Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Monte Carlo Tree Search for Table-to-Multimodal Report Generation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Table-to-report generation is better as a search problem than a fixed pipeline.

desk verdict Plausible MCTS framework and new benchmark, but the headline SOTA gain is unverified until the evaluation is tightened. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04071 v1 pith:L5D57VEI submitted 2026-08-04 cs.AI

Teng Lin , Zhiyang Zhang , Yuyu Luo , Nan Tang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords MonteCarloTreeSearchmultimodalreportgenerationtable-to-reportself-supervisedrewardchart-textalignmentLLM-as-a-judgedataanalysisagentsMMRBench
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 tries to establish that professional multimodal reports from structured tables should be built by search, not by a fixed linear pipeline. It proposes MCTS-Report, which treats a report as a path through a tree of atomic construction actions and uses a single LLM to choose and execute those actions, guided by a reward that verifies numbers against the source tables. On the paper's new MMRBench benchmark, this raises the best baseline score from 62.7 to 77.9 overall, with chart-text alignment nearly matching human experts. A sympathetic reader would care because the result suggests that accuracy and cross-modal consistency in data journalism and business reporting can be improved without hand-crafting multi-agent systems.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the search tree of partial reports: the root is an empty report skeleton, edges are atomic actions (chapter planning, visualization task identification, chart generation, chart modification, insight organization, chapter summary, title optimization, narrative flow, transition design, termination), and each path is a complete report. MCTS explores this tree with UCT selection, LLM-driven expansion and simulation, and backpropagation of a self-supervised reward. That reward is the load-bearing mechanism: SQL checks verify numerical claims, a completeness check enforces chapter structure, chart checks test executable code and data fidelity via OCR, and a cosine-similarity template bank penalizes trivial insights. Because the reward is computed from the tables and rules rather than from a judge model, the search can optimize factual fidelity during generation.

What would settle it

Re-score the 50 human-scored tasks with an independent judge or human panel and compare with GPT-4o scores; if the correlation is weak, or if a different judge shrinks or reverses the +15.2 point lead over DeepSeek-R1, the central claim is an evaluation artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that reformulating table-to-report generation as Monte Carlo Tree Search over partial report states, with one LLM generating actions and a self-supervised reward scoring completed drafts, jointly improves factual accuracy, visual quality, and narrative coherence. On MMRBench, MCTS-Report using DeepSeek-R1 reaches an overall score of 77.9, compared with 62.7 for the strongest baseline, and its chart-text alignment of 88.7 approaches the human expert score of 89.5. Ablations attribute 13.4 points to the search itself and 10.6 points to reward-guided selection. The paper also finds that novelty remains a bottleneck, with 61.3 versus the human 88.5.

