Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

TEN: Table Explicitization, Neurosymbolically

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read TEN pairs LLM generation with a symbolic checker and a critique-driven repair loop to extract tables from semistructured text, beating purely neural baselines on exact-match accuracy and hallucination rates.

desk verdict The neurosymbolic loop is a plausible new combination, but the abstract doesn't establish the checker's ability to catch hallucinations or that the loop converges. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.09324 v1 pith:R7S3SLQD submitted 2025-08-12 cs.CL cs.AI

Nikita Mehrotra , Aayush Kumar , Sumit Gulwani , Arjun Radhakrishna , Ashish Tiwari This is my paper
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords tableextractionneurosymbolichallucinationdetectionchain-of-thoughtpromptingsymbolicverificationself-debuggingLLMsemistructuredtextlargelanguagemodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces TEN, a neurosymbolic method for extracting tables from semistructured text that lacks consistent column and row delimiters. TEN starts with a chain-of-thought-style prompt that decomposes the text structurally, then runs a symbolic checker over the LLM's proposed table to catch malformed output, hallucinated content, and omitted information. When the checker flags a problem, a second LLM converts the error into natural-language revision guidance and the original LLM rewrites the table, in a loop. Experiments report that TEN beats purely neural baselines on exact-match accuracy and hallucination rates across datasets, and a 21-participant user study found its tables rated more accurate and easier to verify. The paper's point is that hard structural constraints, which neural decoders cannot enforce on their own, can be enforced by pairing an LLM with an external symbolic checker and a repair loop.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the self-debug loop: Structural Decomposition prompting (a specialized chain-of-thought step that breaks the input into candidate rows and columns) produces an initial table; a symbolic checker verifies well-formedness and flags hallucinations and omissions; a critique-LLM translates those flags into natural-language instructions; and the original LLM regenerates the table using that feedback. The loop is what lets the system enforce hard constraints that the LLM cannot reliably satisfy from the prompt alone.

What would settle it

Take a source text and replace one entity with a plausible but incorrect distractor that matches the table's schema; run TEN and check whether the final table ever contains the distractor. If it does, the symbolic checker is not reliably detecting hallucinated content, and the paper's central mechanism fails on exactly the failure mode it targets.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

TEN's central claim is that the reliability of LLM-based table extraction can be brought close to that of formal methods by decomposing the extraction into a symbolic-check-and-repair loop. The LLM first generates a table using Structural Decomposition prompting — a chain-of-thought prompt that forces explicit row/column reasoning. A symbolic checker then verifies well-formedness and, more important, detects hallucinations (content not in the source) and forgetting (content omitted from the table). The checker's output is summarized by a critique-LLM into actionable fix guidance, and the original LLM revises the table, repeating until the checker is satisfied. The measured results — higher e

Load-bearing premise

The loop only works if the symbolic checker reliably flags every hallucination and omission, and if the critique-LLM's revision guidance pushes the generator toward the correct table instead of away from it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • TEN's exact-match accuracy and hallucination rates improve substantially over purely neural baselines on multiple datasets.
  • Users in a 21-participant study rated TEN tables as more accurate (5.0 vs 4.3, p=0.021) and preferred them for verification and correction in over 60% of cases.
  • The approach handles text without consistent delimiters, so table extraction no longer depends on clean markdown or CSV-like input.
  • Hallucinated content and forgotten information are detected by the symbolic checker, making the LLM's output auditable rather than trusted.
  • Because failures trigger a repair loop, errors can be corrected at inference time without retraining or fine-tuning.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same check-and-repair harness could transfer to other structured generation tasks — JSON, code, forms — wherever a symbolic validator exists; the paper does not test this, but the mechanism is not inherently table-specific.
  • With a sample of 21 participants, the user-study preference finding should be treated as suggestive; a larger and more diverse study would be needed to generalize it.
  • If the symbolic checker is the main source of accuracy, a much smaller or cheaper generator might achieve similar results when paired with a strong checker and critic; this is a cost-reduction hypothesis the paper leaves untested.
  • The loop's convergence is not guaranteed; in pathological cases the critic and generator could oscillate, so a practical deployment would likely need a fixed iteration budget.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes TEN, a neurosymbolic pipeline for extracting tabular data from semistructured text. TEN first uses an LLM with Structural Decomposition prompting to generate an initial table, then applies a symbolic checker to detect well-formedness, hallucination, and forgetting, and finally feeds checker output through a critique-LLM to produce fix guidance in a self-debug loop. The abstract claims that TEN significantly outperforms purely neural baselines across multiple datasets and metrics, reduces hallucination rates, and that a 21-participant user study rates TEN's tables more accurate (mean 5.0 vs 4.3, p=0.021) and prefers TEN in over 60% of cases. No full text, datasets, implementation details, or numerical results are available in the reviewed material.

