id int64 1 213k | paper_arxiv_id stringlengths 10 13 | path float64 | caption stringlengths 9 127k ⌀ | label stringlengths 7 125 ⌀ | table_text stringlengths 33 131k ⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2008.03299 | null | null | \label{table:ExampleComplex} | \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$p$ & $\dim Z_p$ & $\dim B_p$ & $\beta_p$ \\
\hline
$0$ & $5$ & $3$ & $2$ \\
$1$ & $2$ & $1$ & $1$ \\
$2$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular} |
2 | 2008.03300 | null | \caption{\label{EACC0sc}
Scalar products of five-vectors involved in the expression (\ref{Vect_eig}) for space components of eigenvector $\textbf{u}_\lambda$.} | null | \begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{@{}l c c c c c@{}}
& $\mathbf{E}$ & $\mathbf{B}$ & $\mathbf{A}$ & $\mathbf{C}$ & $\mathbf{C}_0$ \\
\hline
$\mathbf{E}$ & $\mathbf{E}^2$ & ${\cal P}$ & $0$ & ${\cal Q}+\mathbf{B}^2$& $0$ \\
$\mathbf{B}$ & ${\cal P}$ & $\mathbf{B}^2$ & $0$ & ${\cal P}({\cal S}+\mathbf{E}... |
3 | 2008.03842 | null | \caption[ | \label{psr_table} | \begin{tabular}{rrrrrrrrrrr}
\toprule
& & & & & & & & & \\
{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$l$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$b$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$P$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\dot{P}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{DM} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$P_b$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$a$} & \multicolum... |
4 | 2008.03842 | null | \caption[ | \label{result_table} | \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\toprule
PSR & $f_b$ & $\delta$ & $\tau_{\rm age}$ & $N_{\rm obs}$ & $N_{\rm pop}$ & $\mathcal{R}$ \\
& & & (Myr) & & & (Myr$^{-1}$) \\
\midrule
& & & & & & \\
B1534+12 & 6.0 & 0.04 & 208 & $98^{+455}_{-64}$ & $591^{+2750}... |
5 | 2008.03842 | null | \caption[ | \label{param_range} | \begin{tabular}{cccc}
\toprule
Name of parameter & units & Minimum & Maximum \\
\midrule
Harmonic \m & -- & 1 & 5 \\
Survey integration time \tobs\ & seconds & 1 & $5 \times 10^3$\\
Mass of pulsar \ma\ & $M_{\odot}$ & 1 & 2... |
6 | 2008.03842 | null | \caption[ | \label{survey_table} | \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\toprule
Survey & Gain $G$ & Center Frequency $f_{\rm c}$ & Bandwidth $B$ & System temperature $T_{\rm sys}$ & Integration time $t_{\rm int}$ \\
-- & (K/Jy) & (MHz) & (MHz) & (K) & (s) \\
\midrule
PALFA\footnote{Pul... |
7 | 2008.03846 | null | \caption{Representatives of equivalence classes in ${\mathcal B}_{\alpha}$ \eqref{eq:Ca}} | \label{tab:a} | \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\hline
\cellcolor[HTML]{FFCE93}& \cellcolor[HTML]{FFCE93}$\alpha_{11}$ &\cellcolor[HTML]{FFCE93} $\alpha_{21}$ &\cellcolor[HTML]{FFCE93} $\alpha_{31}$ & \cellcolor[HTML]{FFCE93}$\alpha_{12}$ &\cellcolor[HTML]{FFCE93} $\alpha_{22}$ &\cellcolor[HTML]{FFCE93} $\alpha_{32}$ \\ \hline
(\newrow... |
16 | 2508.00329 | null | \caption{Various $h$ and corresponding Degrees of Freedoms (DoF) in the mesh independence test.} | \label{tab2} | \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\hline
\hline
$m$ & 0.05 & 0.1 & 0.2 & 0.4 & 0.8 & 1.6 \\
DoF &3272056&3270616&3243616&3220864&3204808&3201952\\
\hline
\end{tabular} |
114 | 2508.00575 | null | null | \label{thm:consequences:future-answering} | null |
8 | 2008.03846 | null | \caption{All candidates for multistable networks in ${\mathcal G}_0$ with $4$ reactants and $3$ species} | \label{tab:net} | \begin{tabular}{cc|r}
\hline
\cellcolor[HTML]{FFCE93} &\cellcolor[HTML]{FFCE93} Network
&\cellcolor[HTML]{FFCE93} $ (\beta_{11}, \beta_{21}, \beta_{31}, \beta_{12}, \beta_{22}, \beta_{32})\in {\mathbb Z}^6_{\geq 0} $
\\ \hline
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}
(\newrowa\label{row:2r1}) \\ \quad
\end{tabular} &... |
9 | 2008.03846 | null | \caption{Representatives of equivalence classes in ${\mathcal C}_{\sigma}$ \eqref{eq:Csigma}} | \label{tab:sigma} | \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c}
\hline
% & $\left(\alpha_{11},\alpha_{21},\beta_{11},\beta_{21},\alpha_{12},\alpha_{22}\right)$ & Network & $\beta_{i2}$ possible value \\ \hline
\cellcolor[HTML]{FFCE93}
\begin{tabular}[r]{@{}r@{}}
% $\alpha_{11}+\alpha_{21}=3 $ \\
% $\beta_{11}+\beta_{21}<3 $ \\
% $\a... |
10 | 2008.03846 | null | \caption{All candidates for multistable networks in ${\mathcal G}_1$ with $3$ reactants and $2$ species} | \label{tab:net2} | \begin{tabular}{cc|c|r}
\hline
\cellcolor[HTML]{FFCE93}&\cellcolor[HTML]{FFCE93} $\left(\alpha_{11},\alpha_{21},\beta_{11},\beta_{21},\alpha_{12},\alpha_{22}\right)$ & \cellcolor[HTML]{FFCE93}Network & \cellcolor[HTML]{FFCE93} $\beta_{12}$ and $\beta_{22}$ in ${\mathbb Z}_{\geq 0}$ \\ \hline
%\begin{tabul... |
11 | 2008.03846 | null | \caption{Supporting Information Files} | \label{tab:sup} | \begin{tabular}{||l c l||}
\hline
\cellcolor[HTML]{FFCE93} Name &\cellcolor[HTML]{FFCE93} File Type & \cellcolor[HTML]{FFCE93}Results \\ [0.5ex]
\hline\hline
1. \texttt{WitnessForMultistableNetworksInTheorem2.6.mw/.pdf} & \texttt{Maple/PDF} & Theorem \ref{thm:g1}\\
2. \texttt{EquivalenceClassesOfSmallReversibleNet... |
12 | 2508.00602 | null | \caption{Static LeakSealer approach extrinsic evaluation.} | \label{tab:static-results} | \begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c}
\hline
\textbf{Metric} & \textbf{OpenAI Dataset} & \textbf{ToxicChat Dataset} & \textbf{PII Dataset} \\
\hline
Purity & 0.85 & 0.97 & 0.77 \\
Accuracy & 0.84 & 0.96 & 0.75 \\
Precision & 0.73 & 0.79 & 0.68 \\
Recall & 0.75 & 0.75 & 0.88 \\... |
13 | 2508.00602 | null | \caption{Precision, Recall, and F1 Score of Static LeakSealer against baselines.} | \label{table:static-pr-results} | \begin{tabular}{c|ccc|ccc|ccc}
\hline
\textbf{Model} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{OpenAI}} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{ToxicChat}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{PII}} \\
\hline
& \textbf{Precision} & \textbf{Recall} & \textbf{F1} & \textbf{Precision} & \textbf{Recall} & \textbf{F1} & \textbf{Precision... |
14 | 2508.00602 | null | \caption{Evaluation results in the Dynamic setting. AUPRC does not apply to LLM-As-A-Judge techniques.} | \label{table:combined_results_dynamic} | \begin{tabular}{p{2cm}|l|l|l|l|l|l}
\hline
\textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{Technique} & \textbf{Acc.} & \textbf{Prec.} & \textbf{Rec.} & \textbf{F1} & \textbf{AUPRC} \\
\hline
\multirow{6}{*}{OpenAI} & Llama Guard 3 & \textbf{0.86} & \textbf{0.77} & 0.79 & 0.78 & \textbf{0.90} \\
& Judge (DeepSeek-R1) & ... |
15 | 2508.00329 | null | \caption{Parameter values or ranges selected for this study.} | \label{tab1} | \begin{tabular}{cc}
\hline
\textbf{Parameters} & \textbf{Values} \\
\hline
$m$ & 0.1 \\
Number of Degrees of Freedom & 3270616\\
$r_0$ & 0.5 \\
$R$ & 700 \\
$Q$ & [10, 200] \\
$\delta$ & [1, 10] \\
\hline
\end{tabular} |
115 | 2508.00575 | null | null | \label{part:linear:combined} | null |
8,826 | 2501.14370 | null | \caption{The Summary of Kernel Performance and Energy Efficiency.} | \label{tab_kernel} | null |
17 | 2508.05628v1 | null | \caption{Full 1.58B-token training corpus with ZWNJ statistics.} | \label{tab:data_full} | \begin{tabular}{lrrr}
\toprule
Dataset & Tokens & Genre & ZWNJ\% \\
\midrule
Hamshahri-2 & 190M & News & 12.3 \\
Wikipedia-fa & 415M & Encyclopedia & 11.2 \\
VOA Persian & 285M & News & 9.8 \\
MirasText & 310M & Literature & 14.1 \\
Ganjoor & 178M & Poetry & 16.8 \\
Twitter-fa & 89M & Social Media & 3.2 \\
Scientific-f... |
18 | 2508.05628v1 | null | \caption{Main results averaged over 3 runs. H-Net++ achieves state-of-the-art across all metrics. Seg F1 is only applicable to models with learnable or byte-level segmentation.} | \label{tab:main_detailed} | \begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\toprule
Model & BPB$\downarrow$ & ParsGLUE$\uparrow$ &
Robustness$\uparrow$ & Seg F1$\uparrow$ \\ \midrule
GPT‑2‑fa & 1.342 & 71.2 & 45.3 & – \\
ParsBERT & – & 73.8 & 52.1 & – \\
mT5-small & 1.387 & 70.5 & 49.8 & – \\
ByT5‑fa & 1.425 & 68.9 & 61.2 & 52.3 \\
MegaByte‑fa& 1.398 & 69.4 & 58... |
19 | 2508.05628v1 | null | \caption{ParsGLUE breakdown showing consistent improvements.} | \label{tab:parsglue_breakdown} | \begin{tabular}{lccccc}
\toprule
Model & Sentiment & NLI & NER & QA & Avg \\ \midrule
GPT‑2‑fa & 68.3 & 72.1 & 74.5 & 69.8 & 71.2 \\
ParsBERT & 71.2 & 75.3 & 76.1 & 72.4 & 73.8 \\
H‑Net++ & \textbf{74.8} & \textbf{78.2} & \textbf{79.3} & \textbf{74.1} & \textbf{76.6} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular} |
20 | 2508.05628v1 | null | \caption{Ablation study. The Transformer mixer provides the largest gain.} | \label{tab:ablation_detailed} | \begin{tabular}{lcc}
\toprule
\textbf{Configuration} & BPB$\uparrow$ & ParsGLUE$\downarrow$ \\ \midrule
Full H‑Net++ & 1.183 & 76.6 \\
\quad – Transformer Mixer & 1.256 (+0.073) & 75.4 (–1.2) \\
\quad – Hyper‑prior& 1.224 (+0.041) & 75.8 (–0.8) \\
\quad – ZWNJ Embedding & 1.208 (+0.025) & 75.9 (–0.7) \\
\quad – Mo... |
21 | 2508.05628v1 | null | \caption{Morphological segmentation accuracy.} | \label{tab:seg_eval} | \begin{tabular}{lccc}
\toprule
Model & Precision & Recall & F1 \\ \midrule
ByT5-fa & 48.7 & 56.2 & 52.3 \\
MegaByte-fa & 35.4 & 27.8 & 31.2 \\
H-Net-Base & 71.2 & 65.8 & 68.4 \\
H-Net++ & \textbf{76.3} & \textbf{71.5} & \textbf{73.8} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular} |
22 | 2508.05628v1 | null | \caption{Distribution of learned chunk types in H-Net++.} | \label{tab:chunk_stats} | \begin{tabular}{lcc}
\toprule
Chunk Type & Avg Length (bytes) & Frequency \\ \midrule
Simple words & 5.2 & 42\% \\
Compound words & 11.3 & 28\% \\
With clitics & 8.7 & 19\% \\
Punctuation & 1.8 & 11\% \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular} |
23 | 2508.05628v1 | null | \caption{Runtime efficiency metrics on A100 GPU.} | \label{tab:efficiency} | \begin{tabular}{lccc}
\toprule
Model & Memory (GB) & FLOPs/token & Latency (ms) \\ \midrule
GPT-2-fa & 38.2 & 124M & 12.3 \\
ByT5-fa & 71.3 & 892M & 45.7 \\
H-Net++ & 43.1 & 198M & 18.4 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular} |
24 | 2508.05628v1 | null | \caption{H-Net++ scaling results. L=layers, H=hidden size. Larger models show diminishing returns beyond 500M parameters.} | null | \begin{tabular}{@{}lccccc@{}}
\toprule
Model & Params & L & H & BPB & ParsGLUE \\
\midrule
Small & 125M & 3 & 768 & 1.241 & 74.2 \\
Base & 252M & 3 & 1024 & 1.183 & 76.6 \\
Large & 500M & 4 & 1280 & 1.152 & 77.9 \\
XL & 1.1B & 4 & 1600 & 1.121 & 79.3 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular} |