Load-bearing premise

The entire scoreboard depends on GPT-4o as the judge, and the paper reports human scores on only 50 tasks without showing that judge and human rankings agree.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • MCTS improves every base model it is applied to, so search-based planning can be layered on existing report generators without retraining them.
  • SQL-based fact verification during search cuts numerical hallucination in sampled errors from 38.5% for the best baseline to 24.6%.
  • Chart-text alignment reaches 88.7, close to the human 89.5, showing cross-modal consistency is largely a search problem.
  • Increasing search depth from 5 to 10 rollouts raises the overall score from 70.4 to 77.9, so more exploration keeps paying.
  • Insight novelty remains the weakest dimension (61.3 vs. 88.5 human), so original analysis, not fact checking, is the next frontier.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper's GPT-4o variant is generated by GPT-4o and judged by GPT-4o, part of the reported gain may be judge self-preference; a multi-judge or human re-scoring of the same outputs is the natural test (an inference, not a paper claim).
  • The framework implies a compute-quality tradeoff: richer reward signals, such as cross-table join checks or semantic novelty scoring, could further reduce multi-table confusion and paraphrase insights beyond the levels reported here.
  • Search trajectories produced by MCTS could be distilled into a single-pass generator, potentially delivering search-level accuracy at inference cost closer to direct generation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MCTS-Report, a Monte Carlo Tree Search framework that reformulates table-to-multimodal report generation as a structured search process over atomic actions (chapter planning, visualization, chart generation, insight writing, refinement). A single LLM serves as the action-generation engine, and a self-supervised reward combining SQL-verified fact accuracy, structural completeness, chart quality via OCR-based data fidelity, and a novelty penalty guides the search. The authors also introduce MMRBench, a bilingual benchmark of 185 tables and 386 queries with expert-refined reference reports and keypoints. On MMRBench, evaluated by a GPT-4o judge, MCTS-Report over DeepSeek-R1 achieves an overall score of 77.9, surpassing the best baseline (62.7) by 15.2 points and approaching human-level chart-text alignment (88.7 vs. 89.5). Ablations attribute gains to MCTS planning, the self-supervised reward, and the number of rollouts.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the paper makes a useful conceptual contribution: it demonstrates that a single LLM with MCTS-style search and self-supervised rewards can improve factual reliability and cross-modal coherence in a task where linear pipelines dominate. The SQL-based fact verification and the separation between internal search guidance and external evaluation are principled strengths, and MMRBench could be a valuable resource for the community. However, the central claim—the +15.2 SOTA gain and the near-human alignment score—rests entirely on a single unvalidated LLM judge. No human-correlation analysis, confidence intervals, or significance tests are provided, and the evaluation lacks a critical best-of-N control that would isolate the contribution of tree search from the mere effect of sampling multiple rollouts. The internal benchmark statistics also contain inconsistencies. These issues must be resolved before the headline result can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Evaluation Protocol / Table 4] The central empirical claim (77.9 vs. 62.7, +15.2) is measured exclusively by GPT-4o as a single LLM judge over four dimensions. The paper reports a human baseline on 50 tasks but never reports the correlation between the GPT-4o judge and human ratings, nor does it provide inter-judge agreement, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Given the paper's own acknowledgement that LLM-as-a-judge is vulnerable to reward hacking (Introduction), the absence of any validation of the judge is load-bearing. Please add (a) judge–human correlation on the 50-task subset (and ideally on more tasks), (b) a second judge or permutation-based significance testing, and (c) variance over independent runs or bootstrapped CIs. Without these, the +15.2 improvement may reflect judge self-preference—particularly for MCTS-Report (GPT-4o), where generator and judge share a model family.
  2. [Experiments / Ablation Studies (Figure 2)] The paper lacks a best-of-N or sample-then-rank baseline, which is essential for isolating the contribution of MCTS. MCTS-Report performs N=10 rollouts and (presumably) selects the best report according to the self-supervised reward; Variant A is a single rollout, and Variant C uses 5 rollouts. The reported gains could therefore stem from selecting the maximum of N samples rather than from tree-structure-aware search. Please include a control that draws N independent samples with the same LLM and selects the one with the highest self-supervised reward (without any tree, UCT, or backpropagation). This control is necessary to support the claim in Finding 1 that 'MCTS-guided search consistently boosts performance across all base models.'
  3. [MMRBench Construction / Table 3] The benchmark statistics are internally inconsistent. The text states '79 tables are in English and 131 are in Chinese' for a total of 185 tables, but 79+131=210. Table 3 reports 'Average tasks per table 1.84', but 386 queries divided by 185 tables equals approximately 2.09. Also, 'Average cells per table 420,000' appears implausibly high for the described real-world tables and is not reconciled with the later statement that 38 tables are 'Extremely large tables (>50K cells)'. These inconsistencies undermine confidence in the curation and reliability of the benchmark. Please correct the numbers and explain any discrepancy between the stated totals and the sum of the stated subsets.
  4. [Phase 3: Simulation / Final Report Selection] The paper does not specify how the final report is selected after the N=10 MCTS rollouts, nor how the rollout-based 'fast policy' interacts with the reward used to rank reports. This is needed to understand whether the headline numbers are the result of a single run or a selection among rollouts. Additionally, the reward function's r_vis relies on 'OCR + parsing' of rendered charts and r_novel on a cosine-similarity threshold against a template bank; neither component is validated for reliability, and both are used to backpropagate search guidance. If the final report is the argmax of this composite reward, then the evaluation is indirectly optimizing the same (unvalidated) proxy. Please state the selection rule explicitly and, if possible, report the correlation between the self-supervised reward and the GPT-4o judge scores.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract / Conclusion] The abstract says 'MCTS-Report significantly outperforms strong baselines,' but no significance tests are reported anywhere; please temper the wording or add statistical support.
  2. [Table 2] The transition constraints table uses '-' for the root's valid next action; 'a1' appears to be the only valid action. Consider making the root row explicit with 'a1' rather than '-' for clarity.
  3. [Figure 2] The ablation results are reported only in a figure; please include the numerical values in a table so that exact scores and differences can be verified against the text.
  4. [References] A few references lack author names or venue details (e.g., the 'Gemini Deep Research' and 'Qwen3-VL-235B' entries), and the formatting of the 'GPT-4 Technical Report' citation is inconsistent with the rest of the bibliography.
  5. [Page 1 (header)] The manuscript text contains several missing spaces and word-joining artifacts (e.g., 'comprisingbothtextualanalysisandvisualchartsfromstruc-turedtablardata'), which hinder readability; a careful proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No derivation-circularity found; the headline result is an empirical benchmark claim, and no fitted parameter or self-citation chain forces the reported scores.

