Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 cited by

Table Meets LLM: Can Large Language Models Understand Structured Table Data? A Benchmark and Empirical Study

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 2305.13062 v5 pith:GA4VQI3Z submitted 2023-05-22 cs.CL cs.AIcs.IR

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.IR
keywords llmsbenchmarkdatainputpromptinglanguagemodelsstructural
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are becoming attractive as few-shot reasoners to solve Natural Language (NL)-related tasks. However, the understanding of their capability to process structured data like tables remains an under-explored area. While tables can be serialized as input for LLMs, there is a lack of comprehensive studies on whether LLMs genuinely comprehend this data. In this paper, we try to understand this by designing a benchmark to evaluate the structural understanding capabilities of LLMs through seven distinct tasks, e.g., cell lookup, row retrieval and size detection. Specially, we perform a series of evaluations on the recent most advanced LLM models, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 and observe that performance varied with different input choices, including table input format, content order, role prompting, and partition marks. Drawing from the insights gained through the benchmark evaluations, we propose $\textit{self-augmentation}$ for effective structural prompting, such as critical value / range identification using internal knowledge of LLMs. When combined with carefully chosen input choices, these structural prompting methods lead to promising improvements in LLM performance on a variety of tabular tasks, e.g., TabFact($\uparrow2.31\%$), HybridQA($\uparrow2.13\%$), SQA($\uparrow2.72\%$), Feverous($\uparrow0.84\%$), and ToTTo($\uparrow5.68\%$). We believe that our open source benchmark and proposed prompting methods can serve as a simple yet generic selection for future research. The code and data of this paper will be temporality released at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/StructuredLLM-76F3/README.md and will be replaced with an official one at https://github.com/microsoft/TableProvider later.

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. AbGen: Evaluating Large Language Models in Ablation Study Design and Evaluation for Scientific Research

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A benchmark of 1,500 expert-annotated ablation study designs from 807 NLP papers shows frontier LLMs underperform human experts and that LLM-as-a-judge evaluations correlate weakly with human judgments.

  2. Prompt Orchestration Markup Language

    cs.HC 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    POML is a markup language that structures LLM prompts, embeds multimodal data, and decouples formatting via stylesheets, with case studies showing strong prompt format sensitivity.

  3. Tab-MIA: A Benchmark Dataset for Membership Inference Attacks on Tabular Data in LLMs

    cs.CR 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Tab-MIA shows LLMs fine-tuned on tabular data are vulnerable to membership inference attacks, with AUROC up to 97.7% after three epochs and encoding format strongly affecting leakage.

  4. Team Anotheroption at SemEval-2025 Task 8: Bridging the Gap Between Open-Source and Proprietary LLMs in Table QA

    cs.CL 2025-06 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

    A hybrid open-source LLM pipeline for table QA achieves 80% accuracy on SemEval-2025 Task 8, ranking 13th among open-source systems.

  5. Tabular Data Understanding with LLMs: A Survey of Recent Advances and Challenges

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A structured review of table understanding with LLMs that proposes a taxonomy of input representations and identifies three research gaps.

Pith tools