ReAcTable: Enhancing ReAct for Table Question Answering
Open accessAbstract
Table Question Answering (TQA) presents a substantial challenge at the intersection of natural language processing and data analytics. This task involves answering natural language (NL) questions on top of tabular data, demanding proficiency in logical reasoning, understanding of data semantics, and fundamental analytical capabilities. Due to its significance, a substantial volume of research has been dedicated to exploring a wide range of strategies aimed at tackling this challenge including approaches that leverage Large Language Models (LLMs) through in-context learning or Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting as well as approaches that train and fine-tune custom models. Nonetheless, a conspicuous gap exists in the research landscape, where there is limited exploration of how innovative foundational research, which integrates incremental reasoning with external tools in the context of LLMs, as exemplified by the ReAct paradigm, could potentially bring advantages to the TQA task. In this paper, we aim to fill this gap, by introducing ReAcTable ( ReAct for Table Question Answering tasks), a framework inspired by the ReAct paradigm that is carefully enhanced to address the challenges uniquely appearing in TQA tasks such as interpreting complex data semantics, dealing with errors generated by inconsistent data and generating intricate data transformations. ReAcTable relies on external tools such as SQL and Python code executors, to progressively enhance the data by generating intermediate data representations, ultimately transforming it into a more accessible format for answering the user's questions with greater ease. Through extensive empirical evaluations using three popular TQA benchmarks, we demonstrate that ReAcTable achieves remarkable performance even when compared to fine-tuned approaches. In particular, it outperforms the best prior result on the WikiTQ benchmark by 2.1%, achieving an accuracy of 68.0% without requiring training a new model or fine-tuning.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer
Raffel, C., Shazeer, N., Roberts, A., Lee, K., Narang, S., Matena, M., Zhou, Y., Li, W., & Liu, P. J. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1910.10683 · Cited by 10,929 · see citing works
Prefix-Tuning: Optimizing Continuous Prompts for Generation
Li, X. L., & Liang, P. (2021) · Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.353 · Cited by 2,473 · see citing works
TableFormer: Robust Transformer Modeling for Table-Text Encoding
Yang, J., Gupta, A., Upadhyay, S., He, L., Goel, R., & Paul, S. (2022) · Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.40 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
GPTuner: An LLM-Based Database Tuning System
Lao, J., Wang, Y., Li, Y., Wang, J., Zhang, Y., Cheng, Z., Chen, W., Tang, M., & Wang, J. (2025) · ACM SIGMOD Record · doi:10.1145/3733620.3733641 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Zhang, Y., Henkel, J., Floratou, A., Cahoon, J., Deep, S., & Patel, J. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- Microsoft (United States) (US)
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment
- Published
- 2024-04
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1981-1994
- ISSN
- 2150-8097 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4399208468
- Cited by
- 70
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 31 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 8
- FWCI
- 9.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
- Keywords
- table question answering, large language models, incremental reasoning, data transformation, data semantics, tabular data
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