Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 44 references

The paper claims that tabular understanding can be improved without finetuning by retrieving human-readable lessons the LLM wrote from its own incorrect chain-of-thought answers, and that this reaches state-of-the-art accuracy on WikiTQ and

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

LRTab retrieves error-avoiding prompt conditions learned from incorrect chain-of-thought traces on training tables to improve LLM tabular reasoning, achieving modest gains on WikiTQ and TabFact.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection LRTab's prompt-condition retrieval idea is genuinely new and interpretable, but the SOTA claim and the core effect sit on small, statistically untested margins; worth refereeing with requests for reruns and significance testing. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2508.18676 v1 pith:4TUWPCCL submitted 2025-08-26 cs.LG

Utilizing Training Data to Improve LLM Reasoning for Tabular Understanding

Chufan Gao , Jintai Chen , Jimeng Sun This is my paper
classification cs.LG
keywords tabular reasoningtable question answeringfact verificationchain-of-thought promptingprompt conditionsretrieval-augmented promptingin-context learningerror correction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 proposes LRTab, a prompting-only method that tries to get the dataset-specific benefit of finetuning without touching model weights. It runs chain-of-thought reasoning over labeled training tables; for each wrong answer it asks the LLM to write a short, human-readable 'Prompt Condition' that would have avoided the mistake, and keeps the condition only if it actually fixes that example. At test time, the method retrieves the most relevant conditions for a similar table and reranks them, adding the chosen warnings into the prompt. On WikiTQ and TabFact the authors report state-of-the-art accuracy across multiple base models, including gains on long tables, and they argue the result is interpretable and cheaper than multi-pass prompting baselines. A sympathetic reader would care because it suggests labeled data can steer an LLM's reasoning through retrieval instead of costly finetuning.

Core claim

On its own terms, LRTab shows that a table question-answering and fact-verification LLM can learn from labeled data purely through prompting: for each incorrect training answer, the model is asked to write a Prompt Condition that would have avoided the mistake, and only conditions that demonstrably fix the error become retrievable 'lessons.' At test time, encoding the target table in Markdown, retrieving the most similar training tables' conditions, and reranking them with a cross-encoder trained on validation usefulness yields accuracy exceeding prior methods—76.80% on WikiTQ and 89.74% on TabFact with the cheaper model variant, and 80.02% and 93.38% with the stronger variant. The gain is a

What carries the argument

The central object is the Prompt Condition: a one-sentence, human-readable instruction generated by the same LLM from an incorrect chain of thought and the ground-truth answer, kept only if adding it to the prompt turns that training example's wrong answer into the right one. The retrieval stack carries the argument: a code-embedding model encodes the table plus question in Markdown to find similar tables; a cross-encoder reranker trained on validation usefulness scores conditions by predicted benefit; up to two conditions are injected into the chain-of-thought prompt. This turns the training set into a searchable memory of error-avoidance rules without changing weights.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the premise that a condition that fixes a training error on one table transfers to unseen tables when retrieved by table-text similarity; if conditions are overfit to particular tables or questions, retrieval adds nothing.

What would settle it

Run LRTab on a held-out table set from a different domain with conditions mined from a source domain; if similarity-based retrieval performs no better than random retrieval, the transfer-of-lessons assumption fails. A complementary probe: include unverified prompt conditions alongside verified ones; if accuracy does not drop, the correction-and-verification loop is not the active ingredient.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Table reasoning accuracy can be improved at inference time without updating weights, by injecting verified natural-language warnings retrieved from similar training tables.
  • The method closes part of the gap between finetuning and prompting: it captures dataset-specific error patterns while keeping the flexibility of a frozen general-purpose LLM.
  • Human-readable prompt conditions make the influence of training data auditable per query, since a user can see which retrieved lesson was added to the prompt.
  • More retrievable conditions and more conditions per prompt both improve accuracy, so building larger verified condition banks should yield further gains.
  • The accuracy gains persist on medium and long tables, suggesting the approach helps exactly where table reasoning often fails.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the transfer assumption holds, LRTab's real contribution is not the specific retrieval stack but the correction-and-verify loop: cheap, verified natural-language lessons could be mined once per dataset and reused, so applying it to other structured tasks such as code generation, SQL, or spreadsheet Q&A is the obvious stress test.
  • Because the paper finds that random or unverified conditions do not help, the method's value depends on the quality of the condition bank; a natural extension is generating and pruning conditions without labeled validation data, for example by clustering errors or using self-consistency.
  • The reported long-table advantage suggests that warning-based context may matter more when input is large and models are prone to overlooking aggregation rows; a testable prediction is that gains shrink on very short tables where errors are already rare.
  • The paper leaves open whether the same conditions transfer across datasets; if they do, an amortized public condition bank could make new tabular domains usable with only a handful of labeled examples.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LRTab, a training-free prompting framework for tabular reasoning. In a training phase, LRTab runs code-augmented chain-of-thought prompting over labeled training data; for incorrect answers it asks an LLM to produce a short 'Prompt Condition' describing the mistake, then verifies that the condition fixes that same training example. Correctly reasoned examples and verified conditions are stored. At inference, table embeddings retrieve similar examples and conditions, and a cross-encoder reranker trained on validation labels selects the most useful conditions for the prompt. The authors report state-of-the-art results on WikiTQ and TabFact with GPT-4o-mini/GPT-4o and several open models, and provide ablations on coding, retrieval, prompt-condition count, and table length.

