1

Table that spans over 2 columns overflows over the 2 columns in IEEE latex paper as shown in the screenshot. How can I make it fit into my 2 columns without reducing the font size? enter image description here

    \documentclass[10pt,conference]{IEEEtran}
\IEEEoverridecommandlockouts
% The preceding line is only needed to identify funding in the first footnote. If that is unneeded, please comment it out.
\usepackage{cite}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts}
\usepackage{algorithmic}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{lipsum}% Just for this example
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{subfigure}   


\def\BibTeX{{\rm B\kern-.05em{\sc i\kern-.025em b}\kern-.08em
    T\kern-.1667em\lower.7ex\hbox{E}\kern-.125emX}}
\begin{document}

\begin{table*}[]
\centering
\caption {Performance of TraceChecker's variations versus Ghabi's and Egyed's technique [12]} 
\label{tab:comparisonGhabi} 
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|c|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|}
\hline
\textbf{Tech.} & \textbf{Var.} & \textbf{Name} & \textbf{System} & \textbf{TP\textsubscript{T}} & \textbf{FP\textsubscript{T}} & \textbf{FN\textsubscript{T}} & \textbf{Prec\textsubscript{T}} & \textbf{Rec\textsubscript{T}} & \textbf{F1\textsubscript{T}} & \textbf{TP\textsubscript{N}} & \textbf{FP\textsubscript{N}} & \textbf{FN\textsubscript{N}} & \textbf{Prec\textsubscript{N}} & \textbf{Rec\textsubscript{N}} & \textbf{F1\textsubscript{N}} \\ \hline
\multirow{9}{*}{\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Trace\\ Check.\end{tabular}}} & \textbf{1} & \textbf{MDM} & \textbf{2..5} & \textbf{392} & \textbf{76} & \textbf{800} & \textbf{84} & \textbf{33} & \textbf{47} & \textbf{18569} & \textbf{72} & \textbf{25006} & \textbf{100} & \textbf{43} & \textbf{60} \\ \cline{2-16} 
 & \multirow{8}{*}{\textbf{2}} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}RF1-Train. set: \\ Chess\end{tabular}} & \textbf{2..5} & \textbf{377} & \textbf{161} & \textbf{805} & \textbf{70} & \textbf{32} & \textbf{44} & \textbf{23806} & \textbf{113} & \textbf{19685} & \textbf{100} & \textbf{55} & \textbf{71} \\ \cline{3-16} 
 &  & \multirow{6}{*}{\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}RF2-\\ Train. set: \\ 4 systems \\ \\ Test set: \\ 1 system\end{tabular}}} & \textbf{Chess} & 290 & 71 & 273 & 80 & 52 & 63 & 2123 & 106 & 266 & 95 & 89 & 92 \\ \cline{4-16} 
 &  &  & \textbf{Gantt} & 115 & 30 & 228 & 79 & 34 & 47 & 13547 & 31 & 9619 & 100 & 58 & 74 \\ \cline{4-16} 
 &  &  & \textbf{iTrust} & 128 & 83 & 179 & 61 & 42 & 49 & 6021 & 36 & 1152 & 99 & 84 & 91 \\ \cline{4-16} 
 &  &  & \textbf{JHotD.} & 115 & 23 & 324 & 83 & 26 & 40 & 9456 & 148 & 2763 & 98 & 77 & 87 \\ \cline{4-16} 
 &  &  & \textbf{VOD} & 20 & 7 & 73 & 74 & 22 & 33 & 860 & 54 & 73 & 94 & 92 & 93 \\ \cline{4-16} 
 &  &  & \textbf{1..5} & \textbf{668} & \textbf{214} & \textbf{1077} & \textbf{76} & \textbf{38} & \textbf{51} & \textbf{32007} & \textbf{375} & \textbf{13873} & \textbf{99} & \textbf{70} & \textbf{82} \\ \cline{3-16} 
 &  & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}RF3-Train. set: 50\%\\ Test set: 50\%\end{tabular}} & \textbf{1..5} & \textbf{434} & \textbf{77} & \textbf{435} & \textbf{85} & \textbf{50} & \textbf{63} & \textbf{21262} & \textbf{206} & \textbf{1682} & \textbf{99} & \textbf{93} & \textbf{96} \\ \hline
\multicolumn{3}{|c|}{\textbf{Tech in [12]}} & \textbf{1..5} & \textbf{201} & \textbf{145} & \textbf{991} & \textbf{58} & \textbf{17} & \textbf{26} & \textbf{10142} & \textbf{33} & \textbf{33433} & \textbf{100} & \textbf{23} & \textbf{38} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}

\end{document}

1 Answer 1

3

It's only a little bit too wide so you reduce the column padding from 6pt to 5pt.

\begin{table*}% don't use []
\centering
\caption {Performance of TraceChecker's variations versus Ghabi's and Egyed's technique [12]} 
\label{tab:comparisonGhabi} 
\setlength\tabcolsep{5pt}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|c|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|}
3
  • Are you sure, adding @{} is necessary here?
    – leandriis
    Commented Oct 22, 2020 at 17:26
  • Maybe I'm overlooking something but I can't see a difference between the version with and without the @{}. Is there really a padding outside of the outer vertical lines? I always had the impression the padding was between a vertical line and the start of the text inside of a cell, but probably I'm mistaken.
    – leandriis
    Commented Oct 22, 2020 at 18:08
  • @leandriis been a long day:-) Commented Oct 22, 2020 at 18:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .