Datasets:

staghado

/

ArXiv-tables

like 2

1902.00562v1

\begin{table}[t] \caption{\label{tab:Reg Model RMSE Compare}\label{tab:RegModelTable} Prediction Accuracy of Regression Models on Test Data} \centering \begin{tabular}{l|l|r|r|r|r} \hline Data & Model & RMSE & MAE & MSE & R2\\ \hline 1) Base & GLM & 446.35 & 221.16 & 199227.6 & 0.12\\ \hline 2) Zip & GLM & 426.93 & 206.49 & 182270.1 & 0.19\\ \hline 3) Spatial & GLM & 382.32 & 195.00 & 146170.5 & 0.35\\ \hline 1) Base & RF & 387.99 & 174.24 & 150536.3 & 0.33\\ \hline 2) Zip & RF & 475.20 & 190.33 & 225811.7 & 0.00\\ \hline 3) Spatial & RF & 430.92 & 180.17 & 185695.5 & 0.18\\ \hline 1) Base & GBM & 384.11 & 179.27 & 147543.5 & 0.35\\ \hline 2) Zip & GBM & 454.53 & 186.00 & 206593.1 & 0.09\\ \hline 3) Spatial & GBM & 406.70 & 170.97 & 165408.0 & 0.27\\ \hline 1) Base & ANN & 363.02 & 178.58 & 131782.5 & 0.42\\ \hline 2) Zip & ANN & 360.88 & 171.22 & 130232.2 & 0.42\\ \hline 3) Spatial & ANN & 337.94 & 158.91 & 114202.0 & 0.49\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

1902.00562v1

\begin{table}[t] \caption{\label{tab:Class Model Compare}\label{tab:ClassModelTable} Prediction Accuracy of Classification Models on Test Data} \centering \begin{tabular}{l|l|r|r|r|r} \hline Data & Model & AUC & MSE & RMSE & R2\\ \hline 1) Base & GLM & 0.57 & 0.03 & 0.17 & 0.00\\ \hline 2) Zip & GLM & 0.58 & 0.03 & 0.17 & 0.00\\ \hline 3) Spatial & GLM & 0.50 & 0.03 & 0.17 & -0.01\\ \hline 1) Base & RF & 0.58 & 0.03 & 0.17 & -0.03\\ \hline 2) Zip & RF & 0.56 & 0.03 & 0.17 & -0.06\\ \hline 3) Spatial & RF & 0.78 & 0.03 & 0.17 & 0.00\\ \hline 1) Base & GBM & 0.61 & 0.03 & 0.17 & -0.03\\ \hline 2) Zip & GBM & 0.61 & 0.03 & 0.17 & -0.03\\ \hline 3) Spatial & GBM & 0.82 & 0.03 & 0.16 & 0.04\\ \hline 1) Base & ANN & 0.55 & 0.03 & 0.17 & -0.03\\ \hline 2) Zip & ANN & 0.57 & 0.03 & 0.17 & -0.04\\ \hline 3) Spatial & ANN & 0.76 & 0.03 & 0.17 & -0.01\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

1902.00562v1

\begin{table}[t] \caption{\label{tab:Reg VarImp}\label{tab:RegVarImp} Feature Importance of Top Performing Regression Model} \centering \resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{ \begin{tabular}{l|l|r|l} \hline Variable & Description & Scaled Importance (Max = 1) & Cumulative \%\\ \hline BuiltFAR & Floor area ratio built & 1.000 & 1.80\%\\ \hline FacilFAR & Maximum Allowable Floor Area Ratio & 0.922 & 3.40\%\\ \hline Last\_Sale\_Price\_Total & The previous sale price & 0.901 & 5.10\%\\ \hline Last\_Sale\_Date & Date of last sale & 0.893 & 6.70\%\\ \hline Last\_Sale\_Price & The previous sale price & 0.870 & 8.20\%\\ \hline Years\_Since\_Last\_Sale & Number of years since last sale & 0.823 & 9.70\%\\ \hline ResidFAR & Floor Area Ratio not yet built & 0.814 & 11.20\%\\ \hline lon & Longitude & 0.773 & 12.60\%\\ \hline Year & Year of record & 0.759 & 13.90\%\\ \hline BldgDepth & Square feet from font to back & 0.758 & 15.30\%\\ \hline \end{tabular}} \end{table}

1902.00562v1

\begin{table}[t] \caption{\label{tab:Class VarImp}\label{tab:ClassVarImp} Feature Importance of Top Performing Classification Model} \centering \resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{ \begin{tabular}{l|l|r|l} \hline Variable & Description & Scaled Importance (Max = 1) & Cumulative \%\\ \hline Percent\_Neighbords\_Sold & Percent of Nearby Properties Sold in the Previous Year & 1.000 & 21.90\%\\ \hline Percent\_Office & Percent of the build which is Office & 0.698 & 37.20\%\\ \hline Percent\_Garage & Percent of the build which is Garage & 0.634 & 51.10\%\\ \hline Percent\_Storage & Percent of the build which is Storage & 0.518 & 62.40\%\\ \hline Building\_Age & The Age of the building & 0.225 & 67.40\%\\ \hline Last\_Sale\_Price & Price of building last time is was sold & 0.165 & 71.00\%\\ \hline Percent\_Retail & Percent of the build which is Retail & 0.147 & 74.20\%\\ \hline Years\_Since\_Last\_Sale & Year since building last sold & 0.121 & 76.90\%\\ \hline ExemptTot & Total tax exempted value of the building & 0.069 & 78.40\%\\ \hline Radius\_Res\_Units\_Sold\_In\_Year & Residential units within 500 meters sold in past year & 0.056 & 79.60\%\\ \hline \end{tabular}} \end{table}

1501.04038v2

\begin{table}[ht] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|l||l|l|l|l||l|l|l|} \hline \textbf{Records} & \multicolumn{7}{c|}{\textbf{Bins}} \\ \hline &\multicolumn{4}{c||}{$X$}&\multicolumn{3}{c|}{$Y$}\\ &$x_1$&$x_2$&...&$x_{50}$&$y_1$&$y_2$&$y_3$\\ \hline $t_1$&0&1&...&0&0&0&1\\ $t_2$&0&0&...&0&0&1&0\\ $t_3$&0&0&...&1&0&0&1\\ $...$&$...$&$...$&$...$&$...$&$...$&$...$&$...$\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \caption{\label{tbl:bitmap}An Example Bitmap Index} \end{table}

1501.04038v2

\begin{table}[ht] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline Attr. & \# Bins & Attr. & \# Bins \\ \hline Year & 11 & Month & 12 \\ \hline Day & 31 & Hour & 24 \\ \hline Min. & 60 & Sec. & 60 \\ \hline mSec. & 10 & $\Phi$ & $20\times 23$ \\ \hline $V$ & $20\times 36$ & $\Delta$ & $20\times 180$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \caption{\label{table:bins}Bins} \end{table}

1501.04038v2

\begin{table}[ht] \small \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c||p{4.8cm}|p{2.3cm}|p{2.3cm}|p{2.3cm}|p{2cm}|} \hline \textbf{ID} & \textbf{Selection Criteria} & \textbf{Linear Scan (sec)}& \textbf{MySQL (sec)} &\textbf{Bitmap (sec)} &\textbf{Records Retrieved}\\ \hline \hline 1 & Find all records where PMU1 has a magnitude Voltage Magnitude of 533. & 25.859666 & 22.469 & 0.379387 & 160 \\\hline 2 & Find all records that occurred on exactly June 24, 2013 at 21:05 hours. & 25.350993 & 0.353 & 0.854952 & 3600 \\\hline 3 & Find all records that occurred on exactly June 24, 2013 at 21:06 hours. & 28.001001 & 0.396 & 0.922941 & 3600 \\\hline 4 & Find all records that occurred on exactly June 24, 2013 at 21:07 hours. & 26.133607 & 0.225 & 0.785588 & 3600 \\\hline 5 & Find all records that occurred on exactly June 24, 2013 at 21:06 hours with PMU having a Voltage Magnitude of 533. & 28.019449 & 0.046 & 0.001772 & 0 \\\hline 6 & Find all records in 2012. & 26.720291 & 23.714 & 0.0000601 & 0 \\\hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \caption{\label{table:querycomp}Query Performance} \end{table}

2106.14251v3

\begin{table}[] \begin{adjustbox}{max width=\textwidth} \begin{tabular}{|p{3.42cm}|p{3.32cm}|p{3.0cm}|p{3.25cm}|p{3.28cm}|} %{|l|l|l|l|l|} \hline \textbf{Generic model Kurgan and Musilek} \cite{km06} & \textbf{Shmueli and Koppius }\cite{sk11} &\textbf{Chambers and Dinsmore }\cite{cd14} & \textbf{Goodfellow et al.} \cite{g16} & \textbf{Data science development process}\\ \hline Application domain understanding& Goal definition & Defines business needs &Determination of goals & Problem understanding \\ \hline Data understanding& Data collection and study design & \multirow{2}{3.0cm}{Build analysis data set} & Establish a working end-to-end pipeline& Data collection\\ \cline{1-2}\cline{5-5} \multirow{2}{3.42cm}{Data preparation and identification of data mining technology}& Data preparation& & & Data engineering \\ \cline{2-2} & Exploratory data analysis & & & \\ \cline{2-2} & Choice of variables & & & \\ \hline Data mining& Choice of potential methods & \multirow{2}{3.25cm}{Build predictive model} & Instrument the system well to determine bottlenecks in performance & Model training \\ \cline{1-2}\cline{4-5} Evaluation& Evaluation, validation and model selection & & Repeatedly make incremental changes such as gathering new data, adjusting hyperparameters, or changing algorithms& Model optimization\\ \hline Knowledge consolidation and deployment& Model use and reporting & Deploy predictive model & \textit{Beyond discussion} & \textit{Model Integration }\\ \hline \textit{Beyond discussion}& \textit{Beyond discussion}& \textit{Beyond discussion}& \textit{Beyond discussion}& Analytical decision making \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{adjustbox} \caption{Data science development processes.} \label{tab:mldevproc} \end{table}

2106.14251v3

\begin{table}[] \begin{adjustbox}{max width=\textwidth} \begin{tabular}{|p{4.23cm}|p{3.75cm}|p{7.75cm}|} %{|l|l|l|l|l|} \hline \textbf{Data Science Main Phases} & \textbf{Sub-Phases} &\textbf{Conceptual Modeling Concepts, Methods and Tools} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{4.23cm}{Problem understanding}&Problem statement & Business requirements, goal model\\ \cline{2-3} & Problem analysis & Business requirements, goal model; legal and ethical requirements; Data requirements \\ \hline Data collection& &Data requirements; Data quality; legal and ethical requirements, business requirements \\ \hline \multirow{3}{4.23cm}{Data engineering}& Data exploration& Data requirements; Legal requirements \\ \cline{2-3} & Data preparation& Ontologies; Domain models \\ \cline{2-3} & Feature engineering& Ontologies; Domain models\\ \hline \multirow{3}{4.23cm}{Model training}&Selection& Business requirements, legal requirements, performance requirements and conditions for acceptance \\ \cline{2-3} & Training& Performance requirements \\ \cline{2-3} & Validation& Performance requirements\\ \hline \multirow{3}{4.23cm}{Model optimization}& Parameter optimization& Domain model, resilience requirements\\ \cline{2-3} & Performance Optimization&Domain model, resilience requirements \\ \hline Model integration& & \multirow{2}{7.75cm}{Business requirements;Goal model; Legal requirements; Ethical requirements; Data requirements} \\ \cline{1-2} Analytical decision making& & \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{adjustbox} \caption{Framework for incorporating conceptual models into data science projects.} \label{tab:framework} \end{table}