Significance. If the claims hold, TEN would be a meaningful advance in trustworthy table extraction from noisy semistructured text, combining LLM generation with symbolic verification to address hallucinations. The user study, if methodologically sound, adds evidence about human-perceived accuracy and ease of correction. However, the significance cannot be assessed from the current manuscript: the central empirical claims are stated without supporting data, baseline specifications, or reliability analysis of the symbolic checker. The paper's contribution is potentially important but currently unverified.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract reports 'extensive experiments' and 'significantly higher exact match accuracy and substantially reduced hallucination rates' but provides no numbers, dataset names, baseline configurations, or error bars. Without these, the reader cannot evaluate whether the reported improvements are meaningful or artifacts of the test sets. This is the central empirical claim of the paper and must be supported with full experimental details.
  2. [Abstract ('thereafter uses a symbolic checker')] The load-bearing assumption is that the symbolic checker reliably distinguishes hallucinations/forgetting from correct tables without a gold table. The abstract does not report the checker's false positive and negative rates, nor how 'hallucination' flags are generated. If the checker rejects tables that are merely unfamiliar, the claimed gains could reflect baseline brittleness rather than improved correctness. A precision/recall analysis of the checker on a labeled sample is required.
  3. [Abstract ('self-debug loop')] The abstract introduces an iterative critique-LLM feedback loop but gives no stopping criterion, maximum iteration count, or convergence analysis. If the loop amplifies errors or oscillates, the final output may differ from the initial generation in uncontrolled ways. Reporting iteration counts and failure cases (e.g., loops that never converge) is necessary to establish that the mechanism, not just the extra LLM calls, drives the improvements.
  4. [Abstract ('21-participant user study')] The user study reports a mean difference of 0.7 with p=0.021 from 21 participants. The abstract does not describe whether participants were blind to the method, how tables were sampled, whether the comparison included all baselines or a subset, or what statistical test was used. Effect sizes and confidence intervals should accompany the p-value. A small n=21 study with a borderline p-value is suggestive but not conclusive on its own.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Title/General] The term 'neurosymbolically' in the title is unconventional; consider rewording for clarity. Also ensure the acronym TEN is expanded in the first sentence (currently implicit).
  2. [Abstract] The abstract does not mention code/data availability or reproducibility artifacts. If the manuscript includes them, please state so explicitly.
  3. [Abstract] The phrase 'significantly outperforms' appears twice; specifying the actual metrics (e.g., exact match, hallucination rate) with numerical values would strengthen the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity identified; the abstract's claims are empirically anchored to external baselines and a human user study.

full rationale

The manuscript excerpt contains no equations, fitted parameters, or derivation chain whose outputs could reduce to inputs by construction. TEN is described as a pipeline (LLM generation + symbolic checker + critique-LLM self-debug) and its headline claims are empirical comparisons against purely neural baselines and a 21-participant user study. The user study is an external human judgment, independent of TEN's internal checker logic. The symbolic checker's reliability and loop convergence are empirical behavioral assumptions, not circular definitions; the abstract does not state that the evaluation metric is produced by the same checker used inside the pipeline. Without any self-citation serving as load-bearing support or any fitted input renamed as a prediction, there is no exhibited circular step under the hard rules. A possible concern—that hallucination measurement might share criteria with the checker—is speculative and not established by the text, so it cannot raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities are identifiable from the abstract. The central approach rests on three empirical assumptions about LLM behavior and symbolic checking, listed above.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption LLM structural decomposition prompting yields a useful initial table for semistructured text.
    The whole pipeline depends on the initial LLM output being good enough for the checker to repair; invoked in the abstract's description of Structural Decomposition prompting.
  • domain assumption The symbolic checker can reliably identify hallucinations and forgetting in LLM-generated tables.
    Central to the claim of reduced hallucination; checker accuracy is itself an implemented component, not proven by the abstract.
  • domain assumption The critique-LLM feedback improves the original LLM's table rather than degrading it.
    Self-debug loop convergence is assumed; no formal guarantee is stated in the abstract.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TEN: Table Explicitization, Neurosymbolically." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R7S3SLQD

@misc{pith2026250809324,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TEN: Table Explicitization, Neurosymbolically},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R7S3SLQD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.09324}
}
read the original abstract

