LAB-Tab: LLM-Augmented Bayesian Network Adaptation for Few-Shot Tabular Generation

Bin Zhou; Jintao Ke; Taijie Chen; Zijian Shen; Ziyang Jiang

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 16 references

LAB-Tab: LLM-Augmented Bayesian Network Adaptation for Few-Shot Tabular Generation

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read LAB-Tab claims that scarce target data can be synthesized by adapting a source-fitted Bayesian network with LLM-proposed edges and reinforcement-learning calibration, cutting composite error 33.8% at the 10% target budget.

desk verdict A plausible new method with a carefully designed framework, but the evaluation cannot be certified because the size of the generated synthetic table is never specified and no code or data is released. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01879 v1 pith:FFQR4J6E submitted 2026-08-03 cs.LG cs.AI

Zijian Shen , Taijie Chen , Bin Zhou , Ziyang Jiang , Jintao Ke This is my paper

classification cs.LGcs.AI

keywords tabulardatagenerationfew-shotlearningBayesiannetworksLLM-guidededgeaugmentationreinforcementdistributionshiftdomainadaptationsynthetic

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

Real-world tabular work often hits this problem: a large table exists for one domain, but only a handful of records exist for a related target domain, and the few records are too sparse to fit a generator without overfitting. LAB-Tab's answer is to treat the source table as a Bayesian network—a probabilistic graph whose arrows state which variables directly depend on which others—and then adapt that graph to the target. A large language model proposes target-plausible edges the source graph lacks; a reinforcement-learning policy (PPO) then decides, edge by edge, whether to keep, weaken, strengthen, flip, or deactivate each dependency, with rewards balancing distributional fidelity, downstream predictive utility, and preservation of feature-label associations. Across six US Census (ACS) source-to-target shift scenarios at a 10% target-data budget, LAB-Tab reports the lowest composite score, macro Overall 0.0916 versus 0.1383 for the strongest baseline—a 33.8% reduction—and the best marginal fidelity, prediction error, and utility gap. If the result holds, practitioners gain an inspectable recipe for synthesizing scarce target tables by transferring only the dependencies the evidence actually supports.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the augmented Bayesian network with edge-level controls. Each edge carries activation m, magnitude g, and polarity d, combined as γ = m·d·g in a softmax parameterization of the conditional probability tables. BIC (Bayesian information criterion) hill-climbing on the source table anchors the DAG; the LLM proposes missing directed edges; a validator rejects cycles and in-degree violations; Dirichlet-count blending re-estimates parameters from source and target counts. A PPO policy (proximal policy optimization, a standard reinforcement-learning algorithm) edits one edge per step, with a graph-encoded state and rewards combining global table-level and local edge-level

What would settle it

Build a synthetic source–target pair on the ACS Income schema where a true source dependency is reversed in the target (Education→Income becomes Income→Education), keep the target budget at 10%, and run LAB-Tab. Because flip only changes polarity, the policy can at best deactivate the misoriented edge; if the recovered graph cannot match the target's dependency structure and the macro Overall falls toward baseline levels, the claim that edge control covers source-to-target structural shift is falsified. A cheaper check: rerun the six published scenarios with more seeds and an independent targe

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Source-aware few-shot tabular generation should be explicit structural transfer, not direct target fitting or blind source reuse. A Bayesian network learned from the source table by BIC hill-climbing supplies a stable prior; a large language model converts semantic and weak statistical evidence into candidate directed edges, validated for acyclicity and in-degree; and PPO calibrates each edge's activation, magnitude, and polarity, with a global reward (distributional distance, utility gap, coefficient cosine) plus a local reward crediting conditional-discrepancy improvement to the edited edge. The adapted network is sampled to synthesize the target table. At the 10% target-data budget the pa