2106.14251v3

\begin{table}[] \begin{adjustbox}{max width=\textwidth} \begin{tabular}{|p{2.25cm}|p{9.23cm}|p{4.5cm}|} %{|l|l|l|l|l|} \hline \textbf{Topic} & \textbf{Definition} &\textbf{Example specification languages}\\ \hline Business & description of business process that are related to the strategy and the rationale of on organization& I*, BPMB, UML, BIM, URN/GRL \cite{a10}, BMM \cite{OMG}, DSML \cite{gmp09} \\ \hline Legal& Goals that choices made during the ML development are compliant with the law (based on \cite{s09}) & Nomos, Legal GRL \cite{gar14} \\ \hline Ethical \cite{by14} & Compliance with principles, such as transparency, justice and fairness, non-maleficence, responsibility and privacy \cite{jiv19}. & textual \\ \hline Data \cite{vb19} & Requirements on semantics, quantity and quality of data &ER, UML, RDF, OWL, UFO, OCL \\ \hline ML Model \cite{jm15} & selection of architectural elements, their interactions, and the constraints on those elements and their interactions necessary to provide a framework in which to satisfy the requirements and serve as a basis for the design \cite{pw92}. & Finite state processes, labeled transition systems \cite{v03} \\ \hline Functional & statements of services the system should provide, how the system should react to particular inputs, and how the system should behave in particular situations. \cite{s04} & BPMN, UML, EPC, KAOS, DSML \cite{f13} \cite{gmp09} \\ \hline Non-functional & A non-functional requirement is an attribute of a constraint on a system \cite{glinz2007non} & UML, KAOS \\ \hline Performance & expressed as the quantitative part of a requirement to indicate how well each product function is expected to be accomplished \cite{c12} & Rules quantified by metrics \\ \hline Interpretability & Interpretable systems are explainable if their operations can be understood by humans. \cite{ab18} & Qualitative rules \\ \hline Resilience& ML models that gracefully degrade in performance under the influence of disturbances and resource limitations & Rules quantified by metrics \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{adjustbox} \caption{Specification languages.} \label{tab:spec} \end{table}

2106.14251v3

\begin{table}[] \begin{adjustbox}{max width=\textwidth} \begin{tabular}{|p{1.8cm}|p{1.8cm}|p{1.8cm}|p{1.8cm}|p{1.8cm}|p{1.8cm}|p{1.8cm}|p{1.8cm}|p{1.8cm}|} %{|l|l|l|l|l|} \hline Pregnancies (number) & Glucose (Plasma glucose concentration at 2 hours in an oral glucose tolerance test) & Blood-Pressure (Diastolic blood pressure (mm Hg) ) & Skin-Thickness (Triceps skin fold thickness (mm) ) & Insulin (2-Hour serum insulin (mu U/ml) ) & BMI (Body mass index (weight in kg/(height in m)2) ) & Diabetes-Pedigree-Function (Diabetes pedigree function ) & Age (years) & Outcome (0 / 1) \\ \hline 6 & 148 & 72 & 35 & 0 & 33.6 & 627 & 50 & 1 \\ \hline 1 & 85 & 66 & 29 & 0 & 26.6 & 351 & 31 & 0 \\ \hline 8 & 183 & 64 & 0 & 0 & 23.3 & 672 & 32 & 1 \\ \hline 1 & 89 & 66 & 23 & 94 & 28.1 & 167 & 21 & 0 \\ \hline 0 & 137 & 40 & 35 & 168 & 43.1 & 2.288 & 33 & 1 \\ \hline 5 & 116 & 74 & 0 & 0 & 25.6 & 201 & 30 & 0 \\ \hline 3 & 78 & 50 & 32 & 88 & 31 & 248 & 26 & 1 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{adjustbox} \caption{Dataset (selection).} \label{tab:dataset} \end{table}

2106.14251v3

\begin{table}[] \begin{adjustbox}{max width=\textwidth} \begin{tabular}{|p{4.74cm}|p{1.24cm}|p{1.45cm}|p{1.45cm}|p{1.45cm}|p{1.25cm}|p{1.45cm}|p{1.45cm}|p{1.45cm}|} %{|l|l|l|l|l|} \hline & count & mean & std & min & 25\% & 50\% & 75\% & max \\ \hline Pregnancies & 768 & 3.84 & 3.36 & 0.000 & 1.00 & 3.00 & 6.00 & 17.00 \\ \hline Glucose & 768 & 120.89 & 31.97 & 0.000 & 99.00 & 117.00 & 140.25 & 199.00 \\ \hline Blood¬Pressure & 768 & 69.10 & 19.35 & 0.000 & 62.00 & 72.00 & 80.00 & 122.00 \\ \hline Skin-Thickness & 768 & 20.53 & 15.95 & 0.000 & 0.00 & 23.00 & 32.00 & 99.00 \\ \hline Insulin & 768 & 79.79 & 115.24 & 0.000 & 0.00 & 30.50 & 127.25 & 846.00 \\ \hline BMI & 768 & 31.99 & 7.88 & 0.000 & 27.30 & 32.00 & 36.60 & 67.10 \\ \hline Diabetes-Pedigree-Function & 768 & 0.47 & 0.33 & 0.078 & 0.24 & 0.37 & 0.62 & 2.42 \\ \hline Age & 768 & 33.24 & 11.76 & 21.000 & 24.00 & 29.00 & 41.00 & 81.00 \\ \hline Outcome & 768 & 0.34 & 0.47 & 0.000 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.00 & 1.00 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{adjustbox} \caption{Descriptive statistics.} \label{tab:descriptives} \end{table}

2106.14251v3

\begin{table}[ht] \begin{adjustbox}{max width=\textwidth} \begin{tabular}{|p{2.71cm}|p{2.08cm}|p{2.23cm}|p{1.69cm}|p{1.73cm}|p{1.96cm}|p{1.52cm}|p{1.22cm}|p{1.14cm}|} %{|l|l|l|l|l|} \hline & & Number of pregnancies & Glucose & Blood Pressure & Skin Thickness & Insulin & BMI & Age \\ \hline \multirow{7}{2.71cm}{Accuracy} & Believability & ++ & 0 & ++ & ++ & ++ & ++ & ++ \\ \cline{2-9} & Accuracy & ++ & -- & ++ & ++ & ++ & ++ & ++ \\ \cline{2-9} & Objectivity & ++ & 0 & ++ & ++ & ++ & ++ & ++ \\ \cline{2-9} & Completeness & ++ & -- & ++ & - & -- & ++ & ++ \\ \cline{2-9} & Traceability & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \cline{2-9} & Reputation & ++ & ++ & ++ & ++ & ++ & ++ & ++ \\ \cline{2-9} & Variety & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline \multirow{6}{2.71cm}{Relevancy} & Value-added & ++ & 0 & ++ & - & - & ++ & ++ \\ \cline{2-9} & Relevancy & ++ & ++ & ++ & + + & ++ & ++ \\ \cline{2-9} & Timeliness & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \cline{2-9} & Ease of operation & ++ & ++ & ++ & 0 & 0 & ++ & ++ \\ \cline{2-9} & Appropriate amount of data & + & + & + & -- & -- & + & + \\ \cline{2-9} & Flexibility & + & + & + & + & + & + & + \\ \hline \multirow{4}{2.71cm}{Representation} & Interpretability & ++ & ++ & ++ & ++ & ++ & ++ & ++ \\ \cline{2-9} & Ease of understanding & + & + & + & + & + & + & + \\ \cline{2-9} & Consistency & + & + & + & 0 & 0 & + & + \\ \cline{2-9} & Conciseness & + & + & + & + & + & + & + \\ \hline \multirow{3}{2.71cm}{Accessibility} & Accessibility & ++ & ++ & ++ & ++ & ++ & ++ & ++ \\ \cline{2-9} & Cost-effectiveness & ++ & ++ & ++ & ++ & ++ & ++ & ++ \\ \cline{2-9} & Access security & ++ & ++ & ++ & ++ & ++ & ++ & ++ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{adjustbox} \caption{Data quality assessment of dataset.} \label{tab:dq} \end{table}

2106.14251v3

\begin{table}[] \begin{adjustbox}{max width=\textwidth} \begin{tabular}{|p{4.18cm}|p{1.95cm}|p{1.22cm}|p{3.44cm}|p{1.91cm}|p{1.06cm}|} %{|l|l|l|l|l|} \hline \textbf{Model} & \textbf{Accuracy} & \textbf{AUC} & \textbf{Recall / Sensitivity} & \textbf{Precision} & \textbf{F1} \\ \hline Light Gradient Boosting & 0.89 & 0.94 & 0.84 & 0.86 & 0.85 \\ \hline Gradient boosting & 0.89 & 0.95 & 0.81 & 0.85 & 0.83 \\ \hline Logistic regression & 0.84 & 0.91 & 0.73 & 0.78 & 0.76 \\ \hline Support vector classifier & 0.85 & 0.91 & 0.75 & 0.81 & 0.78 \\ \hline Decision tree & 0.86 & 0.81 & 0.82 & 0.79 & 0.81 \\ \hline K nearest neighbors & 0.80 & 0.88 & 0.59 & 0.77 & 0.67 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{adjustbox} \caption{Model types.} \label{tab:modeltypes} \end{table}

2106.14251v3

\begin{table}[] \begin{adjustbox}{max width=\textwidth} \begin{tabular}{|p{2.99cm}|p{3.0cm}|p{3.5cm}|p{3.5cm}|p{3.5cm}|} %{|l|l|l|l|l|} \hline \textbf{ML $\rightarrow$ CM} & \textbf{Rules, anomalies and explanations} & \textbf{Semantic models } (ERM, i*) & \textbf{Ontologies} & \textbf{Process models} (EPC, BPMN) \\ \hline General Supervised learning & Associative rules \cite{ais93}; rule extraction \cite{bb10} & & Ontology mapping and matching \cite{d04, nso11} & Process discovery \cite{augusto18}; event abstraction \cite{v20} \\ \hline Sequence learning & Rule extraction \cite{ms17} & Named entity recognition \cite{cn16}; link prediction \cite{c19} & Ontology matching \cite{jx20} & \\ \hline Generative learning & & Link prediction (Qin et al. 2020) & & \\ \hline Graph learning & & Link prediction \cite{h06, dettmers18} Relational learning \cite{ntk11} & & \\ \hline Unsupervised learning & Anomaly detection \cite{a17} & Link prediction \cite{llc10} & Concept learning Mi et al. 2020) & Event abstraction \cite{v20} \\ \hline Reinforcement learning & Rule extraction \cite{pv20} & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{adjustbox} \caption{Extraction of conceptual models with machine learning.} \label{tab:extraction} \end{table}

1905.02158v2

\begin{table}[h] \centering \small \vspace{-0mm} \begin{threeparttable} \caption{Capabilities and capacities of different Parsl executors and other parallel Python tools.\vspace{-3ex}} \vspace{0mm} \begin{tabular}{| c| c|c|c|} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Framework}} & \textbf{Maximum} & \textbf{Maximum} & \textbf{Maximum} \\ & \textbf{\# of workers}\tnote{\dag} & \textbf{\# of nodes}\tnote{\dag} & \textbf{tasks/second}\tnote{$\ddagger$} \\ \hline Parsl-IPP & \num{2048} & 64 & 330 \\ \hline Parsl-HTEX & \num{65536} & \num{2048}\tnote{*} & \num{1181}\\ \hline Parsl-EXEX & \num{262144} & \num{8192}\tnote{*} & \num{1176}\\ \hline FireWorks & \num{1024} & 32 & 4\\ \hline Dask distributed & \num{8192} & 256 & \num{2617}\\ \hline \end{tabular} \begin{tablenotes}\small \item[*] Limited by the the number of nodes we could allocate on Blue Waters during our experiments; this is not a scalability limit. \item[\dag] These results are specific to Blue Waters, one core per worker, and using default configuration as in each framework's documentation. \item[$\ddagger$] The results in this column are collected on Midway. \end{tablenotes} \label{table:maxWorkers}\vspace{-0in} \end{threeparttable} \end{table}

2210.09217v1

\begin{table}[!h] \begin{center} \footnotesize \begin{tabular}{ |p{1.8cm}||p{3cm}|p{6cm}| } %\hline %\multicolumn{4}{|c|}{Imaging modalities} \\ \hline Missing mechanism&Causes& Details\\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{MCAR} &Faulty scanning & Removal of images with corruption or susceptibility artifacts \\ \cline{2-3} &Faulty scanning & Random failure of experimental instrument \\ \cline{2-3} &Data loss & Data transfer/storage loss \\ \cline{2-3} &Data loss & Missing entries \\ \cline{2-3} &Attrition/Nonresponse & Unable to participate due to migration/move (irrelavant with the study) \\ \cline{2-3} &Study design & Study ended early \\ \cline{2-3} &Study design & Modalities were not included in the imaging protocol \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{MAR} &Study design & Exclusion criteria, such as age, sex, race, socioecnomic status, etc. \\ \cline{2-3} &Attrition/Nonresponse & Dropout due to side effects, such as allergy \\ \cline{2-3} &Attrition/Nonresponse & Dropout rates vary among different age or sex groups \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{MNAR} &Study design & Quit the study due to physical or psychological health conditions \\ \cline{2-3} &Attrition/Nonresponse & Dropout due to concerns of financial cost \\ \cline{2-3} &Attrition/Nonresponse & Dropout due to concerns of limited available time to visit \\ \cline{2-3} &Attrition/Nonresponse & Dropout due to concerns of scanning safety \\ \cline{2-3} &Attrition/Nonresponse & Dropout due to concerns of personal data unauthorised disclosure \\ \cline{2-3} &Attrition/Nonresponse & Quit the study, following another person's behavior \\ \cline{2-3} &Attrition/Nonresponse & Deliberately not willing to respond \\ \cline{2-3} \hline \end{tabular} \end{center}\caption{A summary of scenarios with different missing mechanisms in cognition/behavior-related studies}\label{tab: missing} \end{table}