full rationale

The paper contains no derivation chain of the sort the circularity test targets: MCTS-Report is an empirical search/generation system evaluated on a newly constructed benchmark, so there is no equation whose output is its input by construction. The reported +15.2 improvement (77.9 vs 62.7) is a measured score from Table 4, not a derived consequence of a fitted parameter. I checked the main self-referential mechanisms. (1) The self-supervised reward (Eq. 2) uses SQL fact checking, structural rules, chart checks, and a cosine novelty template; these are optimization signals for MCTS, while benchmark scores come from a separate GPT-4o judge under the paper's stated 'strict separation principle' (Evaluation Protocol). No equation makes the judge score equal to the reward, and the two are not statistically forced to coincide. (2) MMRBench is author-constructed, but that affects external validity rather than derivation circularity; the paper itself acknowledges LLM-as-a-judge reward-hacking risks in the Related Work section, and for MCTS-Report (GPT-4o) the generator and judge are the same model family. This is a real evaluation-validity concern that should be pursued with human-correlation and calibration data, but it is not the circularity pattern of 'fitted input renamed as prediction' or 'uniqueness imported from authors.' (3) Self-citations (e.g., Lin et al. 2026, MEBench, SRAG) appear in related-work and motivation but are not load-bearing for the 77.9 score; no uniqueness theorem or prior result is invoked to forbid alternatives. (4) Report structure and action space are design choices, not disguised restatements of the output. The paper also contains benchmark-statistic inconsistencies (79+131 does not equal 185 stated tables; 386 tasks / 185 tables is about 2.09, not the stated 1.84), which undermine curation confidence, but arithmetic inconsistency is not circularity. Overall, no circular step can be exhibited with equation-level reduction, so the circularity score is 0; the LLM-judge self-preference and benchmark validity issues belong in a correctness/verification review, not the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a small set of hand-set hyperparameters, standard MCTS assumptions, and strong domain assumptions about SQL verification, OCR chart checking, and the validity of a single LLM judge. The benchmark statistics contain internal arithmetic inconsistencies, and the judge assumption is unvalidated, which makes the empirical claims fragile.

free parameters (7)
  • UCT exploration constant c = 1.414
    Chosen by hand in the UCT selection formula (Equation 1); standard MCTS value, but no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • Number of expansion samples k = 3
    LLM samples k=3 candidates per legal action during Expansion, with T_expansion=0.8; no study of the effect of k.
  • Number of MCTS rollouts N = 10
    Ablation shows 5 rollouts yields 70.4 overall vs 77.9 for 10, indicating the result depends on this budget.
  • Simulation temperature T_sim = 0.3
    Used during fast rollout drafting to reduce cost; effect on quality is not analyzed.
  • Fact tolerance = 1%
    Both r_fact and r_vis allow claims/data to match source within 1%; threshold chosen without justification.
  • Novelty similarity threshold = 0.7
    r_novel counts insights as novel when cosine similarity to the template bank is below 0.7; threshold is hand-set.
  • Reward weights = implicitly 1 each
    The paper calls r a weighted sum but presents r = r_fact + r_struct + r_vis + r_novel with no explicit weights.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math UCT selection is consistent for finite-horizon Markov decision processes with stationary rewards.
    Invoked in Phase 1 (Selection) without proof; standard MCTS guarantee.
  • domain assumption Numerical claims in generated text can be automatically translated into executable SQL queries against source tables.
    r_fact depends on SQL verification; the paper does not report SQL generation success or parse failure rates.
  • domain assumption OCR and parsing of rendered chart pixels recover plotted data with sufficient accuracy for a 1% fidelity check.
    r_vis depends on this; no validation of the OCR pipeline is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper GPT-4o used as a single judge produces scores that reflect true report quality for structure, numerical accuracy, alignment, and novelty.
    This is the evaluation protocol; no correlation with human ratings is reported despite a 50-task human baseline.
  • domain assumption The MMRBench tables and expert-refined reference reports are representative and unbiased enough to support claim of general improvement.
    Benchmark tables have internal inconsistencies (79 English + 131 Chinese vs 185 total), undermining representativeness.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Monte Carlo Tree Search for Table-to-Multimodal Report Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L5D57VEI

@misc{pith2026260804071,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Monte Carlo Tree Search for Table-to-Multimodal Report Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L5D57VEI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04071}
}
read the original abstract

Automatically generating professional multimodal reports comprising both textual analysis and visual charts from structured tabular data is a critical challenge in data intelligence. Existing methods suffer from fixed linear pipelines and isolated subtask processing, which hinder joint optimization of factual accuracy, visual quality, and narrative coherence. To address these issues, this paper proposes MCTS-Report, a Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS)-driven framework that formulates multimodal table-to-report generation as a progressive construction process over a structured search space. The core idea is to decompose report generation into atomic actions, including chapter planning, visualization task identification, chart generation, insight organization, and narrative refinement, each executed by an LLM based on dynamic reasoning conditioned on the current report state. We use an LLM to generate step-by-step reasoning and actions during MCTS, storing the reasoning trajectory in each node for context-aware, coherent report construction. To guide the search, we design a multi-dimensional reward function that jointly evaluates numerical fact consistency (via SQL), chart quality, chart-text alignment, and structural completeness, while incorporating a diversity penalty to suppress repeated charts and a precondition check to prune invalid actions. We also construct MMRBench, a comprehensive benchmark comprising real-world tables from six domains, paired with expert-refined reference report structures and verifiable key insights. Experiments on MMRBench demonstrate that MCTS-Report significantly outperforms strong baselines across structural completeness, numerical accuracy, chart-text alignment, and insight novelty, achieving a 77.9 overall score.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04071 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The pipeline of MCTS-Report. Overview, Data Overview, Core Analysis, Conclusions and Recommendations). The visual component Rvis consists of one or more generated charts (e.g., bar charts, line plots, pie charts, scatter plots) embedded in the text, directly support￾ing the narrative with evidence from the tables. Framework Overview Unlike prior work that employs fixed linear pipelines or multi-agent coordination, M… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Ablation results of MCTS-Report and its variants. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. Structure then Query: Enabling Precise Analytical Queries over Unstructured Documents

