_0}$ & Iterations & Time \\ \hline Projection \eqref{eq:P} & 1.281e-02 & 1.731e-02 & 7.973e-02 & 10 & 0.477 \\ \hline Projection with stepsize \eqref{eq:PS} & 1.248e-02 & 8.869e-03 & 7.895e-02 & 17 & 0.554 \\ \hline Douglas-Rachford \eqref{eq:DR1} & 1.305e-02 & 7.878e-03 & 7.891e-02 & 99 & 9.137 \\ \hline Douglas-Rachford \eqref{eq:DR2} & 1.299e-02 & 8.292e-03 & 7.870e-02 & 52 & 3.846 \\ \hline Algorithm \ref{alg:local_search_POD} with initialization by \eqref{eq:PS} & 1.247e-02 & 8.800e-03 & 7.886e-02 & 4 & 181.242 \\ \hline Algorithm \ref{alg:local_search_POD} with exact initialization & 1.248e-02 & 8.800e-03 & 7.887e-02 & 21 & 4351.329 \\ \hline \end{tabular}} \caption{Fourier's law with $|\DD_k^\loc| = 11025$ and $h_k := \sqrt2/20$.} \label{tab:fourier} \end{table}

2205.04731v1

\begin{table}[t] %\scriptsize \caption{$NRMSE$ for ours vs related works} \centering \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|} \hline % \multirow{Bench.} & \multirow{perc.} & \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{Avg. $NRMSE$ for $iter$=$5$} \\ \cline{3-8} Bench. & perc. & \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{Avg. $NRMSE$ for $iter$=$5$} \\ \cline{3-8} & & mean & k-means & KNN & MICE & Datawig & Ours \\ \hline % \multirow{Wine} & 5 & 0.99 & 0.99 & 1.01 & 0.62 & 0.65 & 0.70 \\ \cline{2-8} Wine & 5 & 0.99 & 0.99 & 1.01 & 0.62 & 0.65 & 0.70 \\ \cline{2-8} & 10 & 0.98 & 0.99 & 0.93 & 0.66 & 0.68 & 0.69 \\ \cline{2-8} & 20 & 0.99 & 1.11 & 0.87 & 0.68 & 0.75 & 0.70 \\ \cline{2-8} & 30 & 0.98 & 2.03 & 0.88 & 0.82 & 0.78 & 0.74 \\ \hline % \multirow{Ecoli} & 5 & 0.90 & 0.70 & 0.61 & 0.68 & 0.62 & 0.61 \\ \cline{2-8} Ecoli & 5 & 0.90 & 0.70 & 0.61 & 0.68 & 0.62 & 0.61 \\ \cline{2-8} & 10 & 0.81 & 0.61 & 0.73 & 0.63 & 0.67 & 0.59 \\ \cline{2-8} & 20 & 0.84 & 0.66 & 0.90 & 0.76 & 0.70 & 0.63 \\ \cline{2-8} & 30 & 0.92 & 0.85 & 1.04 & 1.04 & 0.84 & 0.80 \\ \hline % \multirow{Polynomials} & 5 & 3.87 & 4.69 & 2.82 & 1.08 & 1.34 & 0.90 \\ \cline{2-8} Polynomials & 5 & 3.87 & 4.69 & 2.82 & 1.08 & 1.34 & 0.90 \\ \cline{2-8} & 10 & 4.40 & 5.23 & 3.79 & 1.27 & 1.11 & 0.87 \\ \cline{2-8} & 20 & 4.20 & 4.5 & 4.19 & 1.45 & 1.25 & 1.59 \\ \cline{2-8} & 30 & 4.18 & 4.98 & 4.54 & 1.98 & 1.65 & 2.45 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{nrmse} \end{table}

2205.04731v1

\begin{table}[b] % \scriptsize % \caption{Benchmark Characteristics\label{tab:bench}} % \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} % \hline % Benchmark & Size & \#Features & \#NUM:\#CAT Features\\ % \hline % Polynomial $^1$& 1000 & 5 & 5:0\\ % Iris $^2$& 150 & 4 & 4:0\\ % Ecoli $^2$& 336 & 8 & \\ % Wine $^2$& 178 & 13 & \\ % Diabetes $^2$& 486 & 20 & \\ % Breast Cancer $^2$& 286 & 9 & \\ % % Bank Market $^3$& & & \\ % \hline % \end{tabular} % \end{table}