Significance. The core idea is clean and practically attractive: it converts training-set errors into human-readable, test-time prompt guidance without updating model weights. The paper includes useful ablations (coding vs direct vs flexible prompting; retrieval-model choice; scaling the number of conditions), a cost analysis, and a full prompt appendix, all of which support reproducibility. If the reported gains are real, this would be a solid advance for table-based QA and fact verification. At present, however, the empirical evidence is not sufficient to certify the SOTA claim: key margins in Table 2 are small and partly compared against unreproduced baselines, the central ablation is not statistically grounded, and the FeTaQA appendix shows the method is not uniformly superior on a third benchmark.

major comments (3)
  1. [Table 2 / Section 5] The headline SOTA claim is not supported by statistically controlled comparisons. On TabFact with GPT-4o-mini, LRTab scores 89.74 against H-STAR's 89.42*, a difference of 0.32 points. With n=2,024 and p≈0.90, the standard error is about 0.67 points, so the gap is within sampling noise. On WikiTQ the 1.87-point gap is larger, but H-STAR is marked as taken from the original paper, not re-run under identical prompting and parsing conditions. Please report confidence intervals or bootstrap significance tests, and either re-run the starred baselines in the same harness or explicitly soften the SOTA wording.
  2. [Table 6 / Section 5] The core ablation claiming that similarity-based prompt-condition retrieval helps is also statistically weak. The comparison is performed on a 500-sample subset, as stated later in Section 5. On WikiTQ with GPT-4o-mini, the difference between None (73.86%) and Similarity-based (75.84%) is 1.98 points, against a standard error of roughly 2 points for this subset size. The same applies to several rows in Table 4. No repeated-seed, paired-test, or confidence-interval information is given. Please add McNemar tests or bootstrap intervals for these ablations, or report the full test set for the main retrieval claim.
  3. [Section 3.1, Algorithm 1, Limitations] Prompt Conditions are generated by showing the LLM the ground-truth answer on a training error and kept when they fix that same example. The authors correctly note in the Limitations that overfitting is a concern, but the point is load-bearing: the method's value depends on conditions transferring to unseen questions. The validation step only evaluates whether retrieved conditions help on validation inputs; it does not measure whether a condition generalizes to other examples. Please add a direct transfer analysis, e.g., for each condition, apply it to held-out training examples with similar table/error profiles and report the fraction that are corrected. Without such evidence, the reported gains may be attributed to memorized hints rather than generalizable correction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5 / Figure 3] The paragraph 'Encoders and Rerankers' says 'Table 3 shows...' but appears to refer to Figure 3; also 'T abFact' is misspelled in the figure axis.
  2. [Section 3.2] The URL for the embedding model is malformed: 'https://huggingface.co/https://huggingface.co/Salesforce/SFR-Embedding-Code-400M_R'.
  3. [Section 5 / Appendix E] FeTaQA is only reported in Appendix E and the results there (Table 11) do not show LRTab at the top. The main text should state that the SOTA claim is scoped to WikiTQ and TabFact, and explain the FeTaQA omission in the main text rather than only in the appendix.
  4. [Section 3.2 / Appendix A.1] The reranker is trained on 500 validation samples; please state the number of positives/negatives obtained from the 'usefulness' labeling and clarify whether the same 500 samples are used for both tuning and evaluation in the ablations.
  5. [General] Minor typos: 'Appendex D' should be 'Appendix D'; the conclusion's 'state-of-the-art' should be tightened to 'state-of-the-art among evaluated prompting baselines on WikiTQ and TabFact' until the statistical issues are addressed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: LRTab's prompt-condition pipeline is an empirical retrieval method; the self-consistency filter on training examples is an overfitting risk, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation is an empirical pipeline rather than a formal derivation in which an output is equated with an input. Prompt conditions are generated from incorrect training CoTs using the ground-truth answer, but the correction prompt explicitly instructs the LLM not to refer to that answer in the condition ('Do not refer to this specific answer in the condition.'), and the paper reports that conditions are general instructions such as 'Ensure that processing of "totals" is accounted for.' The condition is then checked on the same training example to see whether it fixes the error (Algorithm 1, lines 5-9); this is a self-consistency filter, which creates a risk of overfitting to training examples, not a circularity that forces the test-time prediction. At inference, conditions are retrieved by table similarity and a reranker trained on validation usefulness labels; no test labels are used, and no equation reduces the test accuracy to the training inputs. The paper invokes no load-bearing self-citations and no uniqueness theorem; related work is cited from independent sources. Concerns about small accuracy margins, unreproduced baselines, and possible overfitting are legitimate empirical/correctness risks, but they do not make the derivation circular. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

