Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

A Survey on Table-and-Text HybridQA: Concepts, Methods, Challenges and Future Directions

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

arxiv 2212.13465 v2 pith:PTIBHMZV submitted 2022-12-27 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords hybridqamethodschallengesdirectionsfutureresearchsurveytask
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Table-and-text hybrid question answering (HybridQA) is a widely used and challenging NLP task commonly applied in the financial and scientific domain. The early research focuses on migrating other QA task methods to HybridQA, while with further research, more and more HybridQA-specific methods have been present. With the rapid development of HybridQA, the systematic survey is still under-explored to summarize the main techniques and advance further research. So we present this work to summarize the current HybridQA benchmarks and methods, then analyze the challenges and future directions of this task. The contributions of this paper can be summarized in three folds: (1) first survey, to our best knowledge, including benchmarks, methods and challenges for HybridQA; (2) systematic investigation with the reasonable comparison of the existing systems to articulate their advantages and shortcomings; (3) detailed analysis of challenges in four important dimensions to shed light on future directions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. SCITAT: A Question Answering Benchmark for Scientific Tables and Text Covering Diverse Reasoning Types

    cs.CL 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    SciTaT is a 953-question benchmark requiring joint reasoning over scientific tables and text across four reasoning types, on which the proposed CAR pipeline outperforms standard prompting baselines.

  2. KITE: Kernelized and Information Theoretic Exemplars for In-Context Learning

    cs.LG 2025-09 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    KITE greedily selects in-context examples by maximizing a kernelized query-specific relevance score plus a D-optimal design diversity term, and reports accuracy gains over KATE, BM25, and DPP baselines on five classif...

Pith tools