25 | 2508.05628v1 | null | \caption{Zero-shot cross-lingual performance. The model transfers best to closely related languages (Dari) and struggles with different morphological systems (Turkish).} | null | \begin{tabular}{lccc}
\toprule
Target Language & Segmentation F1 & BPB & Degradation \\
\midrule
Persian (in-domain) & 73.8 & 1.183 & -- \\
Dari & 68.2 & 1.287 & -7.6\% \\
Tajik (Cyrillic) & 45.3 & 1.893 & -38.6\% \\
Urdu & 52.1 & 1.562 & -29.4\% \\
Arabic & 41.7 & 1.734 & -43.5\% \\
Turkish & 38.9 & 1.821 & -47.3\% \\... |
26 | 2508.05628v1 | null | \caption{Performance breakdown by morphological phenomenon, showing strong performance on productive affixes.} | null | \begin{tabular}{lcc}
\toprule
Phenomenon & Precision & Recall \\
\midrule
Compound words & 82.3 & 79.1 \\
Plural markers (-hā) & 91.2 & 88.7 \\
Ezafe construction & 78.4 & 71.3 \\
Verbal prefixes (mi-, be-) & 88.9 & 92.1 \\
Object markers (-rā) & 85.6 & 81.2 \\
Comparative (-tar) & 79.3 & 76.8 \\
Clitics & 74.2 & 69.5 ... |
27 | 2508.05628v1 | null | \caption{H-Net++ segmentation examples. N=noun, PL=plural, EZ=ezafe, PRO=pronoun, ASP=aspect, V=verb, COMP=compound, NEG=negation, ADJ=adjective, SUP=superlative, DER=derivational.} | null | \begin{tabular}{@{}lll@{}}
\toprule
Input & H-Net++ Chunks & Type \\
\midrule
ketab-hā-ye man & [ketab] [hā] [ye] [man] & N+PL+EZ+PRO \\
mi-nevis-am & [mi] [nevis] [am] & ASP+V+1SG \\
dānesh-gāh-e & [dānesh] [gāh] [e] & COMP+EZ+\\
\quad tehrān & [tehrān] & N \\
na-mi-tavān-ad & [na] [mi] [tavān] [ad] & NEG+ASP+V+3SG \\... |
28 | 2508.05628v1 | null | \caption{Common error patterns showing challenges with Arabic loanwords and non-textual content.} | null | \begin{tabular}{@{}lll@{}}
\toprule
Input & H-Net++ Output & Error Type \\
\midrule
āzmāyeshgāh & [āzmāye] [shgāh] & Incorrect compound split \\
URL: https://... & [htt] [ps://...] & Non-linguistic oversegment \\
al-ketab & [al-ke] [tab] & Arabic morphology error \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular} |
29 | 2508.05628v1 | null | \caption{Optimal hyperparameters determined through grid search on validation set} | \label{tab:hyper_sensitivity} | \begin{tabular}{lcc}
\toprule
\textbf{Hyperparameter} & \textbf{Range Tested} & \textbf{Optimal Value} \\
\midrule
Learning rate & $[5 \times 10^{-5}, 5 \times 10^{-4}]$ & $2 \times 10^{-4}$ \\
Warmup steps & $[10\text{k}, 100\text{k}]$ & $50\text{k}$ \\
Gumbel temperature & $[0.1, 10.0]$ & $5.0 \rightarrow 0.1$ \\
Mor... |
30 | 2508.05628v1 | null | \caption{Optimal hyperparameters determined through grid search on validation set.} | null | \begin{tabular}{lcc}
\toprule
Hyperparameter & Range Tested & Optimal Value \\
\midrule
Learning rate & [5e-5, 5e-4] & 2e-4 \\
Warmup steps & [10k, 100k] & 50k \\
Gumbel temperature & [0.1, 10.0] & 5.0 → 0.1 \\
Morphology loss weight & [0.0, 1.0] & 0.1 \\
Chunk length penalty & [0.0, 0.5] & 0.05 \\
Gradient clipping & ... |
31 | 2508.05628v1 | null | \caption{Detailed corpus statistics showing balanced distribution across splits.} | null | \begin{tabular}{@{}l@{\hspace{0.5cm}}r@{\hspace{0.5cm}}r@{\hspace{0.5cm}}r@{\hspace{0.4cm}}r@{}}
\toprule
Statistic & Training & Validation & Test & Total \\
\midrule
Total documents & 2.1M & 117K & 105K & 2.32M \\
Total tokens & 1.42B & 79M & 71M & 1.58B \\
Avg doc length (tokens) & 667 & 675 & 652 & 666 \\
Vocabulary... |
14,523 | 2501.16885 | null | null | null | null |
32 | 2508.05628v1 | null | \caption{Distribution of ZWNJ usage contexts in the training corpus.} | null | \begin{tabular}{lcc}
\toprule
ZWNJ Context & Frequency & Example \\
\midrule
Compound words & 45.2\% & dānesh-gāh (university) \\
Verbal constructions & 28.7\% & mi-ravam (I go) \\
Plural markers & 15.3\% & ketāb-hā(books) \\
Affixes & 7.8\% & nā-omid (hopeless) \\
Other & 3.0\% & -- \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular} |
33 | 2508.00311 | null | \caption{Statistics of the dataset at line, paragraph, and page levels, showing the number of samples before deduplication as well as the split between the training and test sets after deduplication.} | \label{tab:dedup} | \begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c}
\hline
\textbf{Level} & \textbf{Before Deduplication} & \textbf{Train} & \textbf{Test} \\
\hline
Line-level & 1,884,532 & 741,016 & 1,000 \\
Paragraph-level & 412,789 & 135,575 & 1,000 \\
Page-level & 412,789 & 131,876 & 1,000 \\
\hline
\end{tabular} |
34 | 2508.00311 | null | \caption{
Comparison of formula recognition performance on three benchmarks.
All metrics are ED, lower is better.
The best results for each column are highlighted in \textbf{bold}, and the second best are \underline{underlined}.
} | \label{tab:ed_model_comparison} | \begin{tabular}{l l c cccc ccccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Model Type} & \textbf{Methods}
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{Im2LaTeX-160k}}
& \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{UniMER}}
& \multicolumn{4}{c}{\textbf{CSFormula }} \\
\cmidrule(lr){3-3} \cmidrule(lr){4-8} \cmidrule(lr){9-12}
... |
35 | 2508.00311 | null | \caption{
Comparison of formula recognition performance on three benchmarks.
All metrics are CDM, higher is better.
The best results for each column are highlighted in \textbf{bold}, and the second best are \underline{underlined}.