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that dependency changes between source and target never reverse which variable is the parent: the policy can weaken, strengthen, silence, or flip the sign of an edge, but it never turns the arrow around, so a genuinely reversed relationship cannot appear in the adapted graph.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At the low budgets this method targets, the gains are steepest: at 1% target data the composite score drops 54.6% versus the strongest baseline, and LAB-Tab leads at seven of eleven budget fractions; the margin narrows as target evidence grows.
The three components are complementary: removing LLM edge proposals barely changes marginal JSD but sharply lowers feature-label Coef-Cos, while removing PPO control or the local edge-level reward degrades cross-scenario stability.
The policy converges to keep-dominated editing (final-fifth keep fraction at least 0.92 in five of six scenarios), with remaining edits concentrated on label-related paths, so most source dependencies survive intact.
The full model accepts a slightly higher marginal JSD than the target-only variant in exchange for better dependency and utility preservation—an explicit, documented trade-off.

Reading between the lines

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

Because every accepted edge carries an LLM rationale and a learned control, the pipeline doubles as a diagnostic: running it on a new source–target pair reveals, edge by edge, which dependencies the evidence shifts, weakens, or reverses—useful even when no synthetic table is needed.
The action space cannot turn an edge around: flip changes polarity, not parent–child direction, so a dependency that truly reverses in the target can only be silenced; letting the LLM propose the reversed edge and letting the policy arbitrate between orientations is the natural extension.
The framework's ceiling is partly set by the semantic quality of the LLM's proposals; on schemas with unfamiliar or purely coded variable names, or with a weaker LLM, proposal quality should degrade and the final score should drop—an easily testable sensitivity the paper does not run.
The keep/weaken/strengthen/flip/deactivate vocabulary is a generic control language for dependency graphs; the same source-aware adaptation recipe could plausibly apply to copula or Markov-network generators that expose edge-like parameters.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Zijian and colleagues put forward a new way to do source-aware few-shot tabular generation: fit a BN on the source, ask an LLM to suggest target-specific edges, then use PPO to keep/weaken/strengthen/flip/deactivate each edge. The combination is new as far as the cited literature goes, and the paper does several things right. The held-out test set is excluded from reward optimization and configuration selection, the ablations are systematic, and the sensitivity sweep across target-data budgets is a good idea. All six baselines get the same source and target data, which is fair.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The biggest one is that the paper never says how many rows are in the synthetic table bD_t used for evaluation. That matters because the reported JSDs are very small—e.g., 0.0004 for mob-prca, 0.0002 for cov-txca at the 10% budget. A stress-test note I saw computes that if the synthetic table had only the 171 (or 784) records of the few-shot subset, those numbers are below the sampling-error floor for an independent comparison. If the synthetic table is large (say, the size of the test set or larger), the floor is much lower and the numbers are plausible. The manuscript doesn't tell you which, so the reader can't check. This is a reproducibility gap, not a demonstrated error. The fix is to state N_syn and release code and data.

Two smaller gaps: the lambda_d, lambda_u, lambda_a weights in Eq. (4) are never given values, only the PPO reward weights in Table 7. And the flip action reverses the sign of an edge potential but cannot reverse the edge direction, a structural limitation that isn't discussed. Lack of significance tests is also a fair criticism, though with five seeds and component metrics reported, it's a lesser concern. The authors' own ablation tables and structural cases are internally consistent, which suggests the work is thoughtfully done rather than sloppy.

If the authors provide the missing details, this is a solid, useful paper for practitioners working on few-shot tabular generation. As it stands, the method is interesting but the evaluation can't be fully certified from the manuscript. I'd send it to serious peer review—the idea is worth examining—but I'd ask for the code, the synthetic-table size, and the missing weights before accepting.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LAB-Tab, a source-aware few-shot tabular generator. It learns a Bayesian network from a source table, uses an LLM to propose target-relevant edges absent from the source graph, combines source CPTs with few-shot target counts under a MAP prior, and then runs PPO to control each edge's activation, magnitude, and polarity using global and local rewards. The adapted BN is sampled to produce a synthetic target table. In six ACS distribution-shift scenarios at a 10% target budget, the paper reports the lowest macro Overall score (0.0916), best macro JSD, WAPE, and UtilityGap, and a 33.8% improvement over the strongest baseline CTGAN. Ablations and budget-sweep experiments support the contribution of the LLM augmentation, PPO calibration, and local reward components.

Significance. The problem is practically relevant, and the proposed combination of a source-anchored BN, LLM structural proposals, and PPO-based edge calibration is novel. The paper is careful in several respects: held-out target records are excluded from policy optimization and configuration selection (App. C.3), five seeds are used, all methods share the same splits, and the appendices provide unusually detailed configuration and ablation information. If the empirical results are confirmed, LAB-Tab would be a useful and inspectable approach to few-shot tabular synthesis. However, the credibility of the headline empirical claim currently rests on the JSD evaluation, whose values are difficult to reconcile with the stated protocol.

major comments (2)

[Appendix B.1, Table 10] The reported JSD values are too small to be explained by sampling noise under the stated protocol. With Eq. (30)-(31) and p_j from D_test^t, the expected JSD for large synthetic samples is approximately sum_j(k_j-1)/(8 n_test). Using Table 4, cov-edu gives about 0.0017 versus the reported 0.0006±0.0002; inc-prsd gives about 0.0108 versus 0.0055±0.0002; mob-sec gives about 0.0051 versus 0.0018±0.0002. Since the synthetic table size N is never stated, the reader cannot rule out that JSD was computed against the adaptation subset rather than held-out data. Please state N, report a null JSD for an independent draw, and confirm the reference table is D_test^t. If the reference is the few-shot subset, the best-JSD claim collapses and the macro Overall must be recomputed.
[4.3, Eq. (21); Appendix C.2] The flip operation changes the sign of the edge log-potential (d_e -> -d_e) but leaves the parent-child direction V_u -> V_v unchanged. Thus the policy cannot reorient a source dependency. If the target shift reverses the direction of a dependency, the only options are weaken or deactivate; the LLM cannot add the reverse edge either, since it would create a cycle with the existing source edge. This asymmetry should be stated explicitly as a limitation. As written, the term 'flip' overstates the adaptability of the framework.

minor comments (5)

[Section 3, Appendix C] The final synthetic table size N used for all metrics is never specified. Please state it explicitly; it is essential for interpreting JSD, WAPE, and UtilityGap.
[Appendix B.3] Coef-Cos is defined with 'real and synthetic target tables', but it is not stated whether the real probe is trained on D_fs^t or D_test^t. Specify which table is used; the sample size difference affects the variance of the coefficient estimates.
[Section 5.1, Table 1] No statistical significance tests are provided for the macro comparisons. The Overall gap over CTGAN is large, but component-level comparisons such as Coef-Cos (LAB-Tab 0.6464 vs. TVAE 0.6919) would benefit from paired tests or effect sizes across the five seeds.
[Section 5.3] The sentence ending 'or they can match target marginals' is grammatically incomplete; please revise.
[Figure 3] The x-axis labels '1 20 40 ... 100' are ambiguous because 1% is not on the same linear scale as the other ticks. Use a log scale or explicit tick labels for the 1% point.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: PPO reward is computed on the few-shot subset; headline metrics are held-out; sole self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