    cs.IR 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    AnnoIndex reaches 0.87 average F1 on three document corpora by building an offline annotation index with induced schemas and a progressive SQL-based query engine that reuses extracted values.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

143 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Communication, Simulation, and Intelligent Agents: Implications of Personal Intelligent Machines for Medical Education

    Clancey, William J. Communication, Simulation, and Intelligent Agents: Implications of Personal Intelligent Machines for Medical Education. Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-83)

  2. [2]

    Classification Problem Solving

    Clancey, William J. Classification Problem Solving. Proceedings of the Fourth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence

  3. [3]

    , title =

    Robinson, Arthur L. , title =. 1980 , doi =. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/208/4447/1019.full.pdf , journal =

    1980

  4. [4]

    New Ways to Make Microcircuits Smaller---Duplicate Entry

    Robinson, Arthur L. New Ways to Make Microcircuits Smaller---Duplicate Entry. Science

  5. [5]

    Clancey and Glenn Rennels , abstract =

    Diane Warner Hasling and William J. Clancey and Glenn Rennels , abstract =. Strategic explanations for a diagnostic consultation system , journal =. 1984 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(84)80003-6 , url =

    doi:10.1016/s0020-7373(84)80003-6 1984

  6. [6]

    and Rennels, Glenn R

    Hasling, Diane Warner and Clancey, William J. and Rennels, Glenn R. and Test, Thomas. Strategic Explanations in Consultation---Duplicate. The International Journal of Man-Machine Studies

  7. [7]

    Poligon: A System for Parallel Problem Solving

    Rice, James. Poligon: A System for Parallel Problem Solving

  8. [8]

    Transfer of Rule-Based Expertise through a Tutorial Dialogue

    Clancey, William J. Transfer of Rule-Based Expertise through a Tutorial Dialogue

Show all 143 references
  1. [9]

    The Engineering of Qualitative Models

    Clancey, William J. The Engineering of Qualitative Models

  2. [10]

    2023 , eprint=

    Attention Is All You Need , author=. 2023 , eprint=

    2023

  3. [11]

    Pluto: The 'Other' Red Planet

    NASA. Pluto: The 'Other' Red Planet

  4. [12]

    2026 , eprint=

    AnnoRetrieve: Efficient Structured Retrieval for Unstructured Document Analysis , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  5. [13]

    2025 , note =

    Claude Opus 4.7 , howpublished =. 2025 , note =

    2025

  6. [14]

    2025 , note =

    Gemini Deep Research , howpublished =. 2025 , note =

    2025

  7. [15]

    2025 , note =

    ChatGPT Deep Research , howpublished =. 2025 , note =

    2025

  8. [16]

    2024 , eprint=

    TableGPT2: A Large Multimodal Model with Tabular Data Integration , author=. 2024 , eprint=

    2024

  9. [17]

    2025 , note =

    Qwen3-VL-235B , howpublished =. 2025 , note =

    2025

  10. [18]

    Nature , volume=

    DeepSeek-R1 incentivizes reasoning in LLMs through reinforcement learning , author=. Nature , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  11. [19]

    2025 , eprint=

    Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilities , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  12. [20]

    2026 , eprint=

    EvidFuse: Writing-Time Evidence Learning for Consistent Text-Chart Data Reporting , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  13. [21]

    Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , author=

    Multimodal DeepResearcher: Generating Text-Chart Interleaved Reports from Scratch with Agentic Framework , volume=. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , author=. 2026 , month=. doi:10.1609/aaai.v40i40.40734 , abstractNote=

    2026 doi

  14. [22]

    One Token to Fool

    Yulai Zhao and Haolin Liu and Dian Yu and Sunyuan Kung and MEIJIA CHEN and Haitao Mi and Dong Yu , year=. One Token to Fool

  15. [23]

    Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena , url =

    Zheng, Lianmin and Chiang, Wei-Lin and Sheng, Ying and Zhuang, Siyuan and Wu, Zhanghao and Zhuang, Yonghao and Lin, Zi and Li, Zhuohan and Li, Dacheng and Xing, Eric and Zhang, Hao and Gonzalez, Joseph and Stoica, Ion , booktitle =. Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Cha...

