# How to let my table fit in one column in ACM format? [duplicate]

I already wrote my conference paper in IEEE format and the following code fits well in one column. Now, when I need it in ACM format, it won't fit in one column.

\documentclass[sigconf]{acmart}
\usepackage{booktabs} % For formal tables

\usepackage{ctable}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{balance}
\usepackage[intoc]{nomencl}
\usepackage{listings}
\usepackage{multicol}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{flushend}

\acmYear{}
\acmConference{}{}}
\acmPrice{}
\acmDOI{}
\acmISBN{}

\begin{document}
\title{}

\author{xxxx   xxxx}
\affiliation{%
\institution{xx-xx-Institute\\ University of xx, xx}
}
\email{}

% The default list of authors is too long for headers}
\renewcommand{\shortauthors}{ et al.}

\begin{abstract}

\end{abstract}

%
% The code below should be generated by the tool at
% http://dl.acm.org/ccs.cfm
% Please copy and paste the code instead of the example below.
%
\begin{CCSXML}
<ccs2012>
<concept>
<concept_id>10002951.10003227.10003233.10003288</concept_id>
<concept_desc>Information systems~Blogs</concept_desc>
<concept_significance>300</concept_significance>
</concept>
</ccs2012>
\end{CCSXML}

\ccsdesc[300]{I}

\keywords{}

\maketitle
\input{sections/introduction}
\input{sections/relatedwork}
\input{sections/PredictingAttributes}
\input{sections/Classification}
\input{sections/PrototypeandImplementation}
\input{sections/conclusion}

\bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}
\bibliography{sample-bibliography}

\end{document}

I am using these packages,

\documentclass[sigconf]{acmart}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{ctable}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{balance}
\usepackage[intoc]{nomencl}
\usepackage{listings}
\usepackage{multicol}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{flushend}


## marked as duplicate by Werner, user36296, Community♦Sep 29 '17 at 18:15

• Can you please share your MWE correctly? New lines are completely omitted. – Sina Ahmadi Sep 21 '17 at 12:48
• @Sina What do you mean please by MWE? sorry I heard it for the last time and I googled it without finding anything related. – Krebto Sep 21 '17 at 12:50
• Minimum working example. Your code produces error. You should provide at least a working example so that I can make what you need. – Sina Ahmadi Sep 21 '17 at 12:52
• Ok, I will post the whole Latex code – Krebto Sep 21 '17 at 12:53
• please, make from your document small, complete document with only relevant packages and definition, which reproduce your problem. your table is simply to wide for one column. consider to write it over two columns. – Zarko Sep 21 '17 at 13:01

You can simply use scalebox{}{} in order to fit your table to your desired scale.

Here is my solution for your problem:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{graphics}

\begin{document}

\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.95}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1pt}

\begin{table}
\centering
\label{fig:top20list}
\caption{List of top 20 Mutual Information Words for male (left) and female(right) class with the highest mutual information}

\scalebox{0.5}{
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
WORD & MI & PFC & PMC & F\_CT & M\_CT & WORD & MI & PFC & PMC & F\_CT & M\_CT \\ \hline
users & 0.003 & 0.086 & 0.914 & 5 & 53 & love & 0.004 & 0.635 & 0.365 & 399 & 229 \\ \hline
data    & 0.002 & 0.180 & 0.820 & 16 & 73 & mom & 0.004 & 0.785 & 0.215 & 117 & 32 \\ \hline
similar & 0.002 & 0.219 & 0.781 & 25 & 89 & husband* & 0.004 & 0.796 & 0.204 & 109 & 28 \\ \hline
its     & 0.002 & 0.371 & 0.629 & 251 & 425 & my & 0.003 & 0.557 & 0.443 & 1082 & 859 \\ \hline
game*   & 0.002 & 0.309 & 0.691 & 80 & 179 & lunch* & 0.003 & 0.756 & 0.244  & 102  & 33 \\ \hline
team*   & 0.002 & 0.284 & 0.716 & 55 & 139 & food* & 0.003 & 0.665 & 0.336  & 204  & 103 \\ \hline
system* & 0.002 & 0.293 & 0.707 & 58 & 140 & lovely & 0.003 & 0.774 & 0.226  & 89  & 26 \\ \hline
topps   & 0.002 & 0.000 & 1.000 & 0 & 21 & me & 0.003 & 0.557 & 0.443  & 873  & 694 \\ \hline
video*  & 0.002 & 0.311 & 0.689 & 70 & 155 & meal* & 0.002 & 0.789 & 0.211  & 71  & 19 \\ \hline
govern* & 0.002 & 0.256 & 0.744 & 32 & 93 & eating & 0.002 & 0.726 & 0.274  & 98  & 37 \\ \hline
global* & 0.002 & 0.158 & 0.824 & 9 & 48 & her & 0.002 & 0.586 & 0.414  & 432  & 305 \\ \hline
technologies & 0.002 & 0.042 & 0.958 & 1 & 23 & beaut* & 0.002 & 0.639 & 0.361  & 207  & 117 \\ \hline
john    & 0.002 & 0.254 & 0.746 & 30 & 88 & baby* & 0.002 & 0.717 & 0.283  & 99  & 39 \\ \hline
model   & 0.002 & 0.227 & 0.773 & 20 & 68 & gorgeous* & 0.002 & 0.831 & 0.169  & 49  & 10 \\ \hline
web     & 0.002 & 0.273 & 0.727 & 36 & 96 & ladies & 0.002 & 0.846 & 0.154  & 44  & 8      \\ \hline
bill    & 0.002 & 0.255 & 0.745 & 28 & 82 & cute* & 0.002 & 0.750 & 0.250  & 75  & 25      \\ \hline
developer & 0.002 & 0.045 & 0.955 & 1 & 21 & fabulous* & 0.002 & 0.881 & 0.119  & 37  & 5      \\ \hline
notion  & 0.001 & 0.077 & 0.923 & 2 & 24 & potato & 0.002 & 1.000 & 0.000  & 20  & 0     \\ \hline
opera*  & 0.001 & 0.268 & 0.732 & 30 & 82 & kids* & 0.002 & 0.650 & 0.350  & 154  & 83      \\ \hline
mike    & 0.001 & 0.176 & 0.824 & 9 & 42 & she & 0.002 & 0.579 & 0.421  & 398  & 289     \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}

\end{document}


The following images demonstrate your original table vs. its reduced scale.

• and to article add magnifying glass for readers :-) – Zarko Sep 21 '17 at 13:02
• I see. However, this technique can be useful in some cases where a considerably small place is needed to demonstrate a table correctly. It's definitely not the best choice though. – Sina Ahmadi Sep 21 '17 at 13:07
• @sina, yes, this formatting is possible, but any serious publisher will refuse to accept such formatting. – Zarko Sep 21 '17 at 13:29
• @Krebto, consider my first comment. so reduced table is worthless. – Zarko Sep 21 '17 at 13:30
• It really depends on the article. I have ACM article full of detailed tables where using this technique didn't pose any problem. It is not my preferred way of solving the problem, but in some cases there is really no other choice. – Sina Ahmadi Sep 21 '17 at 13:36