} | \label{tab:cdm_model_comparison} | \begin{tabular}{l l c ccccc ccccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Model Type} & \textbf{Method}
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{Im2LaTeX-160k}}
& \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{UniMER}}
& \multicolumn{4}{c}{\textbf{CSFormula}} \\
\cmidrule(lr){3-3} \cmidrule(lr){4-8} \cmidrule(lr){9-12}
... |
36 | 2508.00311 | null | \caption{Ablation study on the impact of different training data levels for DocTron-Formula.} | \label{tab:ablation_multilevel} | \begin{tabular}{l ccc ccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Exp}
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{Training Data}}
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{Testing Data}} \\
\cmidrule(lr){2-4} \cmidrule(lr){5-7}
& Line-level & Paragraph-level & Page-level
& Line-level $\downarrow$ & Paragraph-... |
37 | 2508.00311 | null | \caption{Comparison of different model sizes and methods on three benchmarks. All metrics are ED, lower is better.} | \label{tab:model_size_comparison} | \begin{tabular}{l c ccccc ccccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Model} & \textbf{Size}
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{Im2LaTeX-160k}}
& \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{UniMER-Test}}
& \multicolumn{4}{c}{\textbf{CSFormula}}
\\
\cmidrule(lr){3-3} \cmidrule(lr){4-8} \cmidrule(lr){9-12}
... |
38 | 2508.00539 | null | \caption{Comparison of filtering methods on Cuprite HSI (150-band subset).} | \label{tab:filter_comparison} | \begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{Method} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Full Bands} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Selected Bands} \\
\cmidrule(lr){2-3} \cmidrule(lr){4-5}
& CosSim & RMSE & CosSim & SNR \\
\midrule
Fourier Transform & 0.9520 & 0.5669 & 0.8649 & 0.5305 \\
Wavelet Transform & 0.8757 & 0.... |
18,978 | 2501.19195 | null | null | \label{proposition:OptimalErrorRate} | null |
39 | 2508.00476 | null | \caption{Mean and standard deviation for LLM-as-judge evaluation on Czech Answers.} | \label{tab:mean_std_cz} | \begin{tabular}{|l|r|}
\hline
Model & Mean $\pm$ 1 std \\
\hline
GETALP@AutoMin & 5.15 $\pm$ 3.73 \\
GETALP@AutoMin\_amr & 4.97 $\pm$ 3.77 \\
GETALP@AutoMin\_amr\_only & 4.31 $\pm$ 3.52\\
\hline
\end{tabular} |
40 | 2508.00476 | null | \caption{Mean and standard deviation for LLM-as-judge and Human evaluation on English Answers.} | \label{tab:mean_std_en} | \begin{tabular}{|l|r|}
\hline
Model & Mean $\pm$ 1 std \\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{LLM-as-Judge}} \\
\hline
GETALP@AutoMin & 4.09 $\pm$ 3.16 \\
GETALP@AutoMin\_amr & 3.35 $\pm$ 2.54 \\
GETALP@AutoMin\_amr\_only & 2.46 $\pm$ 1.75 \\
... |
41 | 2508.00476 | null | \caption{Examples where LLM-as-judge gave a score of 2 while evaluators gave a score of either 8 or 10, for both GETALP@Automin and GETALP@Automin\_amr models. The answer displayed comes from one of the two models.} | \label{tab:manual_good} | \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
Ground Truth & Ours \\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{Who is leaving the project?}} \\
\hline
[PERSON10] & [PERSON10] will be leaving. \\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{What is the application deadline for the PhD program?}} \\
\hline
End o... |
42 | 2508.00476 | null | \caption{Examples where both LLM-as-judge and evaluators gave a score 2, for both GETALP@Automin and GETALP@Automin\_amr models. The answer displayed comes from one of the two models.} | \label{tab:manual_bad} | \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
Ground Truth & Ours \\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{What is [PERSON4] focusing on now?}} \\
\hline
Multi-source machine translation & [PERSON4] is putting together and also working on the censorship \\ & component, which is one part of the pipeline after the ... |
43 | 2508.00721 | null | \caption{A comparison between foundation, domain-specific, and untrained priors for Gaussian deblurring on AFHQ (resolution: $256 \times 256$; DS: domain-specific; FD: foundation). \textbf{Bold}: best, \& \underbar{underline}: second best, for each metric/column} | \label{tab:generic_vs_domain} | \begin{tabular}{c c c c c}
\hline
% &\multicolumn{4}{c}{\scriptsize{\textbf{Gaussian Deblur ($256 \times 256$)}}}
% \\
% \cmidrule(lr){2-5}
&\scriptsize{PSNR$\uparrow$}
&\scriptsize{SSIM$\uparrow$}
&\scriptsize{LPIPS$\downarrow$}
&\scriptsize{CLIPIQA$\uparrow$}
\\
\hline
\scriptsize{\textbf{DIP}}
&\scriptsize{\textbf{... |
44 | 2508.00721 | null | \caption{\textbf{x4 Super Resolution} with additive Gaussian noise ($\sigma = 0.03$). (\textbf{Bold}: best, \underbar{underline}: second best)} | \label{tab:sr4} | \begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c}
\hline
&\multicolumn{4}{c}{\scriptsize{\textbf{DIV2K~\cite{Agustsson_2017_CVPR_Workshops}}}}
&\multicolumn{4}{c}{\scriptsize{\textbf{AFHQ~\cite{choi2020starganv2}}}}
\\
\cmidrule(lr){2-5}
\cmidrule(lr){6-9}
&\scriptsize{PSNR$\uparrow$}
&\scriptsize{SSIM$\uparrow$}
&\scriptsize{LPIPS$\... |
45 | 2508.00721 | null | \caption{\textbf{Gaussian Deblur} with additive Gaussian noise ($\sigma = 0.03$). (\textbf{Bold}: best, \underbar{underline}: second best)} | \label{tab:gaussian} | \begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c}
\hline
&\multicolumn{4}{c}{\scriptsize{\textbf{DIV2K~\cite{Agustsson_2017_CVPR_Workshops}}}}
&\multicolumn{4}{c}{\scriptsize{\textbf{AFHQ~\cite{choi2020starganv2}}}}
\\
\cmidrule(lr){2-5}
\cmidrule(lr){6-9}
&\scriptsize{PSNR$\uparrow$}
&\scriptsize{SSIM$\uparrow$}
&\scriptsize{LPI... |
46 | 2508.00700 | null | \caption{Distribution of Severities Per Quality Metric. } | \label{tab:severities} | \begin{tabular}{cc|l|r|r|}
\toprule
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{Dataset}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Severity \\ Type\end{tabular}}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Maintainability\\ Code Smell(\%)\end{tabular}}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{\begin{tabular}... |