  16. [24]

    Bandit Based Monte-Carlo Planning

    Kocsis, Levente and Szepesv \'a ri, Csaba. Bandit Based Monte-Carlo Planning. Machine Learning: ECML 2006. 2006

    2006

  17. [25]

    Efficient Selectivity and Backup Operators in Monte-Carlo Tree Search

    Coulom, R \'e mi. Efficient Selectivity and Backup Operators in Monte-Carlo Tree Search. Computers and Games. 2007

    2007

  18. [26]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.00050 , year=

    Judgelrm: Large reasoning models as a judge , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.00050 , year=

  19. [27]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.13326 , year=

    VIS-Shepherd: Constructing Critic for LLM-based Data Visualization Generation , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.13326 , year=

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.02387 , year=

    Rm-r1: Reward modeling as reasoning , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.02387 , year=

  21. [29]

    IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics , volume=

    Viseval: A benchmark for data visualization in the era of large language models , author=. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  22. [30]

    Compositional semantic parsing on semi-structured tables , author=. 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=

  23. [31]

    Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

    Hitab: A hierarchical table dataset for question answering and natural language generation , author=. Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

  24. [32]

    Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume=

    Tablebench: A comprehensive and complex benchmark for table question answering , author=. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume=

  25. [33]

    Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) , pages=

    ToTTo: A controlled table-to-text generation dataset , author=. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) , pages=

    2020

  26. [34]

    Proceedings of the 2018 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing , pages=

    Spider: A large-scale human-labeled dataset for complex and cross-domain semantic parsing and text-to-sql task , author=. Proceedings of the 2018 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing , pages=

    2018

  27. [35]

    International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

    TabFact: A Large-scale Dataset for Table-based Fact Verification , author=. International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

  28. [36]

    2026 , eprint=

    Examining Reasoning LLMs-as-Judges in Non-Verifiable LLM Post-Training , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  29. [37]

    2026 , eprint=

    MMDeepResearch-Bench: A Benchmark for Multimodal Deep Research Agents , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  30. [38]

    2026 , eprint=

    Hunt Instead of Wait: Evaluating Deep Data Research on Large Language Models , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  31. [39]

    T 2 R - BENCH : A Benchmark for Real World Table-to-Report Task

    Zhang, Jie and Pan, Changzai and Xiong, Sishi and Wei, Kaiwen and Zhao, Yu and Li, Xiangyu and Peng, Jiaxin and Gu, Xiaoyan and Yang, Jian and Chang, Wenhan and Wu, Zhenhe and Zhong, Jiang and Song, Shuangyong and Li, Xuelong. T 2 R - BENCH : A Benchmark for Real World Table-t...

    2025 doi

  32. [40]

    The Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

    VisJudge-Bench: Aesthetics and Quality Assessment of Visualizations , author=. The Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

  33. [41]

    2026 , eprint=

    DRACO: a Cross-Domain Benchmark for Deep Research Accuracy, Completeness, and Objectivity , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  34. [42]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.00103 , year=

    Seq2sql: Generating structured queries from natural language using reinforcement learning , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.00103 , year=

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics , volume=

    FeTaQA: Free-form table question answering , author=. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  36. [44]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.06659 , year=

    Twix: Automatically reconstructing structured data from templatized documents , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.06659 , year=

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    and Pratap, A

    Deb, K. and Pratap, A. and Agarwal, S. and Meyarivan, T. , journal=. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II , year=

  38. [46]

    Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , pages =

    Cai, Deng and Wang, Yan and Liu, Lemao and Shi, Shuming , title =. Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , pages =. 2022 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3477495.3532682 , abstract =

    2022

  39. [47]

    International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

    DEBERTA: DECODING-ENHANCED BERT WITH DISENTANGLED ATTENTION , author=. International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

  40. [48]

    OpenAI Embedding model , howpublished =

    OpenAI. OpenAI Embedding model , howpublished =

  41. [49]

    VectorDB: A minimal Python package for storing and retrieving text using chunking, embeddings, and vector search , howpublished =

  42. [50]

    GL i NER 2: Schema-Driven Multi-Task Learning for Structured Information Extraction

    Zaratiana, Urchade and Pasternak, Gil and Boyd, Oliver and Hurn-Maloney, George and Lewis, Ash. GL i NER 2: Schema-Driven Multi-Task Learning for Structured Information Extraction. Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System D...

