Cited by 156Topic ModelingMultimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsNatural Language Processing Techniques

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

Open access
Sui, Yuan, Zhou, Mengyu, Zhou, Mingjie, Han, Shi, Zhang, Dongmei·2024·Proceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are becoming attractive as few-shot reasoners to solve Natural Language (NL)-related tasks. However, there is still much to learn about how well LLMs understand structured data, such as tables. Although tables can be used as input to LLMs with serialization, there is a lack of comprehensive studies that examine whether LLMs can truly comprehend such data. In this paper, we try to understand this by designing a benchmark to evaluate the structural understanding capabilities (SUC) of LLMs. The benchmark we create includes seven tasks, each with its own unique challenges, \eg, cell lookup, row retrieval, and size detection. We perform a series of evaluations on GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. We find that performance varied depending on several input choices, including table input format, content order, role prompting, and partition marks. Drawing from the insights gained through the benchmark evaluations, we proposeself-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, \eg, TabFact(\uparrow2.31%), HybridQA(\uparrow2.13%), SQA(\uparrow2.72%), Feverous(\uparrow0.84%), and ToTTo(\uparrow5.68%). We believe that our open-source (please find code and data at https://github.com/microsoft/TableProvider) benchmark and proposed prompting methods can serve as a simple yet generic selection for future research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3616855.3635752

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • LLMs often struggle with constraints involving numbers, negations, or long instructions with large number of constraints.

    “A qualitative examination of responses with unsatisfied constraints suggests that LLMs often struggle with constraints involving numbers, negations, or long instructions with large number of constraints , which is consistent with findings from previous works (Sui et al., 2024; García-Ferrero et al., 2023; Truong et al., 2023; Jiang et al., 2024).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sui, Y., Zhou, M., Zhou, M., Han, S., & Zhang, D.
Affiliations
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
  • Microsoft Research Asia (China) (CN)
Venue
Proceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining
Publisher
ACM
Published
2024-03-04
Pages
645-654
OpenAlex
W4392366650
Cited by
155
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 59 · 2025: 72 · 2024: 24
FWCI
45.74
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
large language models, self-augmentation, GPT-3.5, GPT-4

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review