47 | 2508.00700 | null | \caption{Odds Ratio for Reliability (Bugs).} | \label{tab:stat-odds} | \begin{tabular}{llll}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{Test} & introductory & interview & competition \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{Zero-Shot x Human} & 0.008*** & 0.006*** & 0.0005*** \\
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{Few-Shot x Human } & 0.003*** & 0... |
20,109 | 2502.00298 | null | null | \label{lemma:test-train-bound} | null |
48 | 2508.00700 | null | \caption{Odds Ratio for Maintainability (Code Smells).} | \label{tab:stat-smells} | \begin{tabular}{llll}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{Test} & introductory & interview & competition \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{Zero-Shot x Human} & 3.57*** & 1.3 & 0.67 \\
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{Few-Shot x Human } & 1.29 & 0.80 & 0.52*... |
49 | 2508.00700 | null | \caption{Mann-Whitney and Cliff's Delta for Effort Time.} | \label{tab:stat-efforttime} | \begin{tabular}{llll}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{Test} & introductory & interview & competition \\ \midrule
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{ZS x H} & 0.54 large*** & 0.21 small*** & 0.1 negligible* \\
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{FS X H} & ... |
50 | 2508.00700 | null | \caption{Pass@1 results.} | \label{tab:correctnesstable} | \begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c|c}
\toprule
Test & Human & Zero-Shot & Few-Shot & Fine-Tuned \\
\midrule
Pass@1 & 1.0 & 0.53 & 0.87 & 0.47 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular} |
51 | 2508.00288 | null | \caption{Comparison of ObjectNav and Aerial Navigation benchmarks.} | \label{tab:dataset_comparison} | \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Benchmark} & \textbf{Viewpoint} & \textbf{Task} & \textbf{Goal Type} & \textbf{Goal Specification} \\
\midrule
AI2-THOR~\cite{kolve2017ai2thor} & Ground & ObjNav & Category & Category Label \\
Gibson~\cite{xia2018gibson} & Ground ... |
52 | 2508.00288 | null | \caption{Performance across different object sizes and overall total, evaluated using four metrics: Distance to Success (DTS↓, in simulation units), Success Rate (SR↑), Oracle Success Rate (OSR↑), and Success weighted by Path Length (SPL↑).} | \label{tab:size_results} | \begin{tabular}{lcccccccccccccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}}
& \multicolumn{4}{c}{\textbf{Small}}
& \multicolumn{4}{c}{\textbf{Medium}}
& \multicolumn{4}{c}{\textbf{Large}}
& \multicolumn{4}{c}{\textbf{Total}} \\
% \cmidrule(lr){2-5} \cmidrule(lr){6-9} \cmidrule(lr){10-13} \cmid... |
53 | 2508.00288 | null | null | \label{tab:termination_distance} | \begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}}
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{Termination Type (\%)}}
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Navigation Statistics}} \\
& Stop & Max Step & Collision & Avg. Steps & Safe Dist. (m) \\
\midrule
Random & \textbf{62.1} & 0.0 & 37.9 & 12.09 & 31... |
54 | 2508.00587 | null | \caption{\textbf{Quantitative results.} Comparison with the state-of-the-art on the official SMIYC~\cite{chan2021segmentmeifyoucan} benchmark, Road Anomaly~\cite{lis2019detecting} and Fishyscapes Static~\cite{blum2021fishyscapes} validation set, along with the average performance across all five benchmark datasets. The... | \label{tab:exp:quantitative} | \begin{tabular}{lrrrrrrrrrr|rr}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{Method} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Anomaly Track} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Obstacle Track} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{LaF NoKnown} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Road Anomaly} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{FS Static} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Average}\\
%\cmidrule(lr){3-5}
%\cmidrule(lr){6-8}
%\cmidr... |
55 | 2508.00607 | null | \caption{Selection rules of the DDI (Eq. \eqref{multipol_SF_spherical}), written for the symmetrized fully-coupled basis states.} | \label{tab:Selection_rules_DDI} | \begin{tabular}{cc}
\hline \hline
Quantum number & Selection rule \\
\hline\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{$[p_1,p_2]$} &
$[\pm,\pm] \leftrightarrow [\mp,\mp]$ \\
& $[\pm,\mp] \leftrightarrow [\mp,\pm]$ \\ [0.3ex]
$[\Delta j_1,\Delta j_2]$ & $[\pm 1,\pm 1]$ or $[\pm 1,\mp 1]$ \\[0.3ex]
... |
138 | 2508.00398 | null | \caption{Inference time and memory usage across stylization networks (excluding 3D diffusion model for isolated analysis).} | \label{tab:complexity} | \begin{tabular}{lcc}\toprule
Method & seconds/frame & memory \\\midrule
DSU \cite{zhou2024drawingspinup} & 0.276 & 11.62 GB\\
DSU \cite{zhou2024drawingspinup} + FDED (Ours) & 0.282 & 11.91 GB\\ \midrule
USNet (Ours) & 0.108 & 4.81 GB\\
USNet + FDED (Ours) & 0.115 & 5.05 GB\\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular} |
20,110 | 2502.00298 | null | null | \label{lemma:ski-test-train-bound} | null |
56 | 2508.00607 | null | \caption{Selection rules of the electric dipole-dipole interaction, the one-photon and two-photon electric-dipole optical transitions, written for the symmetrized fully-coupled basis states.} | \label{tab:selection_rules_1photon} | \begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline \hline
Quantum & One-photon & One-photon \\
numbers & $\pi$ transition & $\sigma^{\pm}$ transition \\
\hline\hline
$\Delta S$ & $0$ & $0$ \\ [0.3ex]
$\Delta \Lambda$ & $0, \pm 1$ & $0, \pm 1$ \\[0.3ex]
$\Delta \Omega$ & $0, \pm 1$ & $0, \pm 1$ \\[0.3ex]... |
57 | 2508.00607 | null | \caption{The weights $(c^\infty_1)^2$, $(c^\infty_2)^2$, $(c^\infty_3)^2$ of the asymptotic states in the entrance scattering channel, for different Rabi frequencies $\Omega_1$ at fixed $\Omega_2 = 2\pi\times 200$~MHz.} | \label{strength_coupling} | \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline \hline