    2025

  43. [51]

    The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

    Multi-Field Adaptive Retrieval , author=. The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

  44. [52]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.04292 , year=

    SQuARE: Structured Query & Adaptive Retrieval Engine For Tabular Formats , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.04292 , year=

    arXiv

  45. [53]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.19757 , year=

    ARCADE: A Real-Time Data System for Hybrid and Continuous Query Processing across Diverse Data Modalities , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.19757 , year=

  46. [54]

    Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment , volume=

    Eleet: Efficient learned query execution over text and tables , author=. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  47. [55]

    Patel, Liana and Kraft, Peter and Guestrin, Carlos and Zaharia, Matei , title =. Proc. ACM Manag. Data , month = may, articleno =. 2024 , issue_date =. doi:10.1145/3654923 , abstract =

    2024 doi

  48. [56]

    SQU i D : Synthesizing Relational Databases from Unstructured Text

    Sadia, Mushtari and Yang, Zhenning and Xiao, Yunming and Chen, Ang and Roy Chowdhury, Amrita. SQU i D : Synthesizing Relational Databases from Unstructured Text. Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2025. doi:10.18653/v1/2025....

    2025 doi

  49. [57]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.23628 , year=

    Autoschemakg: Autonomous knowledge graph construction through dynamic schema induction from web-scale corpora , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.23628 , year=

    arXiv

  50. [58]

    Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment , volume=

    Unify: A System For Unstructured Data Analytics , author=. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  51. [59]

    Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment , volume=

    DocDB: A Database for Unstructured Document Analysis , author=. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  52. [60]

    Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment , volume=

    Doctopus: Budget-aware structural table extraction from unstructured documents , author=. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  53. [61]

    2025 , eprint=

    MiniRAG: Towards Extremely Simple Retrieval-Augmented Generation , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  54. [62]

    2025 , eprint=

    LightKGG: Simple and Efficient Knowledge Graph Generation from Textual Data , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  55. [63]

    2026 , eprint=

    DocSage: An Information Structuring Agent for Multi-Doc Multi-Entity Question Answering , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  56. [64]

    CoRR , volume =

    Zhengxuan Zhang and Zhuowen Liang and Yin Wu and Teng Lin and Yuyu Luo and Nan Tang , title =. CoRR , volume =. 2025 , url=

    2025

  57. [65]

    CoRR , volume=

    Teng Lin and Yizhang Zhu and Yuyu Luo and Nan Tang , title=. CoRR , volume=. 2025 , month=

    2025

  58. [66]

    Structured Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Multi-Entity Question Answering over Heterogeneous Sources , year=

    Lin, Teng , booktitle=. Structured Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Multi-Entity Question Answering over Heterogeneous Sources , year=

  59. [67]

    Simplifying Data Integration: SLM-Driven Systems for Unified Semantic Queries Across Heterogeneous Databases , year=

    Lin, Teng , booktitle=. Simplifying Data Integration: SLM-Driven Systems for Unified Semantic Queries Across Heterogeneous Databases , year=. doi:10.1109/ICDE65448.2025.00378 , ISSN=

    2025

  60. [68]

    King, Tim , date =. 80

  61. [69]

    2025 , eprint=

    Structuring the Unstructured: A Multi-Agent System for Extracting and Querying Financial KPIs and Guidance , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  62. [70]

    Sun, Zhaoze and Chai, Chengliang and Deng, Qiyan and Jin, Kaisen and Guo, Xinyu and Han, Han and Yuan, Ye and Wang, Guoren and Cao, Lei , title =. Proc. VLDB Endow. , month = jul, pages =. 2025 , issue_date =. doi:10.14778/3749646.3749713 , abstract =

    2025

  63. [71]

    deepdoctection , year =

  64. [72]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.12189 , year=

    Docetl: Agentic query rewriting and evaluation for complex document processing , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.12189 , year=

    arXiv

  65. [73]

    Unstructured , year =

  66. [74]

    Proceedings of the Conference on Innovative Database Research (CIDR) , pages=

    Palimpzest: Optimizing ai-powered analytics with declarative query processing , author=. Proceedings of the Conference on Innovative Database Research (CIDR) , pages=

  67. [75]

    LEXA: Towards Automatic Legal Citation Classification

    Galgani, Filippo and Hoffmann, Achim. LEXA: Towards Automatic Legal Citation Classification. AI 2010: Advances in Artificial Intelligence. 2011

    2010

  68. [76]

    Proceedings of the 34th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , pages =

    Hao, Qiang and Cai, Rui and Pang, Yanwei and Zhang, Lei , title =. Proceedings of the 34th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , pages =. 2011 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/2009916.2010020 , abstract =

    2011

  69. [77]

    and Wu, Eugene , booktitle=

    Lin, Yiming and Hulsebos, Madelon and Ma, Ruiying and Shankar, Shreya and Zeighami, Sepanta and Parameswaran, Aditya G. and Wu, Eugene , booktitle=. Querying Templatized Document Collections with Large Language Models , year=

  70. [78]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14696 , year=

    A Declarative System for Optimizing AI Workloads , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14696 , year=

    arXiv

  71. [79]

    Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment , volume=

    From natural language processing to neural databases , author=. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment , volume=. 2021 , organization=

    2021

  72. [80]

    Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , pages=

    Multimodal neural databases , author=. Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , pages=

  73. [81]

