From e7ebea9ae86d6b362315cbeda273780515a9f6d7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jim Martens <github@2martens.de>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 15:06:58 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Clarified tables and improved their formatting

Signed-off-by: Jim Martens <github@2martens.de>
---
 body.tex | 21 ++++++++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/body.tex b/body.tex
index 5e5ad56..618608d 100644
--- a/body.tex
+++ b/body.tex
@@ -869,9 +869,16 @@ detections. Therefore, it is interesting to see the performance
 of the tested variants with respect to these classes: persons, cars,
 chairs, and bottles. Additionally, the results of the giraffe class are
 presented as these are exceptionally good, although the class makes up
-only 0.7\% of the ground truth.
+only 0.7\% of the ground truth. With this share, it is below
+the average of roughly 0.89\% for each of the 56 classes that make up the
+second half of the ground truth.
 
-\begin{table}[htbp]
+In some cases, multiple variants have seemingly the same performance
+but only one or some of them are marked bold. This is informed by
+differences prior to rounding. If two or more variants are marked bold
+they had the exact same performance before rounding.
+
+\begin{table}[tbp]
     \begin{tabular}{rccc}
         \hline
         Forward & max & Recall & Precision\\
@@ -897,7 +904,7 @@ only 0.7\% of the ground truth.
 \end{table}
 
 It is clearly visible that the overall trend continues in the individual
-classes (see tables \ref{tab:results-persons} through \ref{tab:results-giraffes}). However, the two vanilla SSD variants with only 0.01 confidence
+classes (see tables \ref{tab:results-persons}, \ref{tab:results-cars}, \ref{tab:results-chairs}, \ref{tab:results-bottles}, and \ref{tab:results-giraffes}). However, the two vanilla SSD variants with only 0.01 confidence
 threshold perform better than in the averaged results presented earlier.
 Only in the chairs class, a Bayesian SSD variant performs better (in
 precision) than any of the vanilla SSD variants. Moreover, there are
@@ -908,7 +915,7 @@ precision than average but lower recall values for all but the Bayesian
 SSD variant without NMS and dropout. Chairs and bottles perform
 worse than average.
 
-\begin{table}[htbp]
+\begin{table}[tbp]
     \begin{tabular}{rccc}
         \hline
         Forward & max & Recall & Precision\\
@@ -933,7 +940,7 @@ worse than average.
     \label{tab:results-cars}
 \end{table}
 
-\begin{table}[htbp]
+\begin{table}[tbp]
     \begin{tabular}{rccc}
         \hline
         Forward & max & Recall & Precision\\
@@ -959,7 +966,7 @@ worse than average.
 \end{table}
 
 
-\begin{table}[htbp]
+\begin{table}[tbp]
     \begin{tabular}{rccc}
         \hline
         Forward & max & Recall & Precision\\
@@ -984,7 +991,7 @@ worse than average.
     \label{tab:results-bottles}
 \end{table}
 
-\begin{table}[htbp]
+\begin{table}[tbp]
     \begin{tabular}{rccc}
         \hline
         Forward & max & Recall & Precision\\