2205.04731v1

\begin{table}[t] %\scriptsize \caption{$Prediction$ $Accuracy$ and $Fidelity$} \centering \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|} \hline % \multirow{Bench.} & \multirow{perc.} & \multicolumn{6}{|c||}{($Prediction Accuracy$, $Fidelity$) for $iter$=$5$} \\ \cline{3-8} Bench. & perc. & \multicolumn{6}{|c||}{($Prediction$ $Accuracy$, $Fidelity$) for $iter$=$5$} \\ \cline{3-8} & & mean & k-means & KNN & MICE & Datawig & Ours\\ \hline % \multirow{Wine} & 5 & 0.88, 0.81 & 0.88, 0.81 & 0.87, 0.79 & 0.87, 0.88 & 0.90, 0.92 & 0.98, 0.85\\ \cline{2-8} Wine & 5 & 0.88, 0.81 & 0.88, 0.81 & 0.87, 0.79 & 0.87, 0.88 & 0.90, 0.92 & 0.98, 0.85\\ \cline{2-8} & 10 & 0.85, 0.74 & 0.77, 0.72 & 0.83, 0.75 & 0.81, 0.79 & 0.88, 0.85 & 0.98, 0.85 \\ \cline{2-8} & 20 & 0.79, 0.72 & 0.83, 0.81 & 0.79, 0.77 & 0.88, 0.79& 0.85, 0.77 & 1, 0.87 \\ \cline{2-8} & 30 & 0.83, 0.74 & 0.64, 0.62 & 0.81, 0.75 & 0.75, 0.77 & 0.83, 0.79 & 0.92, 0.79 \\ \hline % \multirow{Iris} & 5 & 0.95, 0.95 & 0.95, 0.95 & 1, 1 & 0.97, 0.97 & 0.97, 0.97 & 1, 1 \\ \cline{2-8} Iris & 5 & 0.95, 0.95 & 0.95, 0.95 & 1, 1 & 0.97, 0.97 & 0.97, 0.97 & 1, 1 \\ \cline{2-8} & 10 & 0.84, 0.84 & 0.95, 0.95 & 1, 1 & 0.95, 0.95 & 1, 1 & 1, 1 \\ \cline{2-8} & 20 & 0.75, 0.75 & 0.91, 0.91 & 0.91, 0.91 & 0.95, 0.95 & 0.91, 0.91 & 0.95, 0.95 \\ \cline{2-8} & 30 & 0.77, 0.77 & 0.91, 0.91 & 0.86, 0.86 & 0.93, 0.93 & 0.95, 0.93 & 0.95, 0.95 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:accuracy} \end{table}

1812.11560v1

\begin{table}[ht] \caption{Test accuracies for the various sampling strategies on the MNIST-Sparse, MNIST-Clustered, ICIAR Part A and GTEx Skin datasets} \label{sample-table} \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline Test accuracy & MNIST Sparse & MNIST Clust & ICIAR PartA & GTEx Skin \\ \hline Grid sampling & 0.520 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.523 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.776 & 0.826\\ Uniform sampling & 0.759 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.83 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.790 & 0.920 \\ Monte-Carlo sampling & \textbf{0.825 $\pm$ 0.02} & \textbf{0.852 $\pm$ 0.03} & \textbf{0.847} & \textbf{0.942} \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2008.10773v1

\begin{table}[t] \centering \begin{tabular}[c]{|>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{1.8cm}|>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{2cm}|>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{1.8cm}|>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{2cm}|>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{1.2cm}|} \hline \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Batching Scenario}&& \\ Iterations & Samples per iteration& Energy MAE (eV) & Structure MAE (\ang)\\ \hline\hline 20 & 1 & 0.0063 & 0.0037 \\ \hline 10 & 2 & 0.0069 & 0.0063 \\ \hline 5 & 4 & 0.0080 & 0.0067 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Comparison of different offline active learning batching scenarios on the structural relaxation of C/Cu(100). At each iteration, a varying number of queries are randomly made from the generated relaxation. A tradeoff in performance and the number of samples per iteration is observed for a fixed total number of DFT calls $= 20$. All models trained here incorporated the proposed Morse prior.} \label{table:batch} \end{table}

