\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l||c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{Measures} & \textbf{Mean} & \textbf{(Min, Max)} \\
\hline
\hline
 {Total Accuracy} & $0.881$ &{$(0.879, 0.885)$}\\
 \hline
 {True Positive} & $0.897$ & {$(0.893,0.901)$} \\
 \hline
 {False Positive} & $0.134$ & {$(0.13,0.139)$} \\
 \hline
 {F1 Score} & $0.883$ & {$(0.861,0.887)$} \\
 \hline
 {Out of Cover Prop.} & $0.547$ & {$(0.54,0.553)$} \\
 \hline
 {Confused Cover Prop.} & $0.00326$ & {$(0.00275,0.00383)$} \\
 \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Results show mean total accuracy of 88\% with similar true positive and F1 scores. Interestingly, 55\% of the test data (on average) was outside the cover, meaning substantial generalization was required. Only 0.3\% of the test data fell close enough to the boundary to lie in both covers.}
\label{tab:Results}
\end{table}
Measures Mean (Min, Max)
Total Accuracy 0.881 (0.879, 0.885)
True Positive 0.897 (0.893, 0.901)
False Positive 0.134 (0.13, 0.139)
F1 Score 0.883 (0.861, 0.887)
Out of Cover Prop. 0.547 (0.54, 0.553)
Confused Cover Prop. 0.00326 (0.00275, 0.00383)