The method rests on a few domain assumptions about LLM capabilities, embedding quality, and the transferability of validation-trained rerankers. The main invented construct is the Prompt Condition, which is not externally validated. The free parameters are mostly hand-set hyperparameters, but the training sample size and retrieval count directly control the method's performance.

free parameters (5)
  • training_sample_size = ~3000
    Number of training examples used to generate prompt conditions; chosen due to budget, but Figure 4 shows performance scales with it. Affects the pool of conditions.
  • num_retrieved_conditions_k = 2
    Number of prompt conditions added to the inference prompt; set to avoid token length errors, not optimized.
  • num_retrieved_examples = 1
    Number of CoT examples added to the prompt; set to prevent token length errors.
  • reranker_epochs = 1
    Cross-encoder trained for 1 epoch at lr=2e-5 on validation labels; a training hyperparameter.
  • retrieval_pool_k = 8
    Number of prompt conditions retrieved before reranking at test time; chosen by hand.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption LLM can execute Python code and reason over markdown-formatted tables accurately.
    The entire method relies on the LLM agent's code execution and reasoning; prompts in Appendix G assume this capability.
  • domain assumption SFR-Embedding text similarity on markdown table plus question is a valid measure of task relevance for retrieving conditions.
    Retrieval in Section 3.2 uses this embedding; if similarity is irrelevant, retrieved conditions are useless.
  • domain assumption Validation data labels can train a cross-encoder to predict which conditions help at test time.
    The reranker is trained on validation usefulness labels, Section 3.2; assumes this transfers to test distribution.
  • ad hoc to paper Prompting an LLM to produce a condition from the correct answer yields a generalizable correction rather than a memorized hint.
    This is the core creative step of the paper; the condition is validated on the same sample it came from, so generalization to new samples is assumed.
invented entities (1)
  • Prompt Condition no independent evidence
    purpose: A short human-readable instruction generated from incorrect chain-of-thought traces to prevent similar errors on future tables.
    The paper itself defines this construct and provides evidence of its usefulness only in its own experiments. No external corroboration or falsifiable handle exists outside this work.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Utilizing Training Data to Improve LLM Reasoning for Tabular Understanding." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4TUWPCCL