    , author=

    Symphony: Towards Natural Language Query Answering over Multi-modal Data Lakes. , author=. CIDR , year=

  74. [82]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.03424 , year=

    CAESURA: Language Models as Multi-Modal Query Planners , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.03424 , year=

    arXiv

  75. [83]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.03963 , year=

    ERATTA: Extreme RAG for Table To Answers with Large Language Models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.03963 , year=

    arXiv

  76. [84]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.18677 , year=

    Splitwise: Efficient generative llm inference using phase splitting , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.18677 , year=

    arXiv

  77. [85]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.13121 , year=

    Can Long-Context Language Models Subsume Retrieval, RAG, SQL, and More? , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.13121 , year=

    arXiv

  78. [86]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.11418 , year=

    LOTUS: Enabling Semantic Queries with LLMs Over Tables of Unstructured and Structured Data , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.11418 , year=

    arXiv

  79. [87]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16130 , year=

    From local to global: A graph rag approach to query-focused summarization , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16130 , year=

    arXiv

  80. [88]

    SQLite Version 3.38.0 , year =

  81. [89]

    ACL 2022 , year=

    Do pre-trained models benefit knowledge graph completion? a reliable evaluation and a reasonable approach , author=. ACL 2022 , year=

    2022

  82. [90]

    IEEE Intelligent Systems , volume=

    Integrating graphs with large language models: Methods and prospects , author=. IEEE Intelligent Systems , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  83. [91]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07478 , year=

    Multimodal graph learning for generative tasks , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07478 , year=

    arXiv

  84. [92]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05845 , year=

    Graphllm: Boosting graph reasoning ability of large language model , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05845 , year=

    arXiv

  85. [93]

    ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter , volume=

    Exploring the potential of large language models (llms) in learning on graphs , author=. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  86. [94]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.09645 , year=

    Structgpt: A general framework for large language model to reason over structured data , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.09645 , year=

    arXiv

  87. [95]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.04560 , year=

    Talk like a graph: Encoding graphs for large language models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.04560 , year=

    arXiv

  88. [96]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Can language models solve graph problems in natural language? , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  89. [97]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07630 , year=

    G-retriever: Retrieval-augmented generation for textual graph understanding and question answering , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07630 , year=

    arXiv

  90. [98]

    international semantic web conference , pages=

    Dbpedia: A nucleus for a web of open data , author=. international semantic web conference , pages=. 2007 , organization=

    2007

  91. [99]

    Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web , pages=

    Yago: a core of semantic knowledge , author=. Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web , pages=

  92. [100]

    Theory and applications of ontology: computer applications , pages=

    WordNet , author=. Theory and applications of ontology: computer applications , pages=. 2010 , publisher=

    2010

  93. [101]

    Meta Llama3 , year =

  94. [102]

    Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

    Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback , author=. Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

  95. [103]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 , year=

    Gpt-4 technical report , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 , year=

    arXiv

  96. [104]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06825 , year=

    Mistral 7B , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06825 , year=

    arXiv

  97. [105]

    Mainpage --- W ikipedia , The Free Encyclopedia

    Wikipedia web. Mainpage --- W ikipedia , The Free Encyclopedia. 2004

    2004

  98. [106]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  99. [107]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997 , year=

    Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997 , year=

    arXiv

  100. [108]

    ACM Computing Surveys , volume=

    Survey of hallucination in natural language generation , author=. ACM Computing Surveys , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  101. [109]

    2023 , eprint=

    Graph Neural Prompting with Large Language Models , author=. 2023 , eprint=

    2023

  102. [110]

    2024 , eprint=

    Let Your Graph Do the Talking: Encoding Structured Data for LLMs , author=. 2024 , eprint=

    2024

  103. [111]

    2024 , eprint=

    Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey , author=. 2024 , eprint=

    2024

  104. [112]

    2023 , eprint=

    Lift Yourself Up: Retrieval-augmented Text Generation with Self Memory , author=. 2023 , eprint=

    2023

  105. [113]

    2021 , eprint=

    Generation-Augmented Retrieval for Open-domain Question Answering , author=. 2021 , eprint=

    2021

  106. [114]

    2023 , eprint=

    Enhancing Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models with Iterative Retrieval-Generation Synergy , author=. 2023 , eprint=

    2023

  107. [115]

    2024 , eprint=

    FeB4RAG: Evaluating Federated Search in the Context of Retrieval Augmented Generation , author=. 2024 , eprint=

    2024

  108. [116]

    2020 , eprint=

    CAiRE-COVID: A Question Answering and Query-focused Multi-Document Summarization System for COVID-19 Scholarly Information Management , author=. 2020 , eprint=

    2020

  109. [117]

    2023 , eprint=

    Retrieval-Generation Synergy Augmented Large Language Models , author=. 2023 , eprint=

    2023

  110. [118]

    2024 , eprint=

    RAPTOR: Recursive Abstractive Processing for Tree-Organized Retrieval , author=. 2024 , eprint=