We present a neurosymbolic approach, TEN, for extracting tabular data from semistructured input text. This task is particularly challenging for text input that does not use special delimiters consistently to separate columns and rows. Purely neural approaches perform poorly due to hallucinations and their inability to enforce hard constraints. TEN uses Structural Decomposition prompting - a specialized chain-of-thought prompting approach - on a large language model (LLM) to generate an initial table, and thereafter uses a symbolic checker to evaluate not only the well-formedness of that table, but also detect cases of hallucinations or forgetting. The output of the symbolic checker is processed by a critique-LLM to generate guidance for fixing the table, which is presented to the original LLM in a self-debug loop. Our extensive experiments demonstrate that TEN significantly outperforms purely neural baselines across multiple datasets and metrics, achieving significantly higher exact match accuracy and substantially reduced hallucination rates. A 21-participant user study further confirms that TEN's tables are rated significantly more accurate (mean score: 5.0 vs 4.3; p = 0.021), and are consistently preferred for ease of verification and correction, with participants favoring our method in over 60% of the cases.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. LLM-as-a-Judge Scores Are Unreliable Optimization Signals in Closed-Loop Table Recognition

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Reference-free LLM judge scores failed to select better table-extraction outputs over eight regeneration iterations on FinTabNet and OmniDocBench; keeping the first output was safest.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Table-To-Text generation and pre-training with TabT5

    Andrejczuk, E.; Eisenschlos, J. M.; Piccinno, F.; Krichene, S.; and Altun, Y. 2022. Table-To-Text generation and pre-training with TabT5. arXiv:2210.09162

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Aramaki, E.; Miura, Y.; Tonoike, M.; Ohkuma, T.; Mashuichi, H.; and Ohe, K. 2009. TEXT 2 TABLE : Medical Text Summarization System Based on Named Entity Recognition and Modality Identification. In Cohen, K. B.; Demner-Fushman, D.; Ananiadou, S.; Pestian, J.; Tsujii, J.; and Webber, B., eds., Proceedings of the B io NLP 2009 Workshop , 185--192. Boulder, C...

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    B.; and Das, J

    Arist \'a ran, M.; Tigas, M.; Merrill, J. B.; and Das, J. 2018. Tabula : Extract Tables from PDFs. Open‑source tool, https://tabula.technology/

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    A.; and Pace, L

    Barchard, K. A.; and Pace, L. A. 2011. Preventing human error: The impact of data entry methods on data accuracy and statistical results. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5): 1834--1839. 2009 Fifth International Conference on Intelligent Computing

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    S.; Noraset, T.; and Downey, D

    Bhagavatula, C. S.; Noraset, T.; and Downey, D. 2013. Methods for exploring and mining tables on Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD Workshop on Interactive Data Exploration and Analytics, IDEA '13, 18–26. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450323291

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Brown, T. B.; Mann, B.; Ryder, N.; Subbiah, M.; Kaplan, J.; Dhariwal, P.; Neelakantan, A.; Shyam, P.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; Agarwal, S.; Herbert - Voss, A.; Krueger, G.; Henighan, T.; Child, R.; Ramesh, A.; Ziegler, D. M.; Wu, J.; Winter, C.; Hesse, C.; Chen, M.; Sigler, E.; Litwin, M.; Gray, S.; Chess, B.; Clark, J.; Berner, C.; McCandlish, S.; Radford...

    arXiv 2020

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Chi, Z.; Huang, H.; Xu, H.; Yu, H.; Yin, W.; and Mao, X. 2019. Complicated Table Structure Recognition. CoRR, abs/1908.04729

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    C.; Leuterio, C

    Crisanto, J. C.; Leuterio, C. B.; Prenio, J.; and Yong, J. 2024. Regulating AI in the financial sector: recent developments and main challenges. Fsi insights on policy implementation; no. 63, Financial Stability Institute, Bank for International Settlements

    2024

  3. [11]

    Deng, X.; Sun, H.; Lees, A.; Wu, Y.; and Yu, C. 2020. TURL: Table Understanding through Representation Learning. CoRR, abs/2006.14806

    2020 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Deng, Z.; Chan, C.; Wang, W.; Sun, Y.; Fan, W.; Zheng, T.; Yim, Y.; and Song, Y. 2024. Text-Tuple-Table: Towards Information Integration in Text-to-Table Generation via Global Tuple Extraction. arXiv:2404.14215

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Dong, H.; Liu, S.; Fu, Z.; Han, S.; and Zhang, D. 2019. Semantic Structure Extraction for Spreadsheet Tables with a Multi-task Learning Architecture. In Workshop on Document Intelligence at NeurIPS 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    Y.; Williams, T.; Ounpraseuth, S.; Hu, Z.; Lee, J.; Snowden, J.; Walden, A

    Garza, M. Y.; Williams, T.; Ounpraseuth, S.; Hu, Z.; Lee, J.; Snowden, J.; Walden, A. C.; Simon, A. E.; Devlin, L. A.; Young, L. W.; and Zozus, M. N. 2025. Error rates of data processing methods in clinical research: A systematic review and meta‑analysis of manuscripts identif...