@misc{pith2026250818676,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Utilizing Training Data to Improve LLM Reasoning for Tabular Understanding},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4TUWPCCL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.18676}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Automated tabular understanding and reasoning are essential tasks for data scientists. Recently, Large language models (LLMs) have become increasingly prevalent in tabular reasoning tasks. Previous work focuses on (1) finetuning LLMs using labeled data or (2) Training-free prompting LLM agents using chain-of-thought (CoT). Finetuning offers dataset-specific learning at the cost of generalizability. Training-free prompting is highly generalizable but does not take full advantage of training data. In this paper, we propose a novel prompting-based reasoning approach, Learn then Retrieve: LRTab, which integrates the benefits of both by retrieving relevant information learned from training data. We first use prompting to obtain CoT responses over the training data. For incorrect CoTs, we prompt the LLM to predict Prompt Conditions to avoid the error, learning insights from the data. We validate the effectiveness of Prompt Conditions using validation data. Finally, at inference time, we retrieve the most relevant Prompt Conditions for additional context for table understanding. We provide comprehensive experiments on WikiTQ and Tabfact, showing that LRTab is interpretable, cost-efficient, and can outperform previous baselines in tabular reasoning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.18676 by Chufan Gao, Jimeng Sun, Jintai Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of LRTab vs traditional tabular un￾derstanding methods. Traditional table understanding does not take advantage of the insights of training data, and any edge cases have to be anticipated. LRTab uses LLMs to generate prompt conditions to address training errors. LRTab also learns to retrieve and rerank these prompt conditions for inference. in large language models (LLMs) have shown po￾tential in … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: LRTab Training, Validation, and Test inference process. Step 1: LRTab on Training Data details the “training” phase where the model generates Chain-of-Thoughts (CoTs) for training examples. For incorrect CoTs, the LLM is prompted to generate and verify Prompt Conditions to correct the error, with both successful CoTs and conditions being stored for later retrieval. Step 2: LRTab on Validation Data outlines… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Ablation on varying text similarity models for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Scaling experiments. Left: The number of available prompt conditions to retrieve over. Right: The number of prompt conditions we retrieve per datapoint and add to the prompt. LRTab Retrieval Scaling Ablations We demon￾strate experiments on scaling varying aspects of the retrieval mechanism, shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: We obtain CoT Examples that are initially [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: WikiTQ Direct Prompting You are working with a pandas dataframe in Python. The name of the dataframe is ‘df‘. You may **optionally** use python code to transform the table to answer the question. - All cells in the table should be considered as ‘object‘ data type, regardless of their appearance. [CONDITION] Related example: [EXAMPLE] Strictly follow the given format to respond: Thought: Reason step by step… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: WikiTQ Code-Enabled Agent 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: WikiTQ Correction You are an advanced AI capable of analyzing and understanding information within tables. Related example: [EXAMPLE] [CONDITION] Read the table below regarding "[TITLE]". [TABLE] Based on the given table, check whether the following statement is true or false: [STATEMENT] Let’s think step by step, and then give the final answer. Ensure the final answer is the following JSON format: ```json… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: TabFact Direct Prompting 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: TabFact Code-Enabled Agent You are an advanced AI capable of analyzing and understanding information within tables. Your task to provide a prompt condition that could have avoided the error in the previous COT. You are provided with a table regarding "[TITLE]". [TABLE] Statement to fact-check: [STATEMENT] Previous COT: You are given a previous, incorrect chain of thought for the table fact-checking task C… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: TabFact Correction 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FeTaQA Direct Prompting You are working with a pandas dataframe in Python. The name of the dataframe is ‘df‘. You may **optionally** use python code to transform the table to answer the question. - All cells in the table should be considered as ‘object‘ data type, regardless of their appearance. - Example Response Style: "Thompson prevailed in the 1982 Illinois gubernatorial election by a 5,074 vote margi… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FeTaQA Code-Enabled Agent 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FeTaQA Correction 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Full Example 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_15.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Nikhil Abhyankar, Vivek Gupta, Dan Roth, and Chandan K Reddy. 2024. H-star: Llm-driven hybrid sql-text adaptive reasoning on tables. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.05952

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Rishabh Agarwal, Avi Singh, Lei M Zhang, Bernd Bohnet, Stephanie Chan, Ankesh Anand, Zaheer Abbas, Azade Nova, John D Co-Reyes, Eric Chu, et al. 2024. Many-shot in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Akari Asai, Zeqiu Wu, Yizhong Wang, Avirup Sil, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023. Self-rag: Learning to retrieve, generate, and critique through self-reflection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11511

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Cafarella, Alon Halevy, Daisy Zhe Wang, Eugene Wu, and Yang Zhang

    Michael J. Cafarella, Alon Halevy, Daisy Zhe Wang, Eugene Wu, and Yang Zhang. 2008. https://doi.org/10.14778/1453856.1453916 Webtables: Exploring the power of tables on the web . Proc. VLDB Endow., 1(1):538–549

    arXiv 2008

  5. [5]

    Wenhu Chen. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.findings-eacl.83 Large language models are few(1)-shot table reasoners . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2023, pages 1120--1130, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics

    doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-eacl.83 2023

  6. [6]