$\Omega_1/2\pi$ (MHz) & $\Omega_2/2\pi$ (MHz) & $(c^\infty_1)^2$ & $(c^\infty_2)^2$ & $(c^\infty_3)^2$ \\
\hline\hline
0 & 200 & 1.0 & 0 & 0 \\
50 & 200 & 0.880 & 0.115 & $\leq 0.05$ \\
100 & 200 & 0.6134 & 0.3354 & 0.0511 \\
150 & 200 & 0.3660 & 0... |
58 | 2508.00607 | null | \caption{Asymptotic dressed energies of the entrance and open exit channels with their main component and weight in the dressed adiabatic state as well as the branching ratio giving the percentage of a wavefunction to end up in a given exit channel.} | \label{S_matrix_table} | \begin{tabular}{cccc}
\hline
\hline
Energy& Main component & \multirow{2}{*}{Weight} & Branching\\ [0.2ex]
(MHz) & $\ket{j_1 |m_1|, j_2 |m_2|} \ket{N_1,N_2}$& & ratio\\[0.25ex]
\hline\hline
-0.0349 &$\ket{00,00} \ket{0,0}$ & 0.880 & -\\[0.25ex]
\hline
-0.0968 &$\ket{22,22} \ket{-2,2}$ &0.999 & 0\%\\[0.25e... |
59 | 2508.00607 | null | \caption{Basis set of different $(|m_1|,|m_2|)$ sub-spaces for a $\pi-\pi$ polarized two-photon transition. For each subspace we give the involved values of the individual projections, followed by the symmetrized wavefunction and the Fock state. For each subspace we define a coupling scheme illustrated in the figures q... | \label{Five_level_system_table} | \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
\hline
($|m_1|,|m_2|$)& $\ket{e_1,j_1,|m_1|,p_1,e_2,j_2,|m_2|,p_2}_+$ & $\ket{N_1, N_2}$& Coupling scheme& Figure\\ [0.5ex]
\hline%\hline
\multirow{5}{*}{($0,0$)} & $\ket{X,0,\mathbf{0},+1,X,0,\mathbf{0},+1}$& $\ket{0, 0}$& \multirow{5}{*}{Five level system}& \multirow{5}{*}{\ref{ful... |
60 | 2508.05616v1 | null | \caption{Comparison of \our{} with trajectory prediction heuristics across datasets with mean minADE$_{20}$ / minFDE$_{20}$ (meters) on the ETH-UCY dataset.} | \label{table:main_hs} | \begin{tabular}{l||c|c|c|c|c||c}
\toprule
Method & ETH & HOTEL & UNIV & ZARA1 & ZARA2 & AVG \\
\midrule
SocialForce \cite{helbing1995social} & 1.46/2.48 & 0.69/1.23 & 0.96/1.75 & 1.37/2.51 & 0.84/1.53 & 1.06/1.90 \\
LinReg \citep{bishop2006pattern} & 1.04/2.20 & 0.26/0.47 & 0.76/1.48 & 0.62/1.22 & 0.47/0.93 & 0.63/1.2... |
61 | 2508.05616v1 | null | \caption{Comparison of \our{} with deep learning approaches (mean minADE$_{20}$/minFDE$_{20}$ on ETH-UCY). Each \underline{underlined} number indicates that the result is worse than the corresponding result from \our{} on at least one metric.} | \label{table:main_nn} | \begin{tabular}[\linewidth]{l||c|c|c|c|c||c}
\toprule
Method & ETH & HOTEL & UNIV & ZARA1 & ZARA2 & AVG \\
\midrule
Social-LSTM \cite{alahi2016social}
& \underline{1.09/2.35}
& \underline{0.79/1.76}
& \underline{0.67/1.40}
& \underline{0.56/1.17}
& \underline{0.72/1.54}
& \underline{0.77/1.64} \\
Social-GAN \cit... |
73 | 2508.00466 | null | \caption{Selection of rare and exclusive SM Higgs decays potentially observable in pp(14~TeV) collisions at the HL-LHC (or for which a limit could be ``easily'' set from existing data).
For each decay, we list the theoretical branching fraction(s), the current experimental limit and the conservative bounds estimated ... | null | null |
17,127 | 2501.18324 | null | \caption{Dialogues created by three separate annotator pairs in VDAct for scenario IDs 00265 and 00523.} | \label{tab:example-dials} | \begin{tabular}{c|p{0.28\linewidth}|p{0.28\linewidth}|p{0.28\linewidth}}
\hline \hline
\multicolumn{4}{l}{\textbf{Example}\#1, \textbf{Scenario ID}: 00265, \textbf{Activities}: Pick up dirty fork1, Pick up dirty waterglass1, Clean sink4, Put groceries in fridge23, Fall while preparing meal1} \\ \hline
& \textbf{Dialog... |
62 | 2508.05616v1 | null | \caption{Out of distribution performance of methods trained on different ETH-UCY splits and tested on the unseen SDD dataset. We report minADE$_{20}$ / minFDE$_{20}$ (pixels) on the SDD dataset.} | \label{tab:cross-dataset-generalization} | \begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c}
\toprule
Method (tested on SDD dataset) & ETH & HOTEL & UNIV & ZARA1 & ZARA2 & AVG \\
\midrule
SocialForce \cite{helbing1995social}
& 33.64/60.63 & 33.64/60.63 & 33.64/60.63 & 33.64/60.63 & 33.64/60.63 & 33.64/60.63 \\
CVM \cite{scholler2020constant}
& 18.82/37.95 & 18.82/37.95 & 18.82... |
63 | 2508.05616v1 | null | \caption{Ablation study for the evolution framework removing different components. Lower is better $(\downarrow)$.} | \label{tab:ablation} | \begin{tabular}{@{}lccc@{}}
\toprule
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1mm}
{Dataset} & {~ - SFL - CGES} & {~ - SFL} & {\our{}} \\
\midrule
ETH & 0.68/1.36 & 0.59/1.12 & \textbf{0.47/0.77} \\
HOTEL & 0.26/0.45 & 0.19/0.33 & \textbf{0.17/0.30} \\
UNIV & 0.59/1.22 & 0.52/1.13 & \textbf{0.51/1.10} \\
ZARA1 & 0.37/0.77 & 0.36/0.7... |
64 | 2508.05616v1 | null | \caption{Performance of various LLMs on the standard ETH-UCY benchmark datasets. Best results are in bold.} | \label{tab:llm} | \begin{tabular}{l cc cc cc}
\toprule
% First row of datasets
\textbf{Model} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{ETH}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{HOTEL}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{UNIV}} \\
\cmidrule(lr){2-3} \cmidrule(lr){4-5} \cmidrule(lr){6-7}
& ADE & FDE & ADE & FDE & ADE & FDE \\
\midrule
deepseek-R1 & 0.46 & 0.74 &... |
65 | 2508.05616v1 | null | \caption{Main hyperparameters for the TRAJEVO framework.} | \label{tab:hyperparams} | \begin{tabular}{@{} p{5.5cm} l @{}}
\toprule
\textbf{Hyperparameter} & \textbf{Value} \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{2}{@{}l}{\textbf{Evolutionary Algorithm}} \\
\quad Population size & 10 \\
\quad Number of initial generation & 8 \\
\quad Elite ratio for cross... |
66 | 2508.00466 | null | \caption{Rare Higgs decays to two neutrinos, a photon plus two neutrinos, three or four photons, and a Z boson plus two $\gamma$'s or two gluons. For each decay, we provide the theoretical branching fraction computed with \mgshort. No current (or extrapolated, future) experimental limits exist.