2210.09217v1

\begin{table}[!h] \begin{center}\caption{Summary of key information for eight neuroimaging modalities} \footnotesize \begin{tabular}{ |p{1.2cm}||p{2.8cm}|p{2cm}|p{2.5cm}|p{3.3cm}|p{2.5cm}| } %\hline %\multicolumn{4}{|c|}{Imaging modalities} \\ \hline Modality&Tracer& Resolution&Feature &Use&Software\\ \hline sMRI (T1, T2) &Fluid characteristics of different tissues& 0.5-1 mm &Cortical thickness, cortical folding, sulcal depth, voxel-based morphometry, regional volumes and shape& Measure brain cortical/subcortical structural changes for diagnosis/staging/follow-up of disease/brain development. & Freesurfer, ANTs, FSL, SPM, AFNI, Hammer, BRAINVisa, BrainSuite\\ \hline DWI &Brownian motion of water molecules within voxels & 1.25-3 mm &Fractional anisotropy, axial/radial/mean diffusivity, DKI/ NODDI parameters, structural connectivity & Delineate tumors, suspected acute ischemic brain injury, intracranial infections, masses, trauma, and edema; map structural connectome in research. &FSL, ~~~~~~Mrtrix, AFNI, TrackVis, Camino, TORTOISE, slicerDMRI, Dipy, CAMINO, DSIStudio\\ \hline fMRI & Blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) response in blood flow associated with brain function&3-4 mm (spatial); 1-3 s (temporal) &Beta image, functional connectivity, weighted and binary network metrics& Brain activity mapping under tasks, brain abnormalities detection, pre-operative brain functional mapping. & SPM, FSL, AFNI, CPAC, FuNP\\ \hline PET & Emissions from radioactive tracers&4-5 mm &Standard uptake ratio & Reveal metabolic/ biochemical functions of tissues/organs and abnormalities in brain neurophysiology/ neurochemistry& NiftyPET, SPM, Metavol, NEUROSTAT, APPIAN, kinfitr, LIFEx, Pypes, SPAMALIZE\\ \hline CT& X-ray attenuations by different tissues inside the body& Tens of nanometres-5 mm & Local and regional volumetric/thickness measures, tumor features &Diagnosing a range of conditions: abnormal blood vessels, brain atrophy, hemorrhage, swelling, stroke, tumors &ITK, SPM, PACS, Velocity, scenium, LIFEx\\ \hline EEG& Electrical field produced by neuron electrical activity& 7-10 mm &Event-related potentials, connectivity/network measures, spectral content& Diagnosis and treatment of brain tumors, damage, dysfunction and disorders &EEGLAB, MNE, ELAN, FieldTrip, NUTMEG, BrainVoyager, SPM\\ \hline MEG&Magnetic field produced by neuron electrical activity, including tangential components of postsynaptic intracellular currents& 2-3 mm &Similar derived measures with EEG& Identification of brain functional areas (centers of sensory, motor, language and memory activities), precise location mapping of the source of epileptic seizures &EEGLAB, MNE, ELAN, FieldTrip, NUTMEG, BrainVoyager, SPM\\ \hline fNIRS&Changes in cortical BOLD response associated with brain function& 650-900 nm (spatial); milliseconds (temporal) &Similar derived measures with EEG and fMRI& Study normal and pathological brain physiology in infants/children&Homer2, Homer3, FNIRSOFT, OPENFNIRS, ICNNA, nirsLAB \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \end{center}\label{Table:modality} \end{table}

2201.04703v1

\begin{table}[h!] \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline Algorithm & Model Accuracy (\%)& P. sick (\%) & P. not sick (\%) & P. Test(\%) \\ \hline \hline Decision Tree & 72.54 & 79.34 & 64.39&30 \\ \hline Random Forest & 78.43 & 92.08 & 58.53&50 \\ \hline Adaboost & 75.88 & 81.77 & 66.94&70 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Results obtained. The table shows the precision percentages of the different algorithms.} \label{tab:my_label} \end{table}

2201.04703v1

\begin{table}[h!] \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Kernel} & \textbf{C} & \textbf{Gamma} & \textbf{Degree} \\ \hline linear, sigmoid, rbf, polynomial & 0.1, 1, 2, 3, 4 & auto, scale & 2, 3, 4, 5 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Tested parameters in SVM algorithm.} \label{tab:my_label} \end{table}

2201.04703v1

\begin{table}[h!] \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Kernel} & \textbf{C} & \textbf{Gamma} & \textbf{Degree} & \textbf{Accuracy} (\%)& \textbf{P. Test}(\%)\\ \hline rbf& 4 & scale & 2 & 74.68 & 100\\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Best combination of SVM.} \label{tab:my_label} \end{table}

2405.07317v1

\begin{table}[!htb] \centering \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|} \hline Model & ACC\_bef & ACC\_af & MIA\_bef & MIA\_af \\ \hline MoCo & 70\% & 60\% & 90\% & 50\% \\ \hline SimCLR & 66\% & 60\% & 70\% & 50\% \\ \hline BYOL & 55\% & 49\% & 70\% & 50\% \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Performance of different models on CIFAR-10} \end{table}

1503.05216v1

\begin{table} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|} \hline & Uninfected $\male$ & Infected $\male$\\ \hline \hline Uninfected $\female$ & \bf Uninfected & \bf \color{red}Sterile eggs \\ \hline Infected $\female$ & \bf Infected & \bf Infected \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \caption{\label{tab:incompatibilidade-citoplasm=0000E1tica}Cytoplasmic incompatibility and vertical transmission of {\em Wolbachia} bacteria. The state of the offspring is indicated, depending on the parents status} \label{ta2} \end{table}

1503.05216v1

\begin{table} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|r|l|} \hline Notation & Meaning\\ \hline\hline $\alpha_U, \alpha_W$ & Fecundity rates of uninfected and infected insects\\ $\nu$ & Rate of transfer from the preliminary to the adult stage\\ $\mu$ & Mortality rate of uninfected and infected insects in preliminary stage\\ $\mu k$ & Characteristic of the additional mortality rate in preliminary stage\\ $\mu_U, \mu_W$ & Mortality rates of uninfected and infected insects at adult stage\\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{List of parameters of model \eqref{eq1}} \label{ta1} \end{center} \end{table}

2111.14283v1

\begin{table}[ht] \centering \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{% \begin{tabular}{|l|l|c|c|c|c|} \hline \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{models}} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}PR-AUC\\ (OOD-test set)\end{tabular}} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}ROC-AUC\\ (OOD-test set)\end{tabular}} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}ROC-AUC\\ Deployment Gap\end{tabular}} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}PR-AUC\\ Deployment Gap\end{tabular}} \\ \hline DIASE & PortalCG w/o STL \& OOC-ML & 0.603±0.005 & 0.636±0.004 & -0.275±0.016 & -0.345±0.012 \\ \hline variant 1 & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}PortalCG w/o OOC-ML\end{tabular} & 0.629±0.005 & 0.661±0.004 & --- & --- \\ \hline variant 2 & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}PortalCG w/o STL\end{tabular} & 0.698±0.015 & 0.654±0.062 & --- & --- \\ \hline PortalCG & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Portal learning\end{tabular} & 0.714±0.010 & 0.677±0.010 & 0.010±0.009 & 0.005±0.010 \\ \hline \end{tabular}% } \caption{Ablation study of PortalCG.} \label{tab:PRAUC} \end{table}

2111.14283v1

\begin{table}[ht] \centering \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{% \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{Docking scores of \textbf{Fenebrutinib} binding to predicted targets} \\ \hline Uniprot ID & Protein name & PDB ID & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Docking score \\ (kcal/mol)\end{tabular} \\ \hline Q96B26 & Exosome complex component RRP43 & 2NN6\_C & -7.9 \\ \hline Q5JRX3 & Presequence protease, mitochondrial & 4L3T\_A & -10.8 \\ \hline Q99720 & Sigma non-opioid intracellular receptor 1 & 5HK1\_A & -9.6 \\ \hline Q5VT66 & Mitochondrial amidoxime-reducing component 1 & 6FW2\_A & -10.4 \\ \hline P29122 & Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 6 & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{AF-P29122-F1 (157-622)} & -8.5 \\ \hline Q96K12 & Fatty acyl-CoA reductase 2 & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{AF-Q96K12-F1 (1-478)} & -10.1 \\ \hline O94973 & AP-2 complex subunit alpha-2 & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{AF-O94973-F1 (3-622)} & -8.6 \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{Docking scores of \textbf{NMS-P715} binding to predicted targets} \\ \hline Uniprot ID & Protein name & PDB ID & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Docking score\\ (kcal/mol)\end{tabular} \\ \hline Q9UN86 & Ras GTPase-activating protein-binding protein 2 & 5DRV\_A & -9.5 \\ \hline P67870 & Casein kinase II subunit beta & 1QF8\_A & -8.6 \\ \hline Q96B26 & Exosome complex component RRP43 & 2NN6\_C & -9.3 \\ \hline P62877 & E3 ubiquitin-protein ligase RBX1 & 2HYE\_D & -7.9 \\ \hline P61962 & DDB1- and CUL4-associated factor 7 & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{AF-P61962-F1 (9-341)} & -8.7 \\ \hline Q9NXH9 & tRNA (guanine(26)-N(2))-dimethyltransferase & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{AF-Q9NXH9-F1 (53-556)} & -9.0 \\ \hline Q9NQT4 & Exosome complex component RRP46 & 2NN6\_D & -8.6 \\ \hline \end{tabular}% } \caption{Docking scores for Fenebrutinib and NMS-P715} \label{tab:docking} \end{table}

2111.14283v1

\begin{table}[ht] \centering \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{% \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \multicolumn{5}{|c|}{David Functional Annotation enrichment analysis} \\ \hline \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Enriched terms in \\ UniProtKB keywords\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Number of \\ proteins involved\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Percentage of \\ proteins involved\end{tabular} & P-value & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Modified \\ Benjamini p-value\end{tabular} \\ \hline {\color[HTML]{080808} Alternative splicing} & 171 & 66.5 & 7.70E-07 & 2.00E-04 \\ \hline {\color[HTML]{080808} Phosphoprotein} & 140 & 54.5 & 2.60E-06 & 3.40E-04 \\ \hline {\color[HTML]{080808} Cytoplasm} & 91 & 35.4 & 1.30E-05 & 1.10E-03 \\ \hline {\color[HTML]{080808} Nucleus} & 93 & 36.2 & 1.20E-04 & 8.10E-03 \\ \hline {\color[HTML]{080808} Metal-binding} & 68 & 26.5 & 4.20E-04 & 2.20E-02 \\ \hline {\color[HTML]{080808} Zinc} & 48 & 18.7 & 6.60E-04 & 2.90E-02 \\ \hline \end{tabular}% } \caption{Functional Annotation enrichment for undruggable human disease proteins selected by PortalCG} \label{tab:enrichment} \end{table}

2111.14283v1

\begin{table}[ht] \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{% \begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline DiseaseName & \# of undruggable proteins associated with disease \\ \hline Breast Carcinoma & 90 \\ \hline Tumor Cell Invasion & 86 \\ \hline Carcinogenesis & 83 \\ \hline Neoplasm Metastasis & 75 \\ \hline Colorectal Carcinoma & 73 \\ \hline Liver carcinoma & 66 \\ \hline Malignant neoplasm of lung & 56 \\ \hline Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinoma & 56 \\ \hline Carcinoma of lung & 54 \\ \hline Alzheimer's Disease & 54 \\ \hline \end{tabular}% } \caption{Top ranked diseases associated with the undruggable human disease proteins selected by PortalCG} \label{tab:disease} \end{table}