    Wenhu Chen, Hongmin Wang, Jianshu Chen, Yunkai Zhang, Hong Wang, Shiyang Li, Xiyou Zhou, and William Yang Wang. 2019. Tabfact: A large-scale dataset for table-based fact verification. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Yongchao Chen, Harsh Jhamtani, Srinagesh Sharma, Chuchu Fan, and Chi Wang. 2024. Steering large language models between code execution and textual reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.03524

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Zhoujun Cheng, Tianbao Xie, Peng Shi, Chengzu Li, Rahul Nadkarni, Yushi Hu, Caiming Xiong, Dragomir Radev, Mari Ostendorf, Luke Zettlemoyer, et al. 2022. Binding language models in symbolic languages. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    Julian Eisenschlos, Syrine Krichene, and Thomas M \"u ller. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.27 Understanding tables with intermediate pre-training . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 281--296, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.27 2020

  10. [10]

    Tao Feng, Pengrui Han, Guanyu Lin, Ge Liu, and Jiaxuan You. 2024. Thought-retriever: Don’t just retrieve raw data, retrieve thoughts. In ICLR 2024 Workshop: How Far Are We From AGI

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    Zihui Gu, Ju Fan, Nan Tang, Preslav Nakov, Xiaoman Zhao, and Xiaoyong Du. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.331 PASTA : Table-operations aware fact verification via sentence-table cloze pre-training . In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4971--4983, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.331 2022

  12. [12]

    Caglar Gulcehre, Tom Le Paine, Srivatsan Srinivasan, Ksenia Konyushkova, Lotte Weerts, Abhishek Sharma, Aditya Siddhant, Alex Ahern, Miaosen Wang, Chenjie Gu, et al. 2023. Reinforced self-training (rest) for language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08998

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    Pengcheng He, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.09543 Debertav3: Improving deberta using electra-style pre-training with gradient-disentangled embedding sharing . Preprint, arXiv:2111.09543

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    Jonathan Herzig, Pawel Krzysztof Nowak, Thomas M \"u ller, Francesco Piccinno, and Julian Eisenschlos. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.398 T a P as: Weakly supervised table parsing via pre-training . In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4320--4333, Online. Association for Computa...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.398 2020

  15. [15]

    Cheng-Yu Hsieh, Chun-Liang Li, Chih-kuan Yeh, Hootan Nakhost, Yasuhisa Fujii, Alex Ratner, Ranjay Krishna, Chen-Yu Lee, and Tomas Pfister. 2023. Distilling step-by-step! outperforming larger language models with less training data and smaller model sizes. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023. Association for Computational...

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    Jie Huang, Xinyun Chen, Swaroop Mishra, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Adams Wei Yu, Xinying Song, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Large language models cannot self-correct reasoning yet. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01798

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    Jinhao Jiang, Kun Zhou, Zican Dong, Keming Ye, Wayne Xin Zhao, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2023. Structgpt: A general framework for large language model to reason over structured data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.09645

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    Zhengbao Jiang, Yi Mao, Pengcheng He, Graham Neubig, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.68 O mni T ab: Pretraining with natural and synthetic data for few-shot table-based question answering . In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.68 2022

  19. [19]

    Nengzheng Jin, Joanna Siebert, Dongfang Li, and Qingcai Chen. 2022. A survey on table question answering: recent advances. In China Conference on Knowledge Graph and Semantic Computing, pages 174--186. Springer

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Peng Li, Yeye He, Dror Yashar, Weiwei Cui, Song Ge, Haidong Zhang, Danielle Rifinski Fainman, Dongmei Zhang, and Surajit Chaudhuri. 2023. Table-gpt: Table-tuned gpt for diverse table tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.09263

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    Xiaonan Li and Xipeng Qiu. 2023. Mot: Memory-of-thought enables chatgpt to self-improve. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6354--6374

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    Qian Liu, Bei Chen, Jiaqi Guo, Morteza Ziyadi, Zeqi Lin, Weizhu Chen, and Jian-Guang Lou. 2021. TAPEX : Table pre-training via learning a neural sql executor. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    Tianyang Liu, Fei Wang, and Muhao Chen. 2023. Rethinking tabular data understanding with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.16702

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Ye Liu, Rui Meng, Shafiq Jot, Silvio Savarese, Caiming Xiong, Yingbo Zhou, and Semih Yavuz. 2024. Codexembed: A generalist embedding model family for multiligual and multi-task code retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.12644

