deletions | additions       diff --git a/Repeating_above_data.tex b/Repeating_above_data.tex  index dd24d8e..b9bac2f 100644  --- a/Repeating_above_data.tex  +++ b/Repeating_above_data.tex 
...
% \multicolumn{1}{ |c|| }{0.3} &96&0&4&0 &97&1&2&0 &96&0&4&0 &96&0&4&0 \\ \cline{1-17}  % \multicolumn{1}{ |c|| }{0.4} &97&0&3&0 &97&1&2&0 &96&0&4&0 &96&0&4&0\\ \cline{1-17}   \multicolumn{1}{ |c|| }{0.5} &97&0&3&0 &97&1&2&0 &96&0&4&0 &96&0&4&0\\ \cline{1-17}  \multicolumn{1}{ |c|| }{1} &98&0&2&0 &&& &&& && &&&&\\ &98&1&1&0 &98&0&2&0 &99&0&1&0\\  \cline{1-17} \end{tabular}\vspace{.2in}  \caption{\label{tab:result} Result comparison of our method, Gibbs with $K=20$, Gibbs with $K=40$, and Gibbs with $K=60$ using a various of shift sizes. PR, FN, FP, FNP are the number of tests with perfect result, only false negatives, only false positives, both false negatives and false positives, respectively. As the shift size increases from 0.05 to 1, the percentage of perfect PR remains high. Overall, our method out-performs the Gibbs sampler methods. }  \end{table}