2111.14283v1

\begin{table}[ht] \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{% \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|l} \cline{1-5} IhChIKey & Number of hits & Drug name & Clinical trail & Mechanism of Action & \\ \cline{1-5} WNEODWDFDXWOLU-QHCPKHFHSA-N & 7 & fenebrutinib & phase 2 & Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor & \\ \cline{1-5} JFOAJUGFHDCBJJ-UHFFFAOYSA-N & 7 & NMS-P715 & preclinical & protein kinase inhibitor & \\ \cline{1-5} QHLVBNKYJGBCQJ-UHFFFAOYSA-N & 4 & NMS-1286937 & phase 2 & PLK inhibitor & \\ \cline{1-5} FUXVKZWTXQUGMW-FQEVSTJZSA-N & 4 & 9-aminocamptothecin & phase 2 & topoisomerase inhibitor & \\ \cline{1-5} DKZYXHCYPUVGAF-JCNLHEQBSA-N & 2 & OTS167 & phase 1/phase 2 & maternal embryonic leucine zipper kinase inhibitor & \\ \cline{1-5} VYLOOGHLKSNNEK-PIIMJCKOSA-N & 1 & tropifexor & phase 2 & FXR agonist & \\ \cline{1-5} TZKBVRDEOITLRB-UHFFFAOYSA-N & 1 & GZD824 & preclinical & Bcr-Abl kinase inhibitor & \\ \cline{1-5} KZSKGLFYQAYZCO-UHFFFAOYSA-N & 1 & cilofexor & phase 3 & FXR agonist & \\ \cline{1-5} \end{tabular}% } \caption{Drugs predicted to interact with SARS-COVID-2 interactors} \label{tab:drug-covid-interactors} \end{table}

2111.14283v1

\begin{table}[ht] \centering \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{% \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline Drug name & Clinical phase & Mechanism of Action & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Number of \\ targeted proteins\end{tabular} \\ \hline AI-10-49 & Preclinical & core binding factor inhibitor & 63 \\ \hline Fenebrutinib & Phase 2 & Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor & 56 \\ \hline PF-05190457 & Phase 2 & growth hormone secretagogue receptor inverse agonist & 42 \\ \hline Abemaciclib & Launched & CDK inhibitor & 21 \\ \hline MK-5046 & Preclinical & bombesin receptor agonist & 18 \\ \hline CFI-402257 & Phase 1/Phase 2 & dual specificity protein kinase inhibitor & 14 \\ \hline CCT137690 & Preclinical & Aurora kinase inhibitor & 11 \\ \hline Tropifexor & Phase 2 & FXR agonist & 5 \\ \hline NMS-1286937 & Phase 2 & PLK inhibitor & 5 \\ \hline NMS-P715 & Preclinical & protein kinase inhibitor & 5 \\ \hline Elbasvir & Launched & HCV inhibitor & 5 \\ \hline Cilofexor & Phase 3 & FXR agonist & 4 \\ \hline CDK9-IN-6 & Preclinical & CDK inhibitor & 3 \\ \hline piperaquine-phosphate & Launched & antimalarial agent & 3 \\ \hline Q-203 & Phase 2 & ATP synthase inhibitor & 3 \\ \hline ABT 702 dihydrochloride & Preclinical & adenosine kinase inhibitor & 2 \\ \hline Ziritaxestat & Phase 3 & autotaxin inhibitor & 2 \\ \hline Adapalene & Launched & retinoid receptor agonist & 1 \\ \hline Acalabrutinib & Launched & Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor & 1 \\ \hline IACS-10759 Hydrochloride & Preclinical & mitochondrial complex I inhibitor & 1 \\ \hline NVP-CGM097 & Phase 1 & MDM inhibitor & 1 \\ \hline \end{tabular}% } \caption{Chemicals interacted with undruggable human proteins} \label{tab:chemicals} \end{table}

2111.14283v1

\begin{table}[ht] \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{% \begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline Disease Name & \# of undruggable proteins associated with the disease \\ \hline Breast Carcinoma & 89 \\ \hline Tumor Cell Invasion & 85 \\ \hline Carcinogenesis & 83 \\ \hline Neoplasm Metastasis & 73 \\ \hline Colorectal Carcinoma & 68 \\ \hline Liver carcinoma & 66 \\ \hline Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinoma & 56 \\ \hline Malignant neoplasm of lung & 56 \\ \hline Carcinoma of lung & 54 \\ \hline Alzheimer's Disease & 54 \\ \hline \end{tabular}% } \caption{Top ranked diseases associated with proteins in Tbio selected by portal learning} \label{tab:tbiodisease} \end{table}

2111.14283v1

\begin{table}[ht] \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{% \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline %Drug\_name & Clinical phase & Mechanism of Action & Number of targeted proteins \\ \hline rug name & Clinical phase & Mechanism of Action & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Number of \\ targeted proteins\end{tabular} \\ \hline AI-10-49 & Preclinical & core binding factor inhibitor & 52 \\ \hline fenebrutinib & Phase 2 & Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor & 45 \\ \hline PF-05190457 & Phase 2 & growth hormone secretagogue receptor inverse agonist & 36 \\ \hline abemaciclib & Launched & CDK inhibitor & 20 \\ \hline MK-5046 & Preclinical & bombesin receptor agonist & 15 \\ \hline CFI-402257 & Phase 1/Phase 2 & dual specificity protein kinase inhibitor & 14 \\ \hline CCT137690 & Preclinical & Aurora kinase inhibitor & 7 \\ \hline NMS-1286937 & Phase 2 & PLK inhibitor & 5 \\ \hline tropifexor & Phase 2 & FXR agonist & 4 \\ \hline NMS-P715 & Preclinical & protein kinase inhibitor & 4 \\ \hline cilofexor & Phase 3 & FXR agonist & 3 \\ \hline CDK9-IN-6 & Preclinical & CDK inhibitor & 3 \\ \hline piperaquine-phosphate & Launched & antimalarial agent & 3 \\ \hline elbasvir & Launched & HCV inhibitor & 3 \\ \hline ABT-702 & Preclinical & adenosine kinase inhibitor & 2 \\ \hline adapalene & Launched & retinoid receptor agonist & 2 \\ \hline Q-203 & Phase 2 & ATP synthase inhibitor & 2 \\ \hline ziritaxestat & Phase 3 & autotaxin inhibitor & 2 \\ \hline acalabrutinib & Launched & Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor & 1 \\ \hline IACS-10759 & Preclinical & mitochondrial complex I inhibitor & 1 \\ \hline CGM097 & Phase 1 & MDM inhibitor & 1 \\ \hline \end{tabular}% } \caption{Chemicals interacted with human proteins in Tbio} \label{tab:Tbiochemicals} \end{table}

2111.14283v1

\begin{table}[ht] \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{% \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \multicolumn{5}{|c|}{David Functional Annotation enrichment analysis} \\ \hline \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Enriched terms \\ in UniProtKB keyword\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Number of \\ proteins involved\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Percentage of \\ proteins involved (\%)\end{tabular} & P-value & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Modified\\ Benjamini p-value\end{tabular} \\ \hline {\color[HTML]{080808} Zinc-finger} & 80 & 23 & 7.60E-16 & 1.20E-13 \\ \hline {\color[HTML]{080808} Zinc} & 85 & 24.4 & 1.20E-11 & 9.90E-10 \\ \hline {\color[HTML]{080808} Metal-binding} & 96 & 27.6 & 4.30E-06 & 2.30E-04 \\ \hline {\color[HTML]{080808} DNA-binding} & 62 & 17.8 & 7.90E-06 & 3.20E-04 \\ \hline {\color[HTML]{080808} Transcription regulation} & 61 & 17.5 & 5.60E-04 & 1.80E-02 \\ \hline {\color[HTML]{080808} Transcription} & 61 & 17.5 & 1.10E-03 & 3.00E-02 \\ \hline \end{tabular}% } \caption{Functional Annotation enrichment for undruggable human disease proteins without Tbio selected by PortalCG} \label{tab:without-tbio-enrichment} \end{table}

2111.14283v1

\begin{table}[ht] \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{% \begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline Disease Name & \# of undruggable proteins associated with the disease \\ \hline Body Height & 31 \\ \hline Colorectal Carcinoma & 28 \\ \hline Malignant neoplasm of breast & 26 \\ \hline Breast Carcinoma & 18 \\ \hline Blood Protein Measurement & 18 \\ \hline Leukemia, Myelocytic, Acute & 17 \\ \hline Carcinogenesis & 17 \\ \hline Neoplasm Metastasis & 17 \\ \hline Liver carcinoma & 15 \\ \hline Malignant neoplasm of prostate & 15 \\ \hline \end{tabular}% } \caption{Top ranked diseases associated with undruggable human proteins excluding Tbio selected by portal learning} \label{tab:undrugnoTbiodisease} \end{table}

2111.14283v1

\begin{table}[ht] \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{% \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline Drug\_name & Clinical phase & Mechanism of Action & Number of targeted proteins \\ \hline fenebrutinib & Phase 2 & Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor & 80 \\ \hline PF-05190457 & Phase 2 & growth hormone secretagogue receptor inverse agonist & 50 \\ \hline MK-5046 & Preclinical & bombesin receptor agonist & 38 \\ \hline CCT137690 & Preclinical & Aurora kinase inhibitor & 36 \\ \hline AI-10-49 & Preclinical & core binding factor inhibitor & 31 \\ \hline abemaciclib & Launched & CDK inhibitor & 26 \\ \hline CFI-402257 & Phase 1/Phase 2 & dual specificity protein kinase inhibitor & 20 \\ \hline NMS-P715 & Preclinical & protein kinase inhibitor & 14 \\ \hline NMS-1286937 & Phase 2 & PLK inhibitor & 11 \\ \hline elbasvir & Launched & HCV inhibitor & 8 \\ \hline cilofexor & Phase 3 & FXR agonist & 7 \\ \hline ABBV-744 & Phase 1 & bromodomain inhibitor & 7 \\ \hline tropifexor & Phase 2 & FXR agonist & 7 \\ \hline CDK9-IN-6 & Preclinical & CDK inhibitor & 6 \\ \hline adapalene & Launched & retinoid receptor agonist & 4 \\ \hline Q-203 & Phase 2 & ATP synthase inhibitor & 4 \\ \hline PLX8394 & Phase 1/Phase 2 & serine/threonine kinase inhibitor & 4 \\ \hline ABT-702 & Preclinical & adenosine kinase inhibitor & 4 \\ \hline NVP-BSK805 & Preclinical & JAK inhibitor & 3 \\ \hline OTS167 & Phase 1/Phase 2 & maternal embryonic leucine zipper kinase inhibitor & 3 \\ \hline CHIR-99021 & Preclinical & glycogen synthase kinase inhibitor & 3 \\ \hline DBPR-211 & Preclinical & cannabinoid receptor antagonist & 2 \\ \hline A-887826 & Preclinical & sodium channel blocker & 2 \\ \hline integrin-antagonist-1 & Phase 1 & integrin antagonist & 2 \\ \hline piperaquine-phosphate & Launched & antimalarial agent & 2 \\ \hline cenerimod & Phase 2 & sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulator & 1 \\ \hline peposertib & Phase 1/Phase 2 & DNA dependent protein kinase inhibitor & 1 \\ \hline tezacaftor & Launched & CFTR channel agonist & 1 \\ \hline cot-inhibitor-2 & Preclinical & MAPK-interacting kinase inhibitor & 1 \\ \hline itacitinib & Phase 3 & JAK inhibitor & 1 \\ \hline 10-hydroxycamptothecin & Preclinical & topoisomerase inhibitor & 1 \\ \hline alectinib & Launched & ALK tyrosine kinase receptor inhibitor & 1 \\ \hline adarotene & Phase 1 & retinoid receptor agonist & 1 \\ \hline acalabrutinib & Launched & Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor & 1 \\ \hline XL041 & Preclinical & LXR agonist & 1 \\ \hline WAY-207024 & Preclinical & gonadotropin releasing factor hormone receptor antagonist & 1 \\ \hline MK-5108 & Phase 1 & Aurora kinase inhibitor & 1 \\ \hline CGM097 & Phase 1 & MDM inhibitor & 1 \\ \hline CD-437 & Preclinical & retinoid receptor agonist & 1 \\ \hline AMG-925 & Phase 1 & CDK inhibitor|FLT3 inhibitor & 1 \\ \hline ACT-132577 & Launched & endothelin receptor antagonist & 1 \\ \hline ziritaxestat & Phase 3 & autotaxin inhibitor & 1 \\ \hline \end{tabular}% } \caption{Chemicals interacted with undruggable human proteins excluding Tbio} \label{tab:UndrugnoTbiochemicals} \end{table}

2111.14283v1

\begin{table}[ht] \centering \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{% \begin{tabular}{|c|l|r|} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Protein descriptor} & layers & Albert --\textgreater Resnet \\ \cline{2-3} & embedding dimension & 256 \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{Chemical descriptor} & backbone & GIN \\ \cline{2-3} & number of layers & 5 \\ \cline{2-3} & embedding dimension & 300 \\ \cline{2-3} & aggregation methods & sum \\ \cline{2-3} & drop out ratio & 0.5 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Interaction learner} & layers & Attentive pooling --\textgreater{}2 layers of MLP \\ \cline{2-3} & embedding dimension & 128 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{Structure residue-atom pair wise feature learner} & layers & matrix multiplication of protein and chemical embedding vectors \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Classifier} & layers & 2 layers of MLP \\ \cline{2-3} & embedding dimension & 64 \\ \hline \end{tabular}% } \caption{Model architecture configuration} \label{tab:config} \end{table}