2105.03523v1

\begin{table}[ht] \begin{table}[!htbp] \centering \begin{tabular}{|l|p{5.3cm}|} \hline {\bf Term} & {\bf Definition} \\ \hline SA tool & static analysis tool that analyzes code without running it\\ \hline FFSA tool & flaw-finding static analysis tool\\ \hline SA alert & static analysis alert (warning) about a particular type of flaw\\ \hline Checker & analysis for a particular type of code flaw, by a particular FFSA tool %The checker may simply do syntactic analysis or do deep semantic analysis. \\ \hline CheckerID & checker name%, usually a unique string or regular expression in a tool's alerts \\ \hline Test suites & repositories of ``benchmark'' programs that are purpose-built to test FFSA tools\\ \hline Condition & a constraint or property of validity with which code should comply. FFSA tools try to detect if code violates conditions.\\ \hline Alert fusion & unifying alert information from different tools which map to the same condition and code location\\ \hline Coding taxonomy & a named set of coding rules, weaknesses, standards, or guidelines\\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Terminology} \label{table:terminology} \end{table}

2301.13339v1

\begin{table}[ht!] \centering \caption{$l_2$-norm relative error for $K=20$ for examples 1 and 2, and $K=10$ for example 3.} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline example & $\bbI_\xi$ & $\bbI_{QTT_0}$ & $\bbI_{QTT_r}$ & $\bbI_{\delta}$ & $\bbI_{RTT}$ & $\bbI_{lr}$\\ \hline \hline $1$ & $0.0383$ & $\textbf{0.0028}$ & $0.0102$ & $0.0280_{\delta=0.02}$ & $0.0430$ & -\\ \hline $2$ & $0.0131$ & $\textbf{0.0011}$ & $0.0075$ & $0.0068_{\delta=0.01}$ & $0.0201$ & -\\ \hline $3$ & $0.1142$ & $\textbf{0.0151}$ & $0.0447$ & $0.1650_{\delta=0.09}$ & $0.1534$ & $0.0470_{rank=23}$\\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:qtt_rel_err} \end{table}

2301.13339v1

\begin{table}[ht!] \centering \caption{Data storage for Example 1.} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline K & $f_\xi$ & $\tF_{\xi}$\\ \hline \hline $16$ & $65{,}536$ & $2088$ \\ \hline $20$ & $1{,}048{,}576$ & $2888$ \\ \hline $24$ & $16{,}777{,}216$ & $3688$ \\ \hline $26$ & $67{,}108{,}864$ & $4088$ \\ \hline $28$ & $268{,}435{,}456$ & $4488$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:data_storage_e1} \end{table}

2301.13339v1

\begin{table}[ht!] \centering \caption{Data storage for Example 3.} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline K & $\bbf_\xi$ & $\tF_\xi$\\ \hline \hline $8$ & $65{,}536$ & $2088$ \\ \hline $10$ & $1{,}048{,}576$ & $2888$ \\ \hline $12$ & $16{,}777{,}216$ & $3688$ \\ \hline $14$ & $268{,}435{,}456$ & $4488$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:data_storage_e3} \end{table}

1308.4565v2

\begin{table}[t] \centering {\fontsize{8}{6}\selectfont \setlength{\tabcolsep}{.1em} \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline Learner & 1 &2 &3 & 4\\ \hline Classification & Naive Bayes, &Always $1$, & RBF Network, & Random Tree, \\ Function (S1) & Logistic & Voted Perceptron &J48 & Always $0$\\ \hline Error & 47, & 53, & 47, & 47, \\ percentage (S1) & 3 & 4 & 47 & 47\\ \hline Classification & Naive Bayes, &Always $1$, & RBF Network, & Random Tree, \\ Function (S2) & Random & Random & J48 & Always $0$ \\ \hline Error & 47, & 53, & 47, & 47, \\ percentage (S2) & 50 & 50 & 47 & 47 \\ \hline \end{tabular} } \add{\vspace{-0.1in}} \caption{Base classification functions used by the learners and their error percentages on the test data.} \vspace{-0.25in} \label{tab:sim_setup} \end{table}

1308.4565v2

\begin{table}[t] \centering {\fontsize{8}{6}\selectfont \setlength{\tabcolsep}{.3em} \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline & $D_1(t)$ & $D_2(t)$ & $D_3(t)$ & $m_T$ & $A$ & $p$ \\ \hline (Z1) CoS & $t^{1/8} \log t$ & $2 t^{1/8} \log t$ & $t^{1/8} \log t$ & $\lceil T \rceil^{1/4}$ & & \\ \hline (Z1) DCZA & $t^{1/8} \log t$ & $2 t^{1/8} \log t$ & $t^{1/8} \log t$ & & $1$ & $4$ \\ \hline (Z2) CoS & $t^{1/2} \log t$ & $2 t^{1/2} \log t$ & $t^{1/2} \log t$ & $\lceil T \rceil^{1/4}$ & & \\ \hline (Z2) DCZA & $t^{2/p} \log t$ & $2 t^{2/p} \log t$ & $t^{2/p} \log t$ & & $1$ & $(3+\sqrt{17})/2$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} } \add{\vspace{-0.05in}} \caption{Input parameters for CoS and DCZA for two different parameter sets Z1 and Z2.} \label{tab:par_setup} \add{\vspace{-0.4in}} \end{table}