\label{tab:H_decays_V_V_... | null | null |
67 | 2508.00466 | null | \caption{Exclusive Higgs decay rates into a photon plus a vector meson. For each decay, we provide the theoretical branching fraction(s), the ratios of direct-over-indirect and of exclusive-direct-over-inclusive decay amplitudes, the current experimental limit and that conservatively estimated for HL-LHC (as well as th... | null | null |
68 | 2508.00466 | null | \caption{Exclusive Higgs decay rates into a Z boson plus a meson. For each decay, we provide the theoretical branching fraction(s), the relative size of the direct contribution to the total branching fraction ($\delta_\text{dir}$), the exclusive-direct-to-inclusive decay amplitude ratio, the current experimental limit ... | null | null |
69 | 2508.00466 | null | \caption{Exclusive Higgs decay rates into a neutral gauge boson plus a flavoured meson. For each decay, we provide the branching fraction derived via Eqs.~(\ref{eq:BR_H_gamma_m})--(\ref{eq:BR_H_Z_m}), as well as the current experimental limit and that conservatively estimated for HL-LHC (as well as the SM over HL-LHC-e... | null | null |
70 | 2508.00466 | null | \caption{Exclusive Higgs decay rates into a W boson plus a meson. For each decay, we provide the theoretical branching fraction(s), and the relative size of the direct contribution to the total branching fraction ($\delta_\text{dir}$). No current experimental limits, nor future estimates for them, exist.
\label{tab:H_d... | null | null |
71 | 2508.00466 | null | \caption{Exclusive Higgs decay rates to a photon or a Z boson plus an ortho- $(\lele)_1$ or para- $(\lele)_0$ leptonium state (only the ground states, $n=1$, are considered). For each decay, we provide the theoretical SM branching fraction predictions. No current experimental limits, nor future estimates for them, exis... | null | null |
72 | 2508.00466 | null | \caption{Exclusive Higgs decay rates to a pair of mesons. For each decay, we list the theoretical branching fraction(s), the current experimental limit and the conservative bounds estimated for HL-LHC (as well as the theory over HL-LHC-expected ratio).
\label{tab:H_2meson_decays}} | null | null |
74 | 2508.00667 | null | \caption{$R_\mathrm{200b}$ used for scaling when determining the radial range for fitting an NFW profile to the measured ESD profile. These radii are the mean $R_\mathrm{200b}$ in each $L_\mathrm{c}$ and $L_\mathrm{gap}$ bin extracted from the Illustris TNG300 simulation at $z=0$.} | \label{tab:R200b} | \begin{tabular}{cccc}
\hline\hline
\multicolumn{4}{c}{$R_\mathrm{200b}[h^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc}]$}\\\hline
&
$9.9<\textrm{log}L_\mathrm{c}[{h}^{-2}L_{\odot}]\leq 10.3$&$10.3<\textrm{log}L_\mathrm{c}[{h}^{-2}L_{\odot}]\leq 10.7$&$10.7<\textrm{log}L_\mathrm{c}[{h}^{-2}L_{\odot}]\leq 11.1$\\
$0<\textrm... |
75 | 2508.00667 | null | \caption{The significances of models with or without the gap dependence in the halo parameters. The $p$-values indicate the probability that fitting with the assumed model is consistent with fitting statistical fluctuations in the null model. See details in Section~\ref{sec:significance}.} | \label{tab:significance} | \begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline\hline
Models & Gap dependences&p-value\\\hline
M1&
$M(L_\mathrm{c}, L_{\rm gap})$, $c(L_\mathrm{c}, L_{\rm gap})$&$1.8\times 10^{-6}$\\
M2& $M(L_\mathrm{c}, L_{\rm gap})$, $c(L_\mathrm{c})$&$1.3\times 10^{-4}$\\
M3& $M(L_\mathrm{c})$, $c(L_\mathrm{c}, L_{\rm ga... |
76 | 2508.00658 | null | \caption{Performance Comparison Across Dataset Types (Accuracy and F1-Scores). The elements in the table are accuracy in every row ecept the last row that the elements are F1-scores.} | \label{tab:performance_comparison} | \begin{tabular}{|p{2.0cm}|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} & \multicolumn{7}{c|}{\textbf{Accuracies of Methods}} \\
\hline
\textbf{Datasets} & \textbf{MB-VL} & \textbf{VLGC} & \textbf{GC} & \textbf{TE} & \textbf{VLTE} & \textbf{PCMCI+} & \textbf{GG} \\
\hline
Following relation & 0.833 & 0.733 & \textbf{1.... |
77 | 2508.00658 | null | \caption{Performance Impact of Band Configuration Strategy} | \label{tab:band_strategy} | \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{Configuration} & \textbf{Strategy} & \textbf{Multi-freq} & \textbf{Overall F1} \\
\hline
Single Band & Broadband analysis & 0.167 & 0.742\\
\hline
Two Bands & Optimal balance & 0.933 & 0.810 \\
\hline
EEG Bands & Frequency-specific & 1.000 & 0.618 \\
\hline
\end{tabular} |
78 | 2508.00658 | null | \caption{Lag Detection Performance by Frequency Band} | \label{tab:lag_performance} | \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{Band} & \textbf{True Lag} & \textbf{Inferred Lag} & \textbf{Sig. Lag} & \textbf{Error} \\
\hline
Alpha & 15 & $12.3 \pm 6.0$ & $11.6 \pm 7.0$ & $1.2 \pm 0.4$ \\
\hline
L Gamma & 8 & $4.3 \pm 3.9$ & $5.0 \pm 0.0$ & $3.0 \pm 0.0$ \\
\hline
H Gamma & 4 & $2.4 \pm 3.3$ & $2.4 \pm... |
79 | 2508.00658 | null | \caption{Causality Detection Results on Real-world Datasets} | \label{tab:realworld_results_minimal} | \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{7}{c|}{\textbf{Methods}} \\
\hline
\textbf{Case} & \textbf{MB-VL} & \textbf{VLGC} & \textbf{G} & \textbf{TE} & \textbf{VLTE} & \textbf{PCMCI} & \textbf{GG} \\
\hline
EEG & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1& 1 & 0\\
\hline
Chick. Egg & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
\hline
Old ffg.... |
80 | 2508.00523 | null | \caption{Summary of results for online nonsubmodular optimization under different settings, where $n$ is the dimensionality, $d$ is the maximum delay and $\Bar{d} = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^T d_t$ is the average delay over $T$ rounds. For simplicity, we use the abbreviations: full $\rightarrow$ full-information setting ... | \label{tab:1} | \begin{tabular}{cccc}
\toprule
Setting & Method & $(\alpha,\beta)$-regret bound \\
\midrule
bandit & DBAGD \cite{lin2022online}& $\mathcal{O}\left(nd^{1/3}T^{2/3}\right)$ \\
\midrule
bandit & BDGD-NF (\textbf{Theorem} \ref{thm:2})& $\mathcal{O}\left(n\Bar{d}^{1/3}T^{2/3}\right)$ \\
\midrule
bandit & BDBGD-NF (\tex... |
81 | 2508.00701 | null | \caption{
Detection results on GenVideo datasets.