2012.06283v2

\begin{table}[ht] \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline Option &Euler Maruyama & Milstein & strong order 1.5 & strong order 2 & strong order 3\\ \hline European & 0.976999 & 1.962848 & 2.970166 & 3.964626 & 5.958417\\ \hline Digital & 0.473426 & 0.869393 & 1.452448 & 1.775679 & NAN\\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{numerical estimates of $\beta$ based on linear regression for five schemes} \label{tab:tab2} \end{table}

2012.06283v2

\begin{table}[ht] \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline Option &Euler Maruyama & Milstein & strong order 1.5 & strong order 2 & strong order 3 \\ \hline European & 1.136214 & 0.979572 & 1.747239 & 1.970829 & 2.961041 \\ \hline Digital & 1.023176 & 0.791818 & 1.853158 & 1.827618 & NAN\\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{numerical estimates of $\alpha$ based on linear regression for five schemes} \label{tab:tab3} \end{table}

2107.08761v1

\begin{table} \centering \caption{Overview. Models and parameters analyzed in this study.}\label{tab:paraOver} \begin{tabulary}{\textwidth}{L | L | L} \hline Model & Hyperparameter \hspace*{2cm} & Comment \\ \hline knn &\paramk & number of neighbors \\ &\paramp & $p$ norm \\ \hline Elastic net &\paramalpha & weight term of the loss-function \\ &\paramlambda & trade-off between model quality and complexity\\ &\paramthresh & threshold for model convergence, i.e., convergence of the internal coordinate descent\\ \hline Decision trees&\paramminsplit & minimum number of observations required for a split\\ &\paramminbucket & minimum number of observations in an end node (leaf) \\ &\paramcp & complexity parameter\\ &\parammaxdepth & maximum depth of a leaf in the decision tree\\ \hline Random forest & \paramnumtrees & number of trees that are combined in the overall ensemble model \\ &\parammtry & number of randomly chosen features are considered for each split\\ &\paramsamplefraction & number of observations that are randomly drawn for training a specific tree\\ &\paramreplace & replacement of randomly drawn samples\\ &\texttt{respect.-} & \\ &\texttt{unordered.factors} & handling of splits of categorical variables \\ \hline xgBoost & \parameta & learning rate, also called \enquote{shrinkage} parameter.\\ &\paramnrounds & number of boosting steps\\ &\paramlambda & regularization of the model\\ &\paramalpha & parameter for the L1 regularization of the weights \\ &\paramsubsample & portion of the observations that is randomly selected in each iteration\\ &\paramcolsample & number of features that chosen for the splits of a tree\\ &\paramgamma & number of splits of a tree by assuming a minimal improvement for each split\\ &\parammaxdepthx & maximum depth of a leaf in the decision trees\\ &\paramminchild & restriction of the number of splits of each tree\\ \hline Support vector machines &\paramdegree & degree of the polynomial (parameter of the polynomial kernel function)\\ &\paramgamma & parameter of the polynomial, radial basis, and sigmoid kernel functions\\ &\paramcoefz & parameter of the polynomial and sigmoid kernel functions\\ &\paramcost & regularization parameter, weights constraint violations of the model\\ &\paramepsilon & regularization parameter, defines ribbon around predictions\\ %&\paramtolerance & \\ %not tuned \hline % Neural networks &\paramhidden \\ % &\paramactiv \\ % &\paramdropout \\ % &\paramlosstype\\ % &\paramlearnrates \\ % &\parambatchsize \\ % &\paramnepochs\\ \end{tabulary} \end{table}

1903.00954v2

\begin{table}[h] \centering \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|} \hline & MDN & KMN \\ \hline hidden layer sizes & (16,16) & (16,16) \\ \hline hidden non-linearity & tanh & tanh \\ \hline training epochs & 1000 & 1000 \\ \hline Adam learning rate & 0.001 & 0.001 \\ \hline $K$: number of components & 20 & 50 \\ \hline $\eta_x$: noise std x & 0.2 & 0.2 \\ \hline $\eta_y$: noise std y & 0.1 & 0.1 \\ \hline weight normalization & True & True \\ \hline data normalization & True & True \\ \hline initialization of scales & - & [0.7, 0.3] \\ \hline trainable scales & - & True \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{$\quad$ Default hyper-parameter configuration for MDN and KMN} \label{tab:standard_params} \end{table}

1903.00954v2

\begin{table}[h] \centering \begin{tabular}{|r|c|c|c|} \hline & MDN-CV & KMN-CV & LSCDE-CV\\ \hline training epochs & 500 & 500 & -\\ \hline $K$: number of components & 10 & 200 & 1000\\ \hline $\eta_x$: noise std x & 0.3 & 0.2 & -\\ \hline $\eta_y$: noise std y & 0.15 & 0.15 & - \\ \hline bandwidth & - & - & 0.5 \\ \hline $\lambda$: LSCDE damping parameter & - & - & 0.1 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{$\quad$ Hyper-parameter configuration determined with 10-fold cross-validation on the EuroStoxx 50 data set} \label{tab:cv_params} \end{table}

1805.03933v1

\begin{table}[tb] \caption{Description of the datasets used.} \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline & DTS1 & DTS2 \\ \hline Sampling rate(Hz) & 256 & 160 \\ \hline Time task(seg) & 120 & 60 \\ \hline Total points & 30720 & 9600 \\ \hline Number of electrodes & 16 & 64 \\ \hline Number of subjects & 71 & 109 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tb:1} \end{table}

1908.06719v1

\begin{table}[h] \resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{% \begin{tabular}{l|l|l|l|l|l|} \cline{2-6} & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{\textbf{Dataset Name}} \\ \cline{2-6} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{XS}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{S}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{M}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{L}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{XL}} \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{Number of Records} & 0.5 mil & 1.25 mil & 2.5 mil & 3.75 mil & 5 mil \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{JSON File Size} & 1 GB & 2.5 GB & 5 GB & 7.5 GB & 10 GB \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{Parquet File Size} & 43 MB & 110 MB & 217 MB & 317 MB & 426 MB \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{CSV File Size} & 715 MB & 2.3 GB & 4.6 GB & 6.8 GB & 9.3 GB \\ \hline \end{tabular}% } \caption{Dataset Summary (mil = million)} \label{tab:onenode} \vspace{-1em} \end{table}

1908.06719v1

\begin{table}[h] \resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{% \begin{tabular}{l|l|l|l|l|} \cline{2-5} & \textbf{1 node} & \textbf{2 nodes} & \textbf{3 nodes} & \textbf{4 nodes} \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{\textbf{Aggregate Memory}} & 8 GB & 16 GB & 24 GB & 32 GB \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{\textbf{JSON File Size}} & 10 GB & 10 GB & 10GB & 10 GB \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{\textbf{Parquet File Size}} & 426 MB & 426 MB & 426 MB & 426 MB \\ \hline \end{tabular}% } \caption{Speedup Experiment Setup} \label{tab:speedup} \end{table}

1908.06719v1

\begin{table}[h] \resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{% \begin{tabular}{l|l|l|l|l|} \cline{2-5} & \textbf{1 node} & \textbf{2 nodes} & \textbf{3 nodes} & \textbf{4 nodes} \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{\textbf{Aggregated Memory}} & 8 GB & 16 GB & 24 GB & 32 GB \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{\textbf{JSON File Size}} & 10 GB & 20 GB & 30GB & 40 GB \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{\textbf{Parquet File Size}} & 426 MB & 818 MB & 1.33 GB & 1.75 GB \\ \hline \end{tabular}% } \caption{Scaleup Experiment Setup} \label{tab:scaleup} \end{table}

1512.06228v1

\begin{table}[!htb] %\label{tab:title} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{ |l|c|c| } \hline \textbf{Algorithm} & Actual $\Uparrow$ & Actual $\Downarrow$ \\ \hline SVM & 62.58\% & 58.59\% \\ Logistic Regression & 62.5\% & 59.09\% \\ Neural Network & 60.46\% & 56.95\% \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption {Test Precision rate for each direction} \end{center} \end{table}

1512.06228v1

\begin{table}[!htb] %\label{tab:title} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{ |l|c|c| } \hline \textbf{Algorithm} & Actual $\Uparrow$ & Actual $\Downarrow$ \\ \hline SVM & 60.92\% & 59.65\% \\ Logistic Regression & 60.45\% & 58.86\% \\ Neural Network & 55.42\% & 66.35\% \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption {Training Precision rate for each direction} \end{center} \end{table}

1502.00225v1

\begin{table}[!htbp] \begin{center} \caption{Searched terms and DJIA component stocks} %\vspace{0.5cm} \label{query} \footnotesize \begin{tabular}{c | c | ccc} \hline\hline No.&Company full name&Company short name&Ticker&Search query\\ \hline \#1&3M Company&3M&MMM&3M\\ \#2&Caterpillar Incorporated&Caterpillar&CAT&Caterpillar\\ \#3&Coca-Cola Company&Coca Cola&KO&Coca Cola\\ \#4&E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company&Du Pont&DD&DuPont\\ \#5&Exxon Mobil Company&Exxon Mobil&XOM&Exxon\\ \#6&General Electric Company&General Electric&GE&GE\\ \#7&Home Depot Incorporated&Home Depot&HD&Home Depot\\ \#8&Intel Corporation&Intel&INTC&Intel\\ \#9&International Business Machines&IBM&IBM&IBM\\ \#10&J. P. Morgan Chase&J. P. Morgan&JPM&JP Morgan\\ \#11&Johnson \& Johnson&Johnson \& Johnson&JNJ&Johnson Johnson\\ \#12&McDonald's Corporation&McDonald's&MCD&McDonalds\\ \#13&Merck \& Co., Inc.&Merck&MRK&Merck\\ \#14&Microsoft Corporation&Microsoft&MSFT&Microsoft\\ \#15&Procter \& Gamble Company&Procter \& Gamble&PG&P\&G\\ \#16&The Boeing Company&Boeing&BA&Boeing\\ \#17&United Technologies Corporation&United Technologies&UTX&UTC\\ \#18&Walt Disney Company&Walt Disney&DIS&Disney\\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} %\vspace{-0.7cm} \end{center} \end{table}

2403.02185v1

\begin{table}[] \centering \resizebox{0.47\textwidth}{!}{\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c|c} \hline \bf Model & \bf \#Tokens & \bf Size & \bf $F_1$ vs. Teacher & \bf $F_1$ vs. Human\\ \hline Paraphrase Albert & 256 & 43MB & $46.8\%$ & $61.9\%$\\ MiniLM-L6 & 256 & 120MB & $55.1\%$ & $60.3\%$ \\ MPNET & 384 & 420MB & $63.1\%$ & $72.8\%$ \\ DistilBERT & 512 & 420MB & $61.3\%$ & $74.4\%$\\ FinBERT & 512 & 438MB & $48.8\%$ & $54.5\%$ \\ \hline \end{tabular}} \caption{Topic Classification Models Performance.} \label{tab:topic_perf} \end{table}

2403.02185v1

\begin{table}[] \centering \resizebox{0.4\textwidth}{!}{\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c} \hline %\bf Model & \bf $F_1$ vs. Human & \bf Lower 95\% & \bf Upper 95\% \\ \bf Model & \bf MPNET & \bf FinBERT & \bf ChatGPT 3.5 \\ \hline $F_1$ vs. Human & 77.8\% & 65.3\% & 83.1\% \\ %MPNET & 77.8\% & 76.7\% & 78.9\% \\ %FinBERT & 65.3\% & 63.8\% & 66.7\% \\ %Chat GPT3.5 & 83.1\% & 82.2\% & 84.0\%\\ \hline \end{tabular}} \caption{Sentiment Classification Models Performance.} \label{tab:sentiment_perf} \end{table}

2403.02185v1

\begin{table}[] \resizebox{0.45\textwidth}{!}{\begin{tabular}{l|ll|ll} \hline & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Earnings} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Revenue} \\ \hline Filter & Outlook & Trailling & Outlook & Trailling \\ \hline Earnings & High & High & Medium & Medium \\ Revenue & Medium & Medium & High & High \\ Guidance & High & Low & High & Low \\ Others & Low & Low & Low & Low \\ \hline \end{tabular}} \caption{Filter intensity for earnings and revenue sentiments trends.} \label{tab:filtering_rev} \end{table}