1308.4565v2

\begin{table}[t] \centering {\fontsize{8}{6}\selectfont \setlength{\tabcolsep}{.3em} \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|} \hline (Parameters) Algorithm & (S1) Error $\%$ & (S2) Error $\%$ \\ \hline (Z1) CoS (previous label as context) & 0.7 & 0.9 \\ \hline (Z1) DCZA (previous label as context) & 1.4 & 1.9 \\ \hline AdaBoost & 4.8 & 53 \\ \hline ($w=100$) SWA & 2.4 & 2.7 \\ \hline ($w=1000$) SWA & 11 & 11 \\ \hline (Z1) CoS (no-context) & 5.2 & 49.8 \\ \hline \end{tabular} } \add{\vspace{-0.05in}} \caption{Comparison of error percentages of CoS, DCZA, AdaBoost, SWA and CoS with no context.} \label{tab:error_comp} \vspace{-0.2in} %\vspace{-0.4in} \end{table}

1308.4565v2

\begin{table}[t] \centering {\fontsize{8}{6}\selectfont \setlength{\tabcolsep}{.3em} \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|} \hline (Setting) & Error $\%$ & Training $\%$ & Exploration $\%$ \\ Algorithm & context=A1,A2,A3 & context=A1,A2,A3 & context=A1,A2,A3 \\ \hline (Z1,S1) CoS & 0.7, 4.6, 4.8 & 0.3, 3, 2.8 & 1.4, 6.3, 8.5 \\ \hline (Z1,S1) DCZA & 1.4, 3.5, 3.2 & 0.4, 1.3, 0.9 & 4, 5.9, 7 \\ \hline (Z1,S2) CoS & 0.9, 39, 10 & 0.3, 3, 2.8 & 1.5, 6.5, 8.6 \\ \hline (Z1,S2) DCZA & 1.9, 38, 4.8 & 0.4, 1.3, 1 & 4, 6, 7 \\ \hline (Z2,S1) CoS & 16, 14, 41 & 8.5, 16, 79 & 55 27 20\\ \hline (Z2,S1) DCZA & 31, 29, 29 & 33 19 87 & 66 66 12 \\ \hline \end{tabular} } \add{\vspace{-0.05in}} \caption{Error, training and exploration percentages of CoS and DCZA under different simulation and parameter settings. (A1) context as the previous label, (A2) context as srcbytes feature, (A3) context as time.} \label{tab:sim_results} %\vspace{-0.4in} \vspace{-0.2in} \end{table}

1308.4565v2

\begin{table}[t] \centering {\fontsize{8}{6}\selectfont \setlength{\tabcolsep}{.3em} \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|} \hline (Setting) & Error $\%$ & Training $\%$ & Exploration $\%$ \\ Algorithm & context=A1,A2,A3 & context=A1,A2,A3 & context=A1,A2,A3 \\ \hline (Z1,S1) CoS & 1.8, 4.1, 6.7 & 2, 9.2, 10.3 & 1.4, 3.6, 8.5 \\ \hline (Z1,S2) CoS & 24.6, 44.3, 31.3 & 2, 9.2, 10.3 & 1.4, 3.6, 8.5 \\ \hline \end{tabular} } \caption{Error, training and exploration percentages of CoS for worst-case correlation between the learners for three different context types.} \label{tab:sim_results2} \vspace{-0.2in} %\vspace{-0.4in} \end{table}

1308.4565v2

\begin{table}[t] \centering {\fontsize{8}{6}\selectfont \setlength{\tabcolsep}{.3em} \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|} \hline ensemble CoS & context-dependent weights & context-indep weights \\ Parameters: Z1 & S1, S2 & S1, S2 \\ \hline total error $\%$ & 5.9, 10.2 & 3.8, 4.94 \\ \hline exploitation error $\%$ & 2.9, 6.8 & 1.76, 2.17 \\ \hline \end{tabular} } \caption{Total error percentage, and error percentage of the errors made in exploitation steps for CoS with ensemble learner.} \label{tab:weights} %\vspace{-0.4in} \vspace{-0.2in} \end{table}