Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 cited by

Exploring LLM Agents for Cleaning Tabular Machine Learning Datasets

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2503.06664 v1 pith:GKDRCX2K submitted 2025-03-09 cs.LG cs.AI

classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords datadatasetscleaningerrorslearningmultipleacrossexperiment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

High-quality, error-free datasets are a key ingredient in building reliable, accurate, and unbiased machine learning (ML) models. However, real world datasets often suffer from errors due to sensor malfunctions, data entry mistakes, or improper data integration across multiple sources that can severely degrade model performance. Detecting and correcting these issues typically require tailor-made solutions and demand extensive domain expertise. Consequently, automation is challenging, rendering the process labor-intensive and tedious. In this study, we investigate whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can help alleviate the burden of manual data cleaning. We set up an experiment in which an LLM, paired with Python, is tasked with cleaning the training dataset to improve the performance of a learning algorithm without having the ability to modify the training pipeline or perform any feature engineering. We run this experiment on multiple Kaggle datasets that have been intentionally corrupted with errors. Our results show that LLMs can identify and correct erroneous entries, such as illogical values or outlier, by leveraging contextual information from other features within the same row, as well as feedback from previous iterations. However, they struggle to detect more complex errors that require understanding data distribution across multiple rows, such as trends and biases.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Ensembling LLM-Induced Decision Trees for Explainable and Robust Error Detection

    cs.CL 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLM-induced hybrid decision trees (rules + trained graph checks) ensembled via EM detect erroneous table cells with an average 16.1-point F1 gain over the best baseline.

  2. Towards Agents That Know When They Don't Know: Uncertainty as a Control Signal for Structured Reasoning

    cs.AI 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An LLM agent using retrieval and summary uncertainty as training rewards and inference filters produces more factual, useful multi-omics summaries and better downstream survival predictions.

  3. Reinforcement Learning for Machine Learning Engineering Agents

    cs.LG 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    RL-trained Qwen2.5-3B outperforms prompted Claude-3.5-Sonnet and GPT-4o on 12 MLEBench tasks by an average of 22% and 24%, using two targeted RL modifications.

  4. Matryoshka Agent: Unfolding Sub-Agents for Long-Horizon Machine Learning Engineering

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Matryoshka Agent’s orchestrator–sub-agent hierarchy plus tree-ranked RL raises MLE-Dojo HumanRank, letting a 4B orchestrator approach o4-mini and giving a 30B coder up to 36.7% relative gain.

  5. A Survey of LLM $\times$ DATA

    cs.DB 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A comprehensive survey of the bidirectional links between LLMs and data management, organized as DATA4LLM and LLM4DATA with a new 'IaaS' data-quality framework.

Pith tools