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
TEN: Table Explicitization, Neurosymbolically
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.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
LLM-as-a-Judge Scores Are Unreliable Optimization Signals in Closed-Loop Table Recognition
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.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.