\begin{table}[ht]
    \centering
    \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c}
    \hline
        ($p$, $s$, $\mathcal{B})$& Std.  & Unweighted Loss  & Sinusoidal Enc.  & Beam = 3 & Beam = 5  \\ \hline
         (97, 11, 9) & 36.5 & 44.475  & 24.613 & 34.975 & 34.975 \\ \hline 
         (101, 3, 7)  & 37.45 & 36.775 & 32.213 & 36.138 & 36.138 \\ \hline
         (109, 29, 8) & 27.288 & 33.913 & 35.425 & 26.963 & 26.963 \\ \hline
         (179, 29, 8) & 68.88 & 75.725 & 83.7 & 57.075 & 57.075 \\ \hline 
    \end{tabular}
    \vspace{3mm}
    \caption{Average test arithmetic difference (lower is better) for different ablations of our transformer modelling approach applied to 3 settings $(p,s, \mathcal{B})$ of modular multiplication. \textbf{Std} refers to training a 2-layer transformer with our weighted loss, random positional encodings, and greedy decoding, with early-stopping implemented up until $5000$ epochs.} 
    \label{tab:compare results}
\end{table}
(p, s, )
B Std. Unweighted Loss Sinusoidal Enc. Beam = 3 Beam = 5
(97, 11, 9) 36.5 44.475 24.613 34.975 34.975
(101, 3, 7) 37.45 36.775 32.213 36.138 36.138
(109, 29, 8) 27.288 33.913 35.425 26.963 26.963
(179, 29, 8) 68.88 75.725 83.7 57.075 57.075