    2025

  7. [15]

    Gou, Z.; Shao, Z.; Gong, Y.; Shen, Y.; Yang, Y.; Duan, N.; and Chen, W. 2024. CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquing. arXiv:2305.11738

    2024 arXiv

  8. [17]

    K.; M \" u ller, T.; Piccinno, F.; and Eisenschlos, J

    Herzig, J.; Nowak, P. K.; M \" u ller, T.; Piccinno, F.; and Eisenschlos, J. M. 2020 b . TAPAS: Weakly Supervised Table Parsing via Pre-training. CoRR, abs/2004.02349

    2020 arXiv

  9. [18]

    J.; Madotto, A.; and Fung, P

    Ji, Z.; Lee, N.; Frieske, R.; Yu, T.; Su, D.; Xu, Y.; Ishii, E.; Bang, Y. J.; Madotto, A.; and Fung, P. 2023. Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation. ACM Comput. Surv., 55(12)

    2023

  10. [19]

    Kandel, S.; Paepcke, A.; Hellerstein, J.; and Heer, J. 2011. Wrangler: interactive visual specification of data transformation scripts. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '11, 3363–3372. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computi...

    2011

  11. [20]

    Khang, M.; and Hong, T. 2025. TFLOP: Table Structure Recognition Framework with Layout Pointer Mechanism. arXiv:2501.11800

    2025 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Li, M.; Cui, L.; Huang, S.; Wei, F.; Zhou, M.; and Li, Z. 2019. TableBank: Table Benchmark for Image-based Table Detection and Recognition. CoRR, abs/1903.01949

    2019 arXiv

  13. [22]

    P.; Hermann, K.; Welleck, S.; Yazdanbakhsh, A.; and Clark, P

    Madaan, A.; Tandon, N.; Gupta, P.; Hallinan, S.; Gao, L.; Wiegreffe, S.; Alon, U.; Dziri, N.; Prabhumoye, S.; Yang, Y.; Gupta, S.; Majumder, B. P.; Hermann, K.; Welleck, S.; Yazdanbakhsh, A.; and Clark, P. 2023. Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback. In Oh, A.; ...

    2023

  14. [23]

    Mathes, T.; Klaßen, P.; and Pieper, D. 2017. Frequency of data extraction errors and methods to increase data extraction quality: a methodological review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 17(1): 152

    2017

  15. [24]

    McNemar, Q. 1947. Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages. Psychometrika, 12(2): 153--157

    1947

  16. [25]

    S.; D, V.; Rahul, R.; Sharma, M.; and Vig, L

    Paliwal, S. S.; D, V.; Rahul, R.; Sharma, M.; and Vig, L. 2019. TableNet: Deep Learning Model for End-to-end Table Detection and Tabular Data Extraction from Scanned Document Images. In 2019 International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR), 128--133

    2019

  17. [26]

    Parikh, A.; Wang, X.; Gehrmann, S.; Faruqui, M.; Dhingra, B.; Yang, D.; and Das, D. 2020. ToTTo : A Controlled Table-To-Text Generation Dataset. In Webber, B.; Cohn, T.; He, Y.; and Liu, Y., eds., Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Proc...

    2020

  18. [27]

    Raza, M.; and Gulwani, S. 2017. Automated Data Extraction Using Predictive Program Synthesis . In AAAI, 882--890

    2017

  19. [28]

    Raza, M.; and Gulwani, S. 2020. Web data extraction using hybrid program synthesis: A combination of top-down and bottom-up inference. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, 1967--1978

    2020

  20. [29]

    Samuel, D. 2024. BERTs are Generative In-Context Learners. arXiv:2406.04823

    2024 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Sauro, J.; and Dumas, J. S. 2009. Comparison of three one-question, post-task usability questionnaires. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '09, 1599–1608. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781605582467

    2009

  22. [31]

    R.; and Yao, S

    Shinn, N.; Cassano, F.; Gopinath, A.; Narasimhan, K. R.; and Yao, S. 2023. Reflexion: language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

    2023

  23. [32]

    Shinyama, Y. 2014. PDFMiner: Python PDF Parser and Analyzer. https://github.com/euske/pdfminer. Accessed: 2025-04-17

    2014

  24. [33]

    Singh, M.; Verbruggen, G.; Le, V.; and Gulwani, S. 2024. Tabularis Revilio: Converting Text to Tables. In Proceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM '24, 4056–4060. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. ...