LAB-Tab's claimed derivation chain is not circular. The fitted/optimized quantities are explicitly tied to the few-shot subset: Eq. (22) defines J^(k)=λ_d Dhat_dist^(k)+λ_u ΔUhat^(k)+λ_a ΔAhat^(k), and Section 4.3 states 'All terms compare bD^(k)_t with D^fs_t'; the edge-level reward (Eq. 24) and final configuration selection (App. C.3) also use rollouts versus that same subset. The evaluation metrics are separately defined against held-out data: App. B.1 says 'Let D^test_t denote the held-out real target table and bD_t a synthetic target table. All headline metrics use the same processed variables and are evaluated against D^test_t'; Eqs. (30)-(34) compute JSD, WAPE, UtilityGap, and Coef-Cos on D^test_t. Thus no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction and no evaluation result is fed back into fitting. The only reference with overlapping authors (Chen et al. 2026, cited in the introduction alongside independent LLM tabular-generation work) is not load-bearing; it supports no structural or empirical inference. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known empirical result is merely renamed. The reported JSD magnitudes that are suspiciously small relative to the declared few-shot sizes would, if confirmed, indicate an evaluation-protocol error or budget misstatement—not a derivation that reduces to its inputs—and under the hard rules cannot be scored as circularity without a paper-internal admission of leakage. Score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several hand-chosen hyperparameters and modeling assumptions about BN expressiveness, discretization, LLM proposal quality, and the log-linear edge control parameterization. No new physical or conceptual entity is postulated. The most consequential choices are d_max, kappa, reward weights, and the unspecified lambda weights.

free parameters (9)

d_max (max in-degree) = 4
Hand-chosen bound for BN structure search; controls model capacity.
alpha (BDeu equivalent sample size) = 10
Dirichlet prior strength for source CPT estimation.
kappa (MAP prior concentration) = 1
Concentration of source-informed prior in target MAP recalibration, Eq. (10).
g_min, g_max (edge magnitude bounds) = unspecified
Bounds in edge control, Eq. (12), used but numeric values are not reported.
lambda_d, lambda_u, lambda_a (objective weights) = unspecified
Weights in reward Eq. (22) and objective Eq. (4); numeric values not reported in the paper.
reward weights w_g, w_l = 0.20, 1.00
Global and local reward weights in Eq. (24), Appendix Table 7.
PPO hyperparameters = episodes 150/250, steps 20, lr 3e-4, clip 0.2, entropy schedule 0.02->0.003
Hand-tuned RL settings for regression vs classification scenarios.
discretization bin count = at most 8
Number of quantile bins used for continuous variables, Appendix A.4.
LLM temperature = 0.2
Sampling temperature for gpt-4o edge proposals.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption A Bayesian network over the shared schema V can represent the target distribution Pt after adaptation.
Section 3 formulates the problem as selecting B_star in B(V); this assumes a BN is expressive enough for the target.
domain assumption Continuous variables can be discretized into at most eight bins without losing target-relevant dependencies.
Appendix A.4 states every non-label numerical variable is discretized into at most 8 source-quantile bins.
domain assumption LLM edge proposals based on source and target summaries are plausible target-relevant additions.
Section 4.2 relies on the LLM to propose edges absent from the source graph using summaries; no guarantee that the noise is small enough for PPO to correct.
ad hoc to paper The log-linear edge parameterization in Eq. (13) can express the target CPTs.
Eq. (13) defines a specific softmax parameterization for controlled CPTs; this is a modeling choice introduced by the paper.
domain assumption PPO can calibrate edge controls from K few-shot target records without overfitting.
Section 4.3 assumes the policy and reward can recover target dependencies from a small target subset.
standard math Held-out target test split and fixed predictor configurations provide unbiased estimates of Pt.
Appendix B describes TSTR/TRTR protocols with fixed seeds and fixed predictors; this is a standard evaluation assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LAB-Tab: LLM-Augmented Bayesian Network Adaptation for Few-Shot Tabular Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FFQR4J6E