2201.00207v2

\begin{table}[htbp] \centering \caption{Primitives used in automated feature engineering} \renewcommand\tabularxcolumn[1]{m{#1}} \newcolumntype{C}{>{\centering\arraybackslash}X} \begin{tabularx}{350pt}{|c|C|} \hline Module & Primitives \\ \hline Scaler & StandardScaler MaxAbsScaler RobustScaler Normalizer \\ \hline Feature Generation & PolynomialFeature KBinsDiscretizer SplineTransformer Nystroem RBFSampler \\ \hline Matrix Decomposition & FastICA IncrementalICA PCA SparsePCA TruncatedSVD Factoranalysis \\ \hline Feature Selection & SelectFwe SelectFdr SelectFpr SelectPercentile VarianceThreshold RFE \\ \hline \end{tabularx} \end{table}

2201.00207v2

\begin{table}[htbp] \centering \caption{Primitives used in automated ensemble strategy selection} \renewcommand\tabularxcolumn[1]{m{#1}} \newcolumntype{C}{>{\centering\arraybackslash}X} \begin{tabularx}{350pt}{|c|C|} \hline Classifier Primitives & HistGradientBoostingClassifier RidgeClassifier GaussianNB BernoulliNB BaggingClassifier DecisionTreeClassifier ExtraTreesClassifier RandomForestClassifier GradientBoostingClassifier KNeighborsClassifier LinearSVC SGDClassifier LogisticRegression Perceptron MLPClassifier LGBMClassifier PassiveAggressiveClassifier RUSBoostClassifier\\ \hline Ensemble Strategies Primitives & SingleBest StackedGeneralization StaticSelection LCA MCB OLA Rank DESClustering DESKNN DESMI KNORAE KNORAU KNOP METADES DESKL Exponential Logarithmic RRC MinimumDifference APriori APosteriori \\ \hline \end{tabularx} \end{table}

2309.03451v2

\begin{table} \centering \caption{Sound Types and Characteristics of the data with $Principal Component 1 > 40$.} \begin{tabular}{|P{1.8cm}|c|P{3.5cm}|} \hline Sound Type & Number of Data & Occurrence Date \\ \hline Bearded Seal & 1033 & Mar. or May 2018 \\ \hline Walrus & 9 & Sept. or Oct. 2017 \\ \hline Airgun & 275 & Sept. 2017 \\ \hline Sea ice & 1 & Aug. 25 2017 00:00:00 \\ \hline Whales & 12 & Sept. 11 or 19 2017 \\ \hline Mammal & 7 & Sept. 23 2017 17:00:00 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:sound_data} \end{table}

1504.04296v1

\begin{table}[htbp] \begin{center} \caption{Autocorrelation tests for $chron$} \label{autocor_pair_impair} \begin{tabular}{c c c| c c c} \multicolumn{3}{c}{case1}&\multicolumn{3}{c}{case2}\\ \hline $\chi-square$&deg. lib.&\emph{p-value}&$\chi-square$-&deg. lib.&\emph{p-value}\\ \hline \hline 0.0096&1&0.9219&1.1169& 1&0.2906\\ 29.6655& 36 &0.7629&45.4802&36&0.1337\\ \end{tabular} \end{center} \begin{center} \small{$H_{0}$: $chron$ is not autocorrelated.} \end{center} \end{table}

2305.09783v1

\begin{table}[htbp] \centering \caption{\textbf{PINN results for the inverse HJB equation with estimation of three parameters.} Unknown parameters $c_e$, $\alpha$, and $c_f$ as well as moment targets $e_\text{target}$, $z_\text{target}$, $\ell_\text{target}$ and $l^*_\text{target}$ are shown.} \label{tab:hjb-inv-three-var} \begin{tabular}{c|ccc} \toprule & True value & Predicted value & Relative error \\ \midrule $c_e$ & 0.1 & 0.0934 & 6.60\% \\ $\alpha$ & 0.3 & 0.314 & 4.59\% \\ $c_f$ & 0.03 & 0.0299 & 0.49\% \\ $e_\mathrm{target}$ & 0.418 & 0.385 & 7.96\% \\ $z_\mathrm{target}$ & 7.524 & 7.786 & 3.47\% \\ $\ell_\mathrm{target}$ & 4.697 & 4.955 & 5.50\% \\ $l^*_\mathrm{target}$ & 0.00647 & 0.00677 & 4.70\% \\ \bottomrule \end{tabular} \end{table}

2304.10521v1

\begin{table} \centering \resizebox{\textwidth}{!} { \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \toprule M & 1000 & 2000 & 3000 & 4000 & 5000 & 6000 & 7000 & 8000 & 9000 & 10000\\ \midrule scores & 0.93&0.9492&0.9551&0.9619&0.9649&0.9666&0.9692&0.9707&0.9708&0.9726\\ \midrule times & 1.26&2.83&5.12&8.53&11.10&16.28&22.41&30.37&40.06&48.68\\ \midrule $1-\dK(X,Z)$ & 0.9194&0.9384&0.9534&0.9537&0.9610&0.9561&0.9580&0.9586&0.9598&0.9654 \\ \bottomrule \end{tabular} } \caption{ Extrapolation -- scores and times} % {tab:unnamed-chunk-2} \label{extrapolation} \end{figure} %\end{table}

1504.03655v4

\begin{table}[h!] \centering \setlength{\tabcolsep}{2pt} \caption{Relation between various subspaces. \label{tb:relation} } \vspace{-2mm} \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c} \hline \hline Subspace & Evaluation & Orth. & Data Mini-batch & RF Mini-batch \\ \hline $V$ & -- & -- & -- & -- \\ $F_t$ & $f_t(x)$ & \cmark & \cmark & \xmark \\ $G_t$ & $g_t(x)$ & \xmark & \cmark & \xmark \\ $\Gtil_t$ & $\gtil_t(x)$ & \xmark & \cmark & \xmark \\ $H_t$ & $h_t(x)$ & \xmark & \cmark & \cmark \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

1504.03655v4

\begin{table} \vspace{-4pt} \setlength{\tabcolsep}{10pt} \centering \caption{KCCA results on MNIST 8M (top 50 largest correlations)}\label{table:cca_mnist}\vspace{-4pt} \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{ \# of feat} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Random features} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Nystrom features} \\ \cline{2-5} & corrs. & minutes & corrs. & minutes\\ \hline \hline 256 & 25.2 & 3.2 & 30.4 & 3.0 \\\hline 512 & 30.7 & 7.0 & 35.3 & 5.1 \\\hline 1024 & 35.3 & 13.9 & 38.0 & 10.1 \\\hline 2048 & 38.8 & 54.3 & 41.1 & 27.0 \\\hline 4096 & 41.5 & 186.7 & 42.7 & 71.0 \\\hline \end{tabular}\\ \bigskip \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c} \hline \multicolumn{2}{c|}{DSGD-KCCA} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{linear CCA}\\ \hline corrs. & minutes & corrs. & minutes\\ \hline \hline 43.5 & 183.2 & 27.4 & 1.1\\\hline \end{tabular} \vspace{-4pt} \end{table}

1504.03655v4

\begin{table}[h!] \centering \setlength{\tabcolsep}{2pt} \caption{Relation between various subspaces. \label{app_tb:relation} } \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c} \hline \hline Subspace & Evaluation & Orth. & Data Mini-batch & RF Mini-batch \\ \hline $V$ & -- & -- & -- & -- \\ $F_t$ & $f_t(x)$ & \cmark & \cmark & \xmark \\ $G_t$ & $g_t(x)$ & \xmark & \cmark & \xmark \\ $\Gtil_t$ & $\gtil_t(x)$ & \xmark & \cmark & \xmark \\ $H_t$ & $h_t(x)$ & \xmark & \cmark & \cmark \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

1810.02442v1

\begin{table}[tbp] \centering \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c} \hline Dataset $\#$ & \textsc{w/o L1} & \textsc{DGS} & \textsc{AutoLoss} \\ \hline \hline \emph{1} & .1337 & \textbf{.1019} & .1037 \\ \hline \emph{2} & .1294 & .1035 & \textbf{.1016} \\ \hline \emph{3} & .1318 & .1022 & \bf{.0997} \\ \hline \end{tabular} \vspace{-5pt} \caption{Comparing \textsc{AutoLoss} to other methods when transferring a trained AutoLoss controller for MLP classification to different data distributions.} \label{tab:MLP_transfer} \vspace{-10pt} \end{table}

1810.02442v1

\begin{table} \centering \begin{tabular}{c|c} \hline Feature to drop & \texttt{MSE} \\ \hline \hline (2) normalized gradient magnitude & .086 \\ \hline (3) loss values& .101 \\ \hline (4) validation metrics & .085 \\ \hline None & \textbf{.070} \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{The MSE performance on the regression task when some features presented in \S\ref{sec:applications} are ablated.} \label{tab:feature_importance} \end{table}

1808.09545v1

\begin{table}[!htbp] \begin{center} \begin{small} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline TID & A & B \\\hline $t_1$ & $a_1$ & $b_1$ \\\hline $t_2$ & $a_1$ & $b_1$ \\\hline $t_3$ & $a_1$ & $b_2$ \\\hline $t_4$ & $a_1$ & $b_3$ \\\hline $t_5$ & $a_2$ & $b_2$ \\\hline \end{tabular} \end{small} \caption{\label{tb:1f1d}An example of data instance $D$ ($FD: A\rightarrow B$)} \end{center} \end{table}

1808.09545v1

\begin{table} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}\hline Target attribute set & Covered instance vertex \\\hline $\{AB\}$& $v_{1}$, $v_{2}$, $v_{3}$ (3 vertices)\\\hline $\{A\}$& $v_{1}$, $v_{2}$, $v_{3}$, $v_{4}$ (4 vertices)\\\hline $\{B\}$& $v_{1}$, $v_{2}$, $v_{3}$, $v_{5}$ (4 vertices)\\\hline $\{C\}$& $v_{5}$, $v_{6}$ (2 vertices)\\\hline $\{BC\}$& $v_{5}$, $v_{7}$ (2 vertices)\\\hline \end{tabular} \caption{\label{table:target} An example of target vertex sets} \end{center} \vspace{-0.3in} \end{table}

1508.07096v1

\begin{table}[h!] \centering \begin{tabular}[h!]{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline Algorithms & Sequential & Weight Averaging & Majority Vote & Synchronous Update & Asynchronous Update \\ \hline Error Rate (\%) & 1.08 & 0.98 & 1.04 & 0.97 & 1.06 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Test error rate using different algorithms for 200 epochs of fine tuning. Weight averaging and majority vote algorithms collect final weights from $7$ independent runs of the standard dropout algorithms. Synchronous update and asynchronous update algorithms combine results from two processes after each input instance. Dropout rate is 50\% for all algorithms. } \end{table}

1908.00868v2

\begin{table} \centering \begin{tabular}{| l || r | } \hline {\bf SVM}&{\bf Ecology}\\ \hline Data point &Species\\ KKT Multiplier & Species Abundance\\ Feature Space & Trait Space\\ Kernel & Niche Overlap\\ Support Vectors & Species that survive in ecosystem\\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Conceptual mapping between SVMs and ecology \label{ecotable} } \end{table}

1802.00382v1

\begin{table}[h] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|p{1.6 cm}|p{1.2 cm}|p{1.4 cm}|l|l|} \hline \bf Source & \bf Labels & \bf Methods & \bf Rec & \bf F1\\ \hline \hline Gehrmann et al., 2017 & 10 own labels & LR 3-gram & 1.6K & 34.6 \\ \hline Gehrmann et al., 2017 & 10 own labels & CNN & 1.6K & 76 \\ \hline This Paper & 17 ICD-9 & CNN & 5K & 76.2 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \caption{Classification of MIMIC clinical notes into labels representing high level phenotype categories (20 epochs for both CNN models)} \label{table:CNN_5k} \end{table}

1802.00382v1

\begin{table}[h] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|p{1.7 cm}|p{3 cm}|l|l|} \hline \bf Source & \bf Methods & \bf Recs & \bf F1 \\ \hline \hline This Paper & LSTM& 5k &64.6 \\ This Paper & LSTM-Attention & 5k& 67 \\ \hline This Paper & Hierarchical LSTM-Attention & 5k & 67.6 \\ \hline This Paper & CNN& 5k& 69 \\ This Paper & CNN-Attention& 5k & 72.8 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \caption{Classification of MIMIC clinical notes into Level 1 ICD-9 Codes. Evaluation with 17 classes, 5k records, 5 epochs} \label{table:attention} \end{table}