    2024

  25. [34]

    Smith, R. 2007. An Overview of the Tesseract OCR Engine. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR), 629--633. IEEE

    2007

  26. [35]

    Taeihagh, A. 2025. Governance of Generative AI. Policy and Society, 44(1): 1--22

    2025

  27. [36]

    van den Burg, G. J. J.; Naz\' a bal, A.; and Sutton, C. 2019. Wrangling messy CSV files by detecting row and type patterns. Data Min. Knowl. Discov., 33(6): 1799–1820

    2019

  28. [37]

    H.; Le, Q.; and Zhou, D

    Wei, J.; Wang, X.; Schuurmans, D.; Bosma, M.; Chi, E. H.; Le, Q.; and Zhou, D. 2022. Chain of Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models. CoRR, abs/2201.11903

    2022 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Wiseman, S.; Shieber, S.; and Rush, A. 2017. Challenges in Data-to-Document Generation. In Palmer, M.; Hwa, R.; and Riedel, S., eds., Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2253--2263. Copenhagen, Denmark: Association for Comput...

    2017

  30. [39]

    Wu, X.; Zhang, J.; and Li, H. 2022. Text-to-Table: A New Way of Information Extraction. In Muresan, S.; Nakov, P.; and Villavicencio, A., eds., Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), 2518--2533. Dublin, ...

    2022

  31. [40]

    Y.; Li, L.; and Freitag, M

    Xu, W.; Deutsch, D.; Finkelstein, M.; Juraska, J.; Zhang, B.; Liu, Z.; Wang, W. Y.; Li, L.; and Freitag, M. 2024. LLMR efine: Pinpointing and Refining Large Language Models via Fine-Grained Actionable Feedback. In Duh, K.; Gomez, H.; and Bethard, S., eds., Findings of the Asso...

    2024

  32. [41]

    Xu, Y.; Li, M.; Cui, L.; Huang, S.; Wei, F.; and Zhou, M. 2019. LayoutLM: Pre-training of Text and Layout for Document Image Understanding. CoRR, abs/1912.13318

    2019 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Xu, Y.; Xu, Y.; Lv, T.; Cui, L.; Wei, F.; Wang, G.; Lu, Y.; Florencio, D.; Zhang, C.; Che, W.; Zhang, M.; and Zhou, L. 2021. L ayout LM v2: Multi-modal Pre-training for Visually-rich Document Understanding. In Zong, C.; Xia, F.; Li, W.; and Navigli, R., eds., Proceedings of th...

    2021

  34. [43]

    Yang, J.; Gupta, A.; Upadhyay, S.; He, L.; Goel, R.; and Paul, S. 2022. TableFormer: Robust Transformer Modeling for Table-Text Encoding. arXiv:2203.00274

    2022 arXiv

  35. [44]

    L.; Cao, Y.; and Narasimhan, K

    Yao, S.; Yu, D.; Zhao, J.; Shafran, I.; Griffiths, T. L.; Cao, Y.; and Narasimhan, K. R. 2023. Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

    2023

  36. [45]

    Yin, P.; Neubig, G.; Yih, W.; and Riedel, S. 2020 a . TaBERT: Pretraining for Joint Understanding of Textual and Tabular Data. CoRR, abs/2005.08314

    2020 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Yin, P.; Neubig, G.; Yih, W.-t.; and Riedel, S. 2020 b . T a BERT : Pretraining for Joint Understanding of Textual and Tabular Data. In Jurafsky, D.; Chai, J.; Schluter, N.; and Tetreault, J., eds., Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Li...

    2020

  38. [47]

    Zhang, K.; and Shasha, D. 1989. Simple Fast Algorithms for the Editing Distance between Trees and Related Problems. SIAM Journal on Computing, 18(6): 1245--1262

    1989

  39. [48]

    Zheng, X.; Burdick, D.; Popa, L.; and Wang, N. X. R. 2020. Global Table Extractor (GTE): A Framework for Joint Table Identification and Cell Structure Recognition Using Visual Context. CoRR, abs/2005.00589

    2020 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Zhong, X.; ShafieiBavani, E.; and Yepes, A. J. 2019. Image-based table recognition: data, model, and evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.10683

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.