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Linyong Nan, Chiachun Hsieh, Ziming Mao, Xi Victoria Lin, Neha Verma, Rui Zhang, Wojciech Kry \'s ci \'n ski, Hailey Schoelkopf, Riley Kong, Xiangru Tang, Mutethia Mutuma, Ben Rosand, Isabel Trindade, Renusree Bandaru, Jacob Cunningham, Caiming Xiong, Dragomir Radev, and Dragomir Radev. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl\_a\_00446 F e T a QA : Free-form t...

    doi:10.1162/tacl 2022

  26. [26]

    Panupong Pasupat and Percy Liang. 2015. https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/P15-1142 Compositional semantic parsing on semi-structured tables . In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1470--1480, Beijing, China...

    doi:10.3115/v1/p15-1142 2015

  27. [27]

    Sohan Patnaik, Heril Changwal, Milan Aggarwal, Sumita Bhatia, Yaman Kumar, and Balaji Krishnamurthy. 2024. Cabinet: Content relevance based noise reduction for table question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01155

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Mohammadreza Pourreza and Davood Rafiei. 2024. Din-sql: Decomposed in-context learning of text-to-sql with self-correction. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. 2024. Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    2024

  30. [30]

    Avi Singh, John D Co-Reyes, Rishabh Agarwal, Ankesh Anand, Piyush Patil, Peter J Liu, James Harrison, Jaehoon Lee, Kelvin Xu, Aaron Parisi, et al. 2023. Beyond human data: Scaling self-training for problem-solving with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.06585

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    Zhiruo Wang, Haoyu Dong, Ran Jia, Jia Li, Zhiyi Fu, Shi Han, and Dongmei Zhang. 2021. TUTA : Tree-based transformers for generally structured table pre-training. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 1780--1790

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    Zilong Wang, Hao Zhang, Chun-Liang Li, Julian Martin Eisenschlos, Vincent Perot, Zifeng Wang, Lesly Miculicich, Yasuhisa Fujii, Jingbo Shang, Chen-Yu Lee, et al. 2024. Chain-of-table: Evolving tables in the reasoning chain for table understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04398

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    Zirui Wu and Yansong Feng. 2024. Protrix: building models for planning and reasoning over tables with sentence context. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.02177

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Tianbao Xie, Chen Henry Wu, Peng Shi, Ruiqi Zhong, Torsten Scholak, Michihiro Yasunaga, Chien-Sheng Wu, Ming Zhong, Pengcheng Yin, Sida I Wang, et al. 2022. Unifiedskg: Unifying and multi-tasking structured knowledge grounding with text-to-text language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.05966

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  35. [35]

    Shi-Qi Yan, Jia-Chen Gu, Yun Zhu, and Zhen-Hua Ling. 2024. Corrective retrieval augmented generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.15884

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Yazheng Yang, Yuqi Wang, Guang Liu, Ledell Wu, and Qi Liu. 2023. Unitabe: Pretraining a unified tabular encoder for heterogeneous tabular data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09249

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  37. [37]

    Yunhu Ye, Binyuan Hui, Min Yang, Binhua Li, Fei Huang, and Yongbin Li. 2023. Large language models are versatile decomposers: Decompose evidence and questions for table-based reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.13808

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    differentiation

    Mert Yuksekgonul, Federico Bianchi, Joseph Boen, Sheng Liu, Zhi Huang, Carlos Guestrin, and James Zou. 2024. Textgrad: Automatic" differentiation" via text. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07496

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    Liangyu Zha, Junlin Zhou, Liyao Li, Rui Wang, Qingyi Huang, Saisai Yang, Jing Yuan, Changbao Su, Xiang Li, Aofeng Su, et al. 2023. Tablegpt: Towards unifying tables, nature language and commands into one gpt. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.08674

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  40. [40]

    Tianshu Zhang, Xiang Yue, Yifei Li, and Huan Sun. 2023 a . Tablellama: Towards open large generalist models for tables. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09206

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    Yunjia Zhang, Jordan Henkel, Avrilia Floratou, Joyce Cahoon, Shaleen Deep, and Jignesh M Patel. 2023 b . Reactable: enhancing react for table question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.00815

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    Yilun Zhao, Linyong Nan, Zhenting Qi, Rui Zhang, and Dragomir Radev. 2022. Reastap: Injecting table reasoning skills during pre-training via synthetic reasoning examples. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.12374

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  43. [43]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRING...

  44. [44]

    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...

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.