@misc{pith2026260801879,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LAB-Tab: LLM-Augmented Bayesian Network Adaptation for Few-Shot Tabular Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FFQR4J6E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01879}
}

read the original abstract

Tabular data generation supports analysis and decision-making when target-domain data are scarce, yet collecting complete target samples is often costly. A practical but underexplored setting provides only a few target records together with richer source data from a related domain. Existing few-shot tabular generators often either fit sparse target statistics directly, which can overfit incidental patterns, or reuse source-domain generators, which may preserve dependencies that no longer hold in the target domain. To address this problem, we propose LAB-Tab, an LLM-augmented Bayesian network (BN) adaptation framework for source-aware few-shot tabular generation. LAB-Tab first fits a BN from source data and then uses an LLM to propose plausible target-domain BN edges that are absent from the source BN graph. This step converts semantic and weak statistical evidence into explicit structural hypotheses, thereby expanding the editable edge space beyond the source-fitted graph. Because the proposed edges may be noisy and interact with existing dependencies, a PPO policy calibrates edges in the augmented BN through edge-level actions, including keep, weaken, strengthen, flip, and deactivate. The PPO policy is trained with a reward that combines distributional alignment, downstream utility, and preservation of target-relevant dependencies. The adapted BN is then sampled to synthesize target-domain tables. Across six source--target distribution-shift scenarios built from three US Census (ACS) prediction tasks, LAB-Tab achieves the best performance at the 10% target-data budget, leads four of the six individual scenarios, and reduces the macro Overall score by 33.8% relative to the strongest baseline. It also obtains the best macro JSD, WAPE, and UtilityGap while maintaining competitive feature--label preservation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01879 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Source-aware few-shot tabular generation under distribution shift. A large source table and a small target subset are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Overview of LAB-Tab: source BN learning and Conditional Probability Table (CPT) estimation, LLM-guided edge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Macro Overall as the target-data fraction increases from 1% to 100%. Each method is retrained at every fraction, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Scenario-wise Overall distributions for the abla [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The variants use different reward definitions, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Source and selected target-domain BN configurations for the six shifts. Gray solid and dashed arrows denote source [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Episode-wise edge-control action fractions for the six scenarios. Light traces show episode values, and dark traces [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Episode-return dynamics for LAB-Tab and two policy ablations. Solid curves are 10-episode rolling means, shaded [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 11 linked inside Pith

[6]

AgeEducationMaritalSexRaceRelation ClassOccupationHours Income INC-EDU Resulting BN 𝐵⋆Source BN 𝐵

The variants use different reward definitions, and their final quality is summarized by UtilityGap, Coef–Cos, and Overall in the ablation results. AgeEducationMaritalSexRaceRelation ClassOccupationHours Income INC-PRSD Resulting BN 𝐵⋆Source BN 𝐵" AgeEducationMaritalSexRaceRelation ClassOccupationHours Income INC-EDU Resulting BN 𝐵⋆Source BN 𝐵" COV-TXCA Re...

arXiv 2002
[8]

Schulman, J.; Wolski, F.; Dhariwal, P.; Radford, A.; and Klimov,O.2017

Mathematical Discoveries from Program Search with Large Language Models.Nature, 625(7995): 468–475. Schulman, J.; Wolski, F.; Dhariwal, P.; Radford, A.; and Klimov,O.2017. ProximalPolicyOptimizationAlgorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347. Shi, R.; Wang, Y.; Du, M.; Shen, X.; and Wang, X

arXiv 2017
[9]

Solatorio, A

A Comprehensive Survey of Synthetic Tabular Data Gener- ation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.16506. Solatorio, A. V.; and Dupriez, O

arXiv
[10]

Stoian, M

REaLTabFormer: Generating Realistic Relational and Tabular Data Using Transformers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.02041. Stoian, M. C.; Giunchiglia, E.; and Lukasiewicz, T

arXiv
[11]

