REVIEW 2 cited by
RobuT: A Systematic Study of Table QA Robustness Against Human-Annotated Adversarial Perturbations
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
Despite significant progress having been made in question answering on tabular data (Table QA), it's unclear whether, and to what extent existing Table QA models are robust to task-specific perturbations, e.g., replacing key question entities or shuffling table columns. To systematically study the robustness of Table QA models, we propose a benchmark called RobuT, which builds upon existing Table QA datasets (WTQ, WikiSQL-Weak, and SQA) and includes human-annotated adversarial perturbations in terms of table header, table content, and question. Our results indicate that both state-of-the-art Table QA models and large language models (e.g., GPT-3) with few-shot learning falter in these adversarial sets. We propose to address this problem by using large language models to generate adversarial examples to enhance training, which significantly improves the robustness of Table QA models. Our data and code is publicly available at https://github.com/yilunzhao/RobuT.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
FUDOKI: Discrete Flow-based Unified Understanding and Generation via Kinetic-Optimal Velocities
A 1.5B unified multimodal model trained with discrete flow matching and metric-induced probability paths matches autoregressive baselines of similar size on generation and understanding benchmarks.
-
RoToR: Towards More Reliable Responses for Order-Invariant Inputs
RoToR makes a frozen LLM order-invariant by circularly rotating a single global sort of segment position IDs, and Selective Routing combines it with the original model for mixed lists.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.