    2024

  111. [119]

    2023 , eprint=

    Tree of Clarifications: Answering Ambiguous Questions with Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models , author=. 2023 , eprint=

    2023

  112. [120]

    2024 , eprint=

    Are Large Language Models Good Statisticians? , author=. 2024 , eprint=

    2024

  113. [121]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14314 , year=

    QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMs , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14314 , year=

    arXiv

  114. [122]

    2017 , eprint=

    Reading Wikipedia to Answer Open-Domain Questions , author=. 2017 , eprint=

    2017

  115. [123]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.05109 , year=

    A Survey of NL2SQL with Large Language Models: Where are we, and where are we going? , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.05109 , year=

  116. [124]

    A Survey on RAG Meeting LLMs: Towards Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models , author=

  117. [125]

    ArXiv , year=

    RQ-RAG: Learning to Refine Queries for Retrieval Augmented Generation , author=. ArXiv , year=

  118. [126]

    HOLMES : Hyper-Relational Knowledge Graphs for Multi-hop Question Answering using LLM s

    Panda, Pranoy and Agarwal, Ankush and Devaguptapu, Chaitanya and Kaul, Manohar and Ap, Prathosh. HOLMES : Hyper-Relational Knowledge Graphs for Multi-hop Question Answering using LLM s. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Vo...

    2024 doi

  119. [127]

    Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , pages =

    Tang, Jiabin and Yang, Yuhao and Wei, Wei and Shi, Lei and Su, Lixin and Cheng, Suqi and Yin, Dawei and Huang, Chao , title =. Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , pages =. 2024 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/...

    2024

  120. [128]

    2024 , eprint=

    G-Retriever: Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Textual Graph Understanding and Question Answering , author=. 2024 , eprint=

    2024

  121. [129]

    2023 , eprint=

    Mitigating Large Language Model Hallucinations via Autonomous Knowledge Graph-based Retrofitting , author=. 2023 , eprint=

    2023

  122. [130]

    MEB ench: Benchmarking Large Language Models for Cross-Document Multi-Entity Question Answering

    Lin, Teng and Luo, Yuyu and Zhang, Honglin and Zhang, Jicheng and Liu, Chunlin and Wu, Kaishun and Tang, Nan. MEB ench: Benchmarking Large Language Models for Cross-Document Multi-Entity Question Answering. Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan...

    2025 doi

  123. [131]

    2024 , eprint=

    StructRAG: Boosting Knowledge Intensive Reasoning of LLMs via Inference-time Hybrid Information Structurization , author=. 2024 , eprint=

    2024

  124. [132]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.20158 , year =

    Daman Arora and Anush Kini and Sayak Ray Chowdhury and Nagarajan Natarajan and Gaurav Sinha and Amit Sharma , title =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.20158 , year =

    arXiv

  125. [133]

    2021 , eprint=

    Leveraging Passage Retrieval with Generative Models for Open Domain Question Answering , author=. 2021 , eprint=

    2021

  126. [134]

    2024 , eprint=

    Making Retrieval-Augmented Language Models Robust to Irrelevant Context , author=. 2024 , eprint=

    2024

  127. [135]

    Claude 3 API Documentation , year =

  128. [136]

    2023 , eprint=

    KnowledGPT: Enhancing Large Language Models with Retrieval and Storage Access on Knowledge Bases , author=. 2023 , eprint=

    2023

  129. [137]

    2025 , eprint=

    TableLLM: Enabling Tabular Data Manipulation by LLMs in Real Office Usage Scenarios , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  130. [138]

    Translating Embeddings for Modeling Multi-relational Data , url =

    Bordes, Antoine and Usunier, Nicolas and Garcia-Duran, Alberto and Weston, Jason and Yakhnenko, Oksana , booktitle =. Translating Embeddings for Modeling Multi-relational Data , url =

  131. [139]

    2025 , eprint=

    A Comprehensive Survey on Long Context Language Modeling , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  132. [140]

    Leave No Document Behind: Benchmarking Long-Context LLM s with Extended Multi-Doc QA

    Wang, Minzheng and Chen, Longze and Cheng, Fu and Liao, Shengyi and Zhang, Xinghua and Wu, Bingli and Yu, Haiyang and Xu, Nan and Zhang, Lei and Luo, Run and Li, Yunshui and Yang, Min and Huang, Fei and Li, Yongbin. Leave No Document Behind: Benchmarking Long-Context LLM s wit...

    2024 doi

  133. [141]

    Taatgen , keywords =

    Enkhbold Nyamsuren and Niels A. Taatgen , keywords =. Human Reasoning Module , journal =. 2014 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bica.2014.02.002 , url =

    2014 doi

  134. [142]

    2025 , eprint=

    Qwen3 Technical Report , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  135. [143]

    2025 , eprint=

    Relational Deep Dive: Error-Aware Queries Over Unstructured Data , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.