Villaizán-Vallelado, M.; Salvatori, M.; Segura, C.; and Ara- pakis, I

A Survey on Tabular Data Generation: Utility, Align- ment, Fidelity, Privacy, and Beyond.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.05954. Villaizán-Vallelado, M.; Salvatori, M.; Segura, C.; and Ara- pakis, I

arXiv
[12]

arXiv:2406.14541

Why LLMs Are Bad at Synthetic Table Generation (and what to do about it). arXiv:2406.14541. Yang,S.;Zhang,Z.;Prenkaj,B.;andKasneci,G.2025. Dou- bling Your Data in Minutes: Ultra-fast Tabular Data Gener- ationviaLLM-InducedDependencyGraphs.arXivpreprint arXiv:2507.19334. Zhang, H.; Zhang, J.; Srinivasan, B.; Shen, Z.; Qin, X.; Faloutsos, C.; Rangwala, H.; ...

arXiv 2025
[13]

Zhang, J.; Cormode, G.; Procopiuc, C

Mixed- Type Tabular Data Synthesis with Score-based Diffusion in Latent Space.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.09656. Zhang, J.; Cormode, G.; Procopiuc, C. M.; Srivastava, D.; and Xiao, X

arXiv
[15]

Zhuang,F.;Qi,Z.;Duan,K.;Xi,D.;Zhu,Y.;Zhu,H.;Xiong, H.; and He, Q

TabuLa: Har- nessingLanguageModelsforTabularDataSynthesis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12746. Zhuang,F.;Qi,Z.;Duan,K.;Xi,D.;Zhu,Y.;Zhu,H.;Xiong, H.; and He, Q

arXiv

Show all 16 references

[140]

TabGen-ICL:Residual-AwareIn-ContextExam- ple Selection for Tabular Data Generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.16414

Fang,L.;Liu,A.;Zhang,H.;Zou,H.P.;Zhang,W.;andYu, P.S.2025. TabGen-ICL:Residual-AwareIn-ContextExam- ple Selection for Tabular Data Generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.16414. Koh, P. W.; Sagawa, S.; Marklund, H.; Xie, S. M.; Zhang, M.;Balsubramani,A.;Hu,W.;Yasunaga,M.;Phillips...

2025 arXiv
[2014]

InProceedings of the 2014 ACM SIG- MOD International Conference on Management of Data, 1423–1434

PrivBayes: Private Data Release via Bayesian Networks. InProceedings of the 2014 ACM SIG- MOD International Conference on Management of Data, 1423–1434. ACM. Zhao, Z.; Birke, R.; and Chen, L. Y

2014
[2016]

In2016 IEEE International Confer- ence on Data Science and Advanced Analytics, 399–410

The Synthetic Data Vault. In2016 IEEE International Confer- ence on Data Science and Advanced Analytics, 399–410. IEEE. Quiñonero-Candela, J.; Sugiyama, M.; Schwaighofer, A.; and Lawrence, N. D., eds. 2009.Dataset Shift in Machine Learning. MIT Press. Romera-Paredes, B.; Barek...

2009
[2019]

Borisov, V.; Sessler, K.; Leemann, T.; Pawelczyk, M.; and Kasneci, G

Differentially Private Release of High- Dimensional Datasets Using the Gaussian Copula.arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.01499. Borisov, V.; Sessler, K.; Leemann, T.; Pawelczyk, M.; and Kasneci, G

1902 arXiv
[2021]

InProceedingsofthe38thInternational Conference on Machine Learning, volume 139 ofProceed- ings of Machine Learning Research, 5637–5664

WILDS: A Benchmark of in-the-Wild DistributionShifts. InProceedingsofthe38thInternational Conference on Machine Learning, volume 139 ofProceed- ings of Machine Learning Research, 5637–5664. Kotelnikov, A.; Baranchuk, D.; Rubachev, I.; and Babenko, A.2023. TabDDPM:ModellingTabu...

2023
[2023]

InThe Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations

Language Models are Realistic Tabular Data Generators. InThe Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations. Challagundla,R.;Dorodchi,M.;Wang,P.;andLee,M.2025. Synthetic Tabular Data Generation: A Comparative Survey for Modern Techniques.arXiv preprint arXiv:250...