1802.00382v1

\begin{table}[h] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|p{1.8 cm}|p {2.6 cm}|l|l|} \hline \bf Source & \bf Methods & \bf N. Rec & \bf F1\\ \hline \hline Perotte et al., 2014& Hierarchal SVM (all codes) & 22K & 39.5 \\ \hline Previous Project Reports\footnotemark& LSTM & 32K & 41.6 \\ \hline This paper &Baseline & 46K & 35 \\ \hline This paper &CNN & 46K & 72.4 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \caption{\label{font-table} Classification of MIMIC clinical notes into most common Level 5 ICD-9 Codes} \label{table:top_20} \end{table}

1802.00382v1

\begin{table}[h] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|p{1.8 cm}|l|l|l|} \hline \bf Source & \bf Methods & \bf Recs &\bf F1 \\ \hline \hline This Paper & Baseline & 52.6K& 53 \\ This Paper &CNN & 52.6K& 79.7 \\ This Paper &CNN w/ Attention & 52.6K & 78.2 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \caption{\label{font-table} Classification of MIMIC clinical notes into 17 Level 1 ICD-9 Codes} \label{table:full_data} \end{table}

1907.13308v2

\begin{table}[!ht] \centering \caption{Outcomes of Holm post-hoc test for AGGLO-2} \small { \begin{tabular}{|l|l|c|c|c|} \hline $ i $ & AGGLO-2 vs. & $ z_i $ & $ p_i $ & $ \cfrac{\alpha}{k - i} $\\ \hline 1 & SVM & 2.9764 & 0.0029 & 0.01 \\ 2 & Decision tree & -1.4174 & 0.1564 & 0.0125 \\ 3 & Naive Bayes & -0.6143 & 0.5390 & 0.0167 \\ 4 & KNN & 0.4725 & 0.6366 & 0.025 \\ 5 & Online GFMM & -0.2835 & 0.7768 & 0.05 \\ \hline \end{tabular} } \label{holm-agglo} \end{table}

1907.13308v2

\begin{table}[!ht] \centering \caption{Outcomes of Holm post-hoc test for incremental learning based GFMM} \small { \begin{tabular}{|l|l|c|c|c|} \hline $ i $ & Online GFMM vs. & $ z_i $ & $ p_i $ & $ \cfrac{\alpha}{k - i} $\\ \hline 1 & SVM & 3.2599 & 0.0011 & 0.01 \\ 2 & Decision tree & -1.1339 & 0.2568 & 0.0125 \\ 3 & KNN & 0.7559 & 0.4497 & 0.0167 \\ 4 & Naive Bayes & -0.3308 & 0.7408 & 0.025 \\ 5 & AGGLO-2 & 0.2835 & 0.7768 & 0.05 \\ \hline \end{tabular} } \label{holm-oln} \end{table}

1907.13308v2

\begin{table}[!ht] \caption{Datasets were used for experiments} \label{table1} \centering \begin{tabular}{|l|L{2cm}|C{1.4cm}|C{1.4cm}|C{1.3cm}|} \hline ID & Dataset & No. samples & No. features & No. classes \\ \hline 1 & Circle & 1000 & 3 & 2 \\ \hline 2 & Complex9 & 3031 & 2 & 9 \\ \hline 3 & Diagnostic Breast Cancer & 569 & 30 & 2 \\ \hline 4 & Glass & 214 & 9 & 6 \\ \hline 5 & Ionosphere & 351 & 34 & 2 \\ \hline 6 & Iris & 150 & 4 & 3 \\ \hline 7 & Ringnorm & 7400 & 20 & 2 \\ \hline 8 & Segmentation & 2310 & 19 & 7 \\ \hline 9 & Spherical\_5\_2 & 250 & 2 & 5 \\ \hline 10 & Spiral & 1000 & 2 & 2 \\ \hline 11 & Thyroid & 215 & 5 & 3 \\ \hline 12 & Twonorm & 7400 & 20 & 2 \\ \hline 13 & Waveform & 5000 & 21 & 3 \\ \hline 14 & Wine & 178 & 13 & 3 \\ \hline 15 & Yeast & 1484 & 8 & 10 \\ \hline 16 & Zelnik6 (Toy dataset) & 238 & 2 & 3 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2201.13299v4

\begin{table}[ht] \caption{Performance of different ablated RES models on the ATOM3D dataset.}\label{table:resr_ab} \vspace{0.3em} \centering \resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{ \begin{tabular}{l|cccc} \toprule %\hline Model & No DirectedLinear & No Interaction & No Equivariance & DW-GNN \\ \midrule Acc \% & 47.3 & 47.7 & 33.0 & \textbf{50.2}\\ \bottomrule % \hline \end{tabular} } \end{table}

1801.07358v2

\begin{table}[h] \centering \begin{tabular}{ c | c c } \hline Scenario& IMCC & Regular ES\\ \hline (i) Independent & 12.48 & 3.28 \\ (ii) Uniform Positive Corr & 28.57 & 16.70 \\ (iii) Positive-RF-Corr & 18.28 & 7.81 \\ (iv) Positive-LH-Corr & 21.00 & 7.59 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \caption {FRTB IMCC v.s. Regular ES}\label{mytable_frtb_es} \end{table}

1801.07358v2

\begin{table}[h] \centering \begin{tabular}{ c | c c } \hline Scenario& IMCC & Regular ES \\ \hline (i) RF Hedging & 7.90 & 2.17 \\ (ii) LH Hedging & 8.43 & 2.55 \\ (iii) Position Hedging & 0.84 & 0.33 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \caption { FRTB IMCC v.s. Regular ES}\label{mytable_frtb_es_test2} \end{table}

1801.07358v2

\begin{table}[h] \centering \begin{tabular}{ c | c c c c c c} \hline & CM & CR&EQ & FX & IR & Unconstrained\\ \hline Set A & 80\% & 100\%&97\% & 100\% & 100\% & 95\% \\ Set B & 97\% & 100\% &94\% & 100\% & 100\%& 98\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \caption {Ratios between ES using the reduced set and the full set. }\label{mytable_1} \end{table}

1801.07358v2

\begin{table}[h] \centering \begin{tabular}{ c | c c c c} \hline {} & Set A & Set A & Set B& Set B \\ {} & (Adjustment) & (Without adj)& (Adjustment) & (Without adj)\\ \hline CM.60 days.Position 2 & 4.00\% & 2.24\% & 1.43\% & 1.43\% \\ EQ.40 days.Position 1 & 5.04\% & 3.26\% & 2.11\% & 2.11\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \caption {Percentages of allocations with and without stress-scaling adjustment using different reduced factor sets. Columns labeled adjustment report allocations using \eqref{IMCC-ES}, columns labeled without adj report allocation using \eqref{Euler-IMCC}. The total IMCC are the same in both methods: IMCC(Set A)=11.55; IMCC(Set B)=3.14.}\label{allocationRatio} \end{table}

1902.10027v3

\begin{table}[t] %\vspace*{-0.1in} \centering \caption{Notations used in \FT approach} \vspace*{-0.1in} \label{table:notation} \begin{tabular}{| c | p{6cm} | } \hline $G$ & A grammar used to generate test inputs \\ \hline $\mathbb{I}_{G}$ & All inputs described by a grammar $G$ \\ \hline $\mathbb{T}_{G}$ & The derivation trees of any input $I \in \mathbb{I}_{G}$ \\ \hline $f_1, f_2$ & Classifiers under test. \\ \hline $J$ & A pre-determined Jaccard Threshold \\ \hline $\tau_G$ & A function $\mathbb{I}_{G} \rightarrow \mathbb{T}_{G}$ which outputs the derivation tree of an input $I \in \mathbb{I}_{G}$ \\ \hline $S$ & The initial input to the directed search. $S$ conforms to grammar $G$ \\ \hline % $Perturb$ & The perturbation function \\ \hline \end{tabular} \vspace*{-0.15in} \end{table}

1902.10027v3

\begin{table}[t] %\vspace*{-0.1in} \centering \caption{Notations used in Evaluation} \vspace*{-0.1in} \label{table:eval-notation} \begin{tabular}{| c | p{6cm} | } \hline \#inputs & Total number of \revise{unique} generated test inputs \\ \hline \#err & Total number of \revise{unique} erroneous inputs \\ \hline $err_r$ & $\frac{\#err}{\#inputs}$ \\ \hline Imp\% & Improvement of $err_r$ of \FT with respect to the $err_r$ of random test\\ \hline \end{tabular} \vspace*{-0.15in} \end{table}

1902.10027v3

\begin{table}[h] \caption{\revise{Jaccard Thresholds}} \centering \begin{tabular}{| c | c | c | c | c | c | c | c |} \hline Grammars & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{A} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{B} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{C} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{D} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{E} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{F} \\ \hline $\mathbb{R}$-$\mathbb{A}$ & 0.15 & 0.15 & 0.1 & 0.15 & 0.15 & 0.15 \\ \hline $\mathbb{U}$-$\mathbb{A}$ & 0.15 & 0.15 & 0.1 & 0.15 & 0.1 & 0.1 \\ \hline $\mathbb{R}$-$\mathbb{U}$ & 0.3 & 0.15 & 0.15 & 0.3 & 0.15 & 0.15 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{table:thresholds} \end{table}

1902.10027v3

\begin{table}[h] \caption{Sensitivity of \FT w.r.t. Grammars} \vspace*{-0.2in} \label{classifiers} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{| c | c | c | c | c |} \hline & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Grammar A - F} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$G_{bad}$} \\ \hline & \%unique inps & \%error inps & \%unique inps & \%error inps \\ \hline $\mathbb{R}$-$\mathbb{A}$ & 97\% & 88\% & 52\% & 22\% \\ \hline $\mathbb{U}$-$\mathbb{A}$ & 96\% & 84\% & 49\% & 34\% \\ \hline $\mathbb{R}$-$\mathbb{U}$ & 96\% & 66\% & 51\% & 28\% \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \label{table:badGrammar} \vspace*{-0.1in} \end{table}

2002.10904v3

\begin{table} \centering \caption{Summary statistics for pretest touches by treatment group.\label{tab:pretest}}. \begin{tabular}{ l c c c c c | c c c c c } \hline & \multicolumn{5}{c}{Experiment 1} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{Experiment 2} \\ & CT & HH & HL & LH & LL & CT & HH & HL & LH & LL\\ \hline Mean & 31.3 & 34.3 & 32.3 & 30.9 & 30.2 & 32.4 & 33.7 & 33.1 & 34.4 & 32.6 \\ SD & 13.4 & 14.6 & 13.6 & 14.3 & 12.6 & 13.6 & 13.1 & 13.5 & 14.2 & 13.6 \\ N & 213 & 150 & 219 & 230 & 257 & 363 & 394 & 416 & 423 & 395 \\ %Shapiro-Wilk & 3e-08 & 4e-4 & 3e-4 & 1e-4 & 8e-05 & 1e-8 & 7e-4 & 5e-8 & 2e-7 & 3e-9\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2112.15448v1

\begin{table}[H] \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline cases & $\lambda$ & n & m & corr & ETE & $p_p$ & $p$ \\ \hline\hline case 1 & 0.000018 & 5 & 30 & 0.992473 & 0.0841 & 67 & 72 \\ \hline case 2 & 0.000019 & 15 & 10 & 0.984619 & 0.1150 & 67 & 67 \\ \hline case 3 & 0.00002 & 5 & 10 & 0.980843 & 0.1574 & 54 & 63 \\ \hline case 4 & 0.00002 & 5 & 5 & 0.980935 & 0.0485 & 59 & 63 \\ \hline case 5 & 0.000025 & 5 & 5 & 0.975577 & 0.1269 & 48 & 53 \\ \hline case 6 & 0.00004 & 5 & 10 & 0.965080 & 0.1297 & 26 & 26 \\ \hline case 7 & 0.000045 & 5 & 5 & 0.923647 & 0.07925 & 22 & 22 \\ \hline case 8 & 0.000048 & 5 & 5 & 0.954842 & 0.1210 & 16 & 17 \\ \hline case 9 & 0.00005 & 5 & 10 & 0.872521 & 0.1790 & 16 & 16 \\ \hline case 10 & 0.00005 & 20 & 5 & 0.971625 & 0.1220 & 16 & 16 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{experiments on using exact POSI for Lasso on S\&P500} \label{table-experiments} \end{table}