Our D3 is training-free, while the baselines are trained on real videos from Youku-mPLUG~\cite{xu2023youku} and AI-generated videos from Pika~\cite{pikaPika}, following the setting in Demamba~\cite{chen2024demamba}. \textbf{Bold} represents the best and... | \label{tab:genvideo} | \begin{tabular}{lccccccccccccc}
\toprule
Detection& Detection & \multicolumn{10}{c}{Datasets (AP$\uparrow$)} & \multirow{2}{*}{mAP}\\
\cmidrule(r){3-12}
Method & Level & Crafter& Gen2 & HotShot & Lavie & MSE & MV & MSO & Show-1 & Sora & WS \\
\midrule
... |
95 | 2508.00380 | null | \caption{The number of generations to complete each benchmark by each method. \textbf{Note:} sequential methods are not listed here since they use exactly the same number of generations as FEs.} | \label{tab:iters} | \begin{tabular}{l | c c c c c}
\hline
Benchmark & TuRBO & CMA-ES & PSO & Nelder-Mead & \MethodName \\
\hline
Numerical & 10$\sim$100 & 83$\sim$526 & 25$\sim$50 & 956$\sim$9395 & \textbf{10} \\
Landing & \textbf{10} & 91 & 25 & 823$\sim$901 & \textbf{10} \\
Pushing ... |
82 | 2508.00701 | null | \caption{
Detection results on 14 EvalCrafter datasets.
} | \label{tab:evalcrafter} | \begin{tabular}{lcccccccccccccccc}
\toprule
Detection & \multicolumn{14}{c}{Datasets (AP$\uparrow$)} & \multirow{2}{*}{mAP}\\
\cmidrule(r){2-15}
Method & MV & Floor32 & Gen2 & Gen2-D & HotShot & LaVie-V & LaVie-I & Mix-SR & MSE & Pika & Pika-v1 & Show-1 & VC & ZS \\
... |
83 | 2508.00701 | null | \caption{
Detection results on 10 VideoPhy datasets.
} | \label{tab:videophy} | \begin{tabular}{lccccccccccccc}
\toprule
Detection & \multicolumn{10}{c}{Datasets (AP$\uparrow$)} & \multirow{2}{*}{mAP}\\
\cmidrule(r){2-11}
Method & LaVie & OpenSora & CogVideoX-5B & CogVideoX & Dream-Machine & Gen-2 & Pika & SVD & VC2 & ZeroScope \\
\mid... |
84 | 2508.00701 | null | \caption{
Detection results on 6 VidProM datasets.
} | \label{tab:vidprom} | \begin{tabular}{lcccccccccccccc}
\toprule
Detection & \multicolumn{6}{c}{Datasets (AP$\uparrow$)} & \multirow{2}{*}{mAP}\\
\cmidrule(r){2-7}
Method & MSE & OS & Pika & ST2V & T2VZ & VC2 \\
\midrule
FID & \underline{91.35} & 87.68 & \underline{99.... |
85 | 2508.00701 | null | \caption{Efficiency results on GenVideo with 1000 video samples and batch size of 1. The preprocessing overhead of AIGVDet comes from the optical flow extraction using RAFT.
For image-level methods (FID, NPR), 8 images form a video.} | \label{tab:time} | \begin{tabular}{l c c c c c}
\toprule
Detection & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Time (s,$\downarrow$)} & mAP$\uparrow$\\
\cmidrule(lr){2-4} \cmidrule(lr){5-5}
Method& Preprocess & Train & Inference & on GenVideo \\
\midrule
FID & Free & 415 & 213 & 88.07\\
NPR & Free & 256... |
86 | 2508.00701 | null | \caption{Detection results of D3 against post-processing operations on GenVideo.} | \label{tab:robust} | \begin{tabular}{ccccccccccccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}[-0.5ex]{Visual Encoder} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{Gaussian Blur} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{JEPG Compression} \\
\cmidrule(r){2-6}
\cmidrule(r){7-11}
~ & $\sigma = 0$ & $\sigma = 1$ & $\sigma = 2$ & $\sigma = 3$ & $\sigma = 4$ & $... |
96 | 2508.00380 | null | \caption{Formulations of four numerical functions. Here, $d$ denotes the dimensionality and $\bm{s}$ a random shift in the search space.} | \label{tab:numerical} | \begin{tabular}{l p{10.5cm}}
\toprule
Function Name & Formulation \\
\midrule
Ackley & $f(\bm{x}) = -a \exp\left(-b \sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^{d} \bm{w}_i^2 / d}\right) - \exp\left(\sum_{i=1}^{d} \cos(2\pi \bm{w}_i) / d\right) + a + \exp(1)$, where $a = 20$, $b = 0.2$, and $\bm{w} = 40\bm{x} - 20 - \bm{s}$ \\
... |
17,128 | 2501.18324 | null | \caption{Dialogues created by three separate annotator pairs in VDAct for scenario IDs 00733 and 00912.} | \label{tab:example-dials2} | \begin{tabular}{c|p{0.28\linewidth}|p{0.28\linewidth}|p{0.28\linewidth}}
\hline \hline
\multicolumn{4}{l}{\textbf{Example}\#3, \textbf{Scenario ID}: 00733, \textbf{Activities}: Turn off light5, Drink wine1, Put groceries in fridge17, Clean stove1, Place wineglass1} \\ \hline
& \textbf{Dialogue ID}: 0073301 & \textbf{D... |
87 | 2508.00701 | null | \caption{
Ablation studies of visual encoder backbones and the type of first-order features (L2 Distance or Cosine Similarity).
} | \label{tab:ablation} | \begin{tabular}{lcccccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}[-0.5ex]{Visual Encoder} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{GenVideo} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{EvalCrafter} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{VideoPhy} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{VidProM} \\
\cmidrule(r){2-3} \cmidrule(r){4-5} \cmidrule(r){6-7} \cmidrule(r){8-9}
~ & L2 & Cos & L2 & Cos & ... |
88 | 2508.00701 | null | \caption{Ablation studies of feature order on 4 datasets.} | \label{tab:order} | \begin{tabular}{l c c c c c}
\toprule
Detection & \multicolumn{2}{c}{GenVideo} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{EvalCrafter}\\
\cmidrule(r){2-3} \cmidrule(r){4-5}
Method & mAP$\uparrow$ & Avg. AUC$\uparrow$ & mAP$\uparrow$ & Avg. AUC$\uparrow$ \\
\midrule
D3 ... |
End of preview. Expand in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 4