2025 arXiv
[2024]

InInternational Conference on Learning Representations

Eureka:Human-LevelRewardDesignviaCodingLargeLan- guage Models. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations. Nguyen,A.;Schafft,S.;Hale,N.;andAlfaro,J.2025. FAST- GEN: Fast and Cost-Effective Synthetic Tabular Data Gen- eration with LLMs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.1583...

2025 arXiv
[2025]

LLM-TabLogic: Preserving Inter-Column Logical Relationships in Synthetic Tabular Data via Prompt-Guided Latent Diffusion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.02161. Ma, Y. J.; Liang, W.; Wang, G.; Huang, D.-A.; Bastani, O.; Jayaraman, D.; Zhu, Y.; Fan, L.; and Anandkumar, A

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [6]

AgeEducationMaritalSexRaceRelation ClassOccupationHours Income INC-EDU Resulting BN 𝐵⋆Source BN 𝐵

The variants use different reward definitions, and their final quality is summarized by UtilityGap, Coef–Cos, and Overall in the ablation results. AgeEducationMaritalSexRaceRelation ClassOccupationHours Income INC-PRSD Resulting BN 𝐵⋆Source BN 𝐵" AgeEducationMaritalSexRaceRelation ClassOccupationHours Income INC-EDU Resulting BN 𝐵⋆Source BN 𝐵" COV-TXCA Re...

arXiv 2002

[2] [8]

Schulman, J.; Wolski, F.; Dhariwal, P.; Radford, A.; and Klimov,O.2017

Mathematical Discoveries from Program Search with Large Language Models.Nature, 625(7995): 468–475. Schulman, J.; Wolski, F.; Dhariwal, P.; Radford, A.; and Klimov,O.2017. ProximalPolicyOptimizationAlgorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347. Shi, R.; Wang, Y.; Du, M.; Shen, X.; and Wang, X

arXiv 2017

[3] [9]

Solatorio, A

A Comprehensive Survey of Synthetic Tabular Data Gener- ation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.16506. Solatorio, A. V.; and Dupriez, O

arXiv

[4] [10]

Stoian, M

REaLTabFormer: Generating Realistic Relational and Tabular Data Using Transformers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.02041. Stoian, M. C.; Giunchiglia, E.; and Lukasiewicz, T

arXiv

[5] [11]

Villaizán-Vallelado, M.; Salvatori, M.; Segura, C.; and Ara- pakis, I

A Survey on Tabular Data Generation: Utility, Align- ment, Fidelity, Privacy, and Beyond.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.05954. Villaizán-Vallelado, M.; Salvatori, M.; Segura, C.; and Ara- pakis, I

arXiv

[6] [12]

arXiv:2406.14541

Why LLMs Are Bad at Synthetic Table Generation (and what to do about it). arXiv:2406.14541. Yang,S.;Zhang,Z.;Prenkaj,B.;andKasneci,G.2025. Dou- bling Your Data in Minutes: Ultra-fast Tabular Data Gener- ationviaLLM-InducedDependencyGraphs.arXivpreprint arXiv:2507.19334. Zhang, H.; Zhang, J.; Srinivasan, B.; Shen, Z.; Qin, X.; Faloutsos, C.; Rangwala, H.; ...

arXiv 2025

[7] [13]

Zhang, J.; Cormode, G.; Procopiuc, C

Mixed- Type Tabular Data Synthesis with Score-based Diffusion in Latent Space.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.09656. Zhang, J.; Cormode, G.; Procopiuc, C. M.; Srivastava, D.; and Xiao, X

arXiv

[8] [15]

Zhuang,F.;Qi,Z.;Duan,K.;Xi,D.;Zhu,Y.;Zhu,H.;Xiong, H.; and He, Q

TabuLa: Har- nessingLanguageModelsforTabularDataSynthesis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12746. Zhuang,F.;Qi,Z.;Duan,K.;Xi,D.;Zhu,Y.;Zhu,H.;Xiong, H.; and He, Q

arXiv