2404.13079v1

\begin{table}[htbp] \centering \caption{Digikala dataset Results} \label{tab:table4} \begin{tabular}{|c|ccc|ccc|} \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Model} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{2 class} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{3 class} \\ \cline{2-7} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{balanced} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{imbalance} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{balanced} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{imbalance} \\ \cline{2-7} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{accuracy} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{accuracy} & F1-score & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{accuracy} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{accuracy} & F1-score \\ \hline ParsBERT & 68 & 87 & 72 & 57 & 62 & 55 \\ ParsBERT + GCN & 70 & 91.1 & 74 & 58 & 63.9 & 55 \\ ParsBERT + RGCN & 70.36 & 91.17 & 74.15 & 58.29 & 63.94 & 55.11\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2310.01739v1

\begin{table}[!h] \centering \caption{Asymptotic complexities of various randomized pivoting-based skeleton selection algorithms based on \Cref{algo:sketch_pivot_CUR_general}.} \label{tab:complexity_rand_pivot} \begin{tabular}{c|c|c} \hline Algorithm & Row basis approximator construction (Line 1,2) & Pivoting (Line 3) \\ \hline Rand-LUPP & $O(T_s(l,\Ab))$ & $O(n l^2)$ \\ Rand-LUPP-1piter & $O(T_s(l,\Ab) + \nnz(\Ab) l)$ & $O(n l^2)$ \\ \hline Rand-CPQR & $O(T_s(l,\Ab))$ & $O(n l^2)$ \\ Rand-CPQR-1piter & $O(T_s(l,\Ab) + \nnz(\Ab) l)$ & $O(n l^2)$ \\ \hline RSVD-DEIM & $O\rbr{T_s(l,\Ab) + (m+n)l^2 + \nnz(\Ab) l}$ & $O(nl^2)$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table}

2310.01739v1

\begin{table}[t] % \begin{wraptable}{hr}{0.65\columnwidth} % \vspace{-1em} \centering \caption{DAC helps FixMatch when the unlabeled data is scarce.} \vspace{-0.5em} \label{table:combining_with_SSL} \begin{tabular}{c|ccc} \hline Number of Unlabeled Data & 5000 & 10000 & 20000 \\ \hline FixMatch & 67.74 & 69.23 & 70.76 \\ FixMatch + DAC ($\lambda=1$) & \textbf{71.24} & \textbf{72.7} & \textbf{74.04} \\ \hline \end{tabular} % \end{wraptable} \end{table}

2307.04012v1

\begin{table}[] \begin{tabular}{r|c|} \cline{2-2} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}CCSD(T) Error\\ kcal/mol\end{tabular}} \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|r|}{\textbf{AN1-1x dx}} & 6.44 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|r|}{\textbf{ANI-1x tz}} & 6.98 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|r|}{\textbf{GEOM}} & 16.46 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|r|}{\textbf{Transition1x}} & 11.73 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|r|}{\textbf{QM7-x}} & 8.26 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|r|}{\textbf{Qmugs}} & 14.69 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|r|}{\textbf{ANI-1ccx}} & 13.9 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{The error for the CCSD(T) data after first fitting the six datasets. The ANI-1ccx result is when no previous training is carried out. } \label{tab:ind_err}. \end{table}

2307.04012v1

\begin{table}[] \begin{tabular}{r|c|} \cline{2-2} & \textbf{Number of Structures} \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|r|}{\textbf{ANI-1x dz}} & 855,028 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|r|}{\textbf{ANI-1x tz}} & 732,154 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|r|}{\textbf{Qmugs}} & 103,374 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|r|}{\textbf{QM7-x}} & 1,085,249 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|r|}{\textbf{GEOM}} & 122,552 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|r|}{\textbf{Transition-1x}} & 251,095 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|r|}{\textbf{Total}} & 3,149,452 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{The number of structures included from each dataset. } \label{tab:AL_DS} \end{table}

2212.03481v1

\begin{table}[h!] \centering \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|} \hline \textbf{Station} & \textbf{\# of samples} & \textbf{Execution time} \\ \hline 1 & 84 & 13h 46min \\ \hline 2 & 94 & 24h 26min \\ \hline 3 & 38 & 6h 37min \\ \hline Total & 216 & 44h 49min\\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{train1:time} \caption{Station-wise and total number of samples and execution time of the nf-core HLA typing train} \end{table}

2212.03481v1

\begin{table}[h!] \centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Station} & \textbf{pre\_run} & \textbf{Execution time} & \textbf{post\_run} & \textbf{Acc}& \textbf{Sens}\\ \hline 1 & 0 / 0MB / 10s & 11h 26m 29s & 8 / 625 MB / 1min 2s & 0.737 & 0.737\\ \hline 2 & 8 / 625 MB / 59s & 12h 47m 24s & 13 / 625 MB / 1m 5s & 0.829 & 0.784\\ \hline 3 & 13 / 625 MB / 57s & 12h 55m 22s & 3 / 654.64MB / 1m 1s & 0.681 & 0.69\\ \hline \textbf{Total} & time 2m 6s & 1d 13h 9m 8s & time 3m 25s & 0.68 & 0.69 \\ \hline \textbf{Central} & 0 / 0MB / 8.817s & 3d 23h 46m 25s & 3 / 654.64MB / 1m 1s & 0.684 & 0.625 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Execution time and performance of ISIC showcase model at different stations. \textit{pre\_run} and \textit{post\_run} protocols are security protocol steps. Number of files / file size / execution time is reported at each station in the protocol columns. Weighted accuracy (Acc) and weighted sensitivity (Sens) is averaged over all classes and reported from the last epoch at each station.} \label{exp2:time} \end{table}

2212.03481v1

\begin{table}[H] \centering \begin{tabular}{|l|l|} \hline \textbf{Term} & \textbf{Description} \\ \hline $A$ & Algorithm files defined by the User \\ \hline AK & Actinic keratosis \\ \hline BCC & Basal cell carcinoma \\ \hline BKL & Benign keratosis (solar lentigo / seborrheic keratosis / lichen planus-like keratosis) \\ \hline $C_I$ & Container created of image $I$ \\ \hline $CR$ & Container Registry \\ \hline $D_{i}$ & Data (A,Q, and Model / Results) of party $i$ as cargo of the train\\ \hline DF & Dermatofibroma \\ \hline DNN & Deep Neural Network \\ \hline $DS_i$ & Digital Signature of party $i$ \\ \hline $\mathcal{E}_{D}$ & Encrypted value of data $D$\\ \hline GB & Gigabytes \\ \hline GPU & Graphical Processing Unit \\ \hline h & hours \\ \hline HLA & Human Leukocyte Antigen \\ \hline $I$ & Base image \\ \hline $ID_i$ & $ID$ of party $i$ \\ \hline $ID_U$ & Identifier of user $U$ \\ \hline $K$ & Random generated number of length $l$ as session key of the analysis \\ \hline KB & Kilobytes \\ \hline $N$ & Random generated number of length $l$ as session $ID$ of the analysis\\ \hline NV & Melanocytic nevus \\ \hline m & minutes \\ \hline MEL& Melanoma \\ \hline MHC& Major Histocompatibility Complex \\ \hline PDR& Private Docker Registry \\ \hline PHT& Personal Health Train \\ \hline $PK{_i}$ & Public key of the party $i$ \\ \hline $Q$ & Query operated on database defined by the User\\ \hline $R$ & Defined Route of the train defined by the User\\ \hline RE & Result extraction process\\ \hline $S$ & Station \\ \hline SCC & Squamous cell carcinoma \\ \hline $SK{_i}$ & Private key of the party $i$ \\ \hline SMPC & Secure Multi-Party Computation \\ \hline TB & Train building process \\ \hline $U$ & User \\ \hline $UI$ & central User Interface do manage trains and submit algorithms\\ \hline $URI$ & Uniform Resource Identifier \\ \hline VASC & Vascular lesion \\ \hline vCPU & virtual Central Processing Unit \\ \hline \end{tabular}\label{supp:notations} \caption{Notations and abbreviations used in this paper.} \end{table}

1912.10204v1

\begin{table} \vspace{2ex} \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{ \begin{tabular}{l | c | c | c} \toprule \textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{\# instances} & \textbf{\# authors} & \textbf{\# texts/author}\\ \midrule \textit{development} & 1000 & 50 & 20\\ \textit{cross-validation} & 3500 & 50 & 70\\ \textit{holdout test} & 500 & 50 & 10\\ \bottomrule \end{tabular} } \centering \caption{Distribution of instances in the different datasets} \label{dist} \end{table}

2109.12567v1

\begin{table}[ht] \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|} \texttt{Metric} & \texttt{c = arrayfun(@(idx)} & \texttt{s = "TestResult" +} & \texttt{String advantage} \\ \hline \texttt{Characters of M-code} & \texttt{78 chars} & \texttt{24 chars} & \texttt{3.25x shorter} \\ \texttt{Duration (sec)} & \texttt{0.01640} & \texttt{0.0003634} & \texttt{45x faster} \\ \texttt{Bytes} & \texttt{129,786} & \texttt{70,096} & \texttt{1.85x smaller} \end{tabular} \caption{Performance comparison of string building for cell and string array} \label{table:StringBuilding} \end{table}

2109.12567v1

\begin{table}[ht] \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|} \texttt{Metric} & \texttt{sprintf} & \texttt{{[}num2str(1) ` ' a{]}} & \texttt{1 + " " + a} & \texttt{Advantage over sprintf} \\ \hline \texttt{Chars of M-code} & \texttt{22 chars} & \texttt{18 chars} & \texttt{11 chars} & \texttt{2x as compact} \\ \texttt{Duration (sec)} & \texttt{0.00001375} & \texttt{0.00001227} & \texttt{0.000001693} & \texttt{8.1x faster} \end{tabular} \caption{Comparison of MATLAB text concatenation.} \label{table:Concat} \end{table}

2202.06493v1

\begin{table}[htb] \centering \caption{Dataset for experiments} \small \begin{tabular}{l|rrr} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{l}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Fashion\\ MNIST\end{tabular}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{CIFAR10} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Caltech\\ Birds\end{tabular}} \\ \hline Domain & Clothing & Vehicle, Animal & Bird \\ Train data & 60,000 & 50,000 & \multirow{2}{*}{17821} \\ Test data & 10,000 & 10,000 & \\ Classes & 10 & 10 & 200 \\ Clients & 3 & 5 & 10 \\ Samples & 6,400 & 6,400 & 3,200 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:dataset} \end{table}

2103.13655v1

\begin{table}[h] \centering % \caption{Overview of the results on the test set after optimization of the Neural Network (NN) and the Structured Deep Kernel Network (SDKN): Cross-correlation (left) and Loss (right).} \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \tiny \begin{tabular}{|ll|r|r|l|l|} \hline % \textbf{Cross-Correlation} & & GRU1 & GRU2 & GRU3 \\ \hline \hline Projection & ANN & 0.9989 & 0.8163 & 0.9989 \\ & SDKN & 0.9989 & 0.9989 & 0.9988 \\ \hline Top-Hat & ANN & 0.9992 & 0.9992 & 0.9992 \\ & SDKN & 0.9991 & 0.9992 & 0.9992 \\ \hline Fourier \qquad \qquad & ANN & 0.9992 & 0.9993 & 0.9993 \\ & SDKN & 0.9992 & 0.9993 & 0.9993 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \quad \begin{tabular}{|ll|r|r|l|l|} \hline % \textbf{MSE-Loss} & & GRU1 & GRU2 & GRU3 \\ \hline \hline Projection & ANN & 3.235e-01 & 4.996e+01 & 3.233e-01 \\ & SDKN & 3.253e-01 & 3.261e-01 & 3.368e-01 \\ \hline Top-Hat & ANN & 3.155e-02 & 2.917e-02 & 2.888e-02 \\ & SDKN & 3.222e-02 & 2.989e-02 & 2.893e-02 \\ \hline Fourier \qquad \qquad & ANN & 1.179e-02 & 9.737e-03 & 9.452e-03 \\ & SDKN & 1.177e-02 & 1.007e-02 & 9.587e-03 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{tab:results_marius_corr} \end{table}

1904.05961v3

\begin{table}[tb] % \vspace{-.0em} %\small \footnotesize \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3} \caption{Parameters of Datasets} \label{tab:dataset} %\vspace{-1em} \centering \begin{tabular}{r|c|c|c} \hline dataset & size ($|P|$) & dimension ($d$) & \#distinct labels ($L$) \\ \hline Fisher's iris & 150 & 5 & 3 \\ \hline Facebook & 500 & 19 & 4 \\ \hline Pendigits & 7494 & 17 & 10 \\ \hline MNIST & 70000 & 401 & 10 \\ \hline HAR & 10299 & 562 & 6 \\ \hline \end{tabular} %\vspace{-.5em} \end{table}

1904.05961v3

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

1904.05961v3

\begin{table}[t] {%\color{blue} %\small \footnotesize \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3} \caption{Average Running Time (sec) } \label{tab:time, distributed} %\vspace{-1em} \centerline{ \begin{tabular}{r|c|c} \hline algorithm & MNIST & HAR \\ \hline CDCC & 13.84 & 1.55 \\ \hline DRCC & 31.66 & 2.42 \\ \hline \end{tabular} } } \vspace{.5em} \end{table}