Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

TEN: Table Explicitization, Neurosymbolically

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

TEN: Table Explicitization, Neurosymbolically

classification cs.CL cs.AI
keywords tablesignificantlyapproachcasescheckerconsistentlygeneratehallucinations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

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

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

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

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

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