REVIEW 2 cited by
End-to-End Table Question Answering via Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Most existing end-to-end Table Question Answering (Table QA) models consist of a two-stage framework with a retriever to select relevant table candidates from a corpus and a reader to locate the correct answers from table candidates. Even though the accuracy of the reader models is significantly improved with the recent transformer-based approaches, the overall performance of such frameworks still suffers from the poor accuracy of using traditional information retrieval techniques as retrievers. To alleviate this problem, we introduce T-RAG, an end-to-end Table QA model, where a non-parametric dense vector index is fine-tuned jointly with BART, a parametric sequence-to-sequence model to generate answer tokens. Given any natural language question, T-RAG utilizes a unified pipeline to automatically search through a table corpus to directly locate the correct answer from the table cells. We apply T-RAG to recent open-domain Table QA benchmarks and demonstrate that the fine-tuned T-RAG model is able to achieve state-of-the-art performance in both the end-to-end Table QA and the table retrieval tasks.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Semantically Similar, Logically Distinct: Diagnosing the Semantic-Answerability Gap in Table RAG
On a new sibling-table benchmark, dense retrievers find the right table group but identify the uniquely answerable table at near-chance rates; cross-encoder reranking lifts top-1 from 18.2% to 57.4%.
-
Agentic LLMs for Question Answering over Tabular Data
A five-stage NL-to-SQL pipeline with GPT-4o achieves 70.5% on DataBench QA and 71.6% on DataBench Lite QA, beating baselines of 26% and 27%.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.