Replacing Multi-Step Assembly of Data Preparation Pipelines with One-Step LLM Pipeline Generation for Table QA
Organizations: Zhejiang University Hangzhou, China · Northeastern University Shenyang, China · Aalborg University Aalborg, Denmark
Abstract
Table Question Answering (TQA) aims to answer natural language questions over structured tables. Large Language Models (LLMs) enable promising solutions to this problem, with operator-centric solutions that generate table manipulation pipelines in a multi-step manner offering state-of-the-art performance. However, these solutions rely on multiple LLM calls, resulting in prohibitive latencies and computational costs. We propose Operation-R1, the first framework that trains lightweight LLMs (e.g., Qwen-4B/1.7B) via a novel variant of reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards to produce high-quality data-preparation pipelines for TQA in a single inference step. To train such an LLM, we first introduce a self-supervised rewarding mechanism to automatically obtain fine-grained pipeline-wise supervision signals for LLM training. We also propose variance-aware group resampling to mitigate training instability. To further enhance robustness of pipeline generation, we develop two complementary mechanisms: operation merge, which filters spurious operations through multi-candidate consensus, and adaptive rollback, which offers runtime protection against information loss in data transformation. Experiments on two benchmark datasets show that, with the same LLM backbone, Operation-R1 achieves average absolute accuracy gains of 8.83 and 4.44 percentage points over multi-step preparation baselines, with 79% table compression and a 2.2 reduction in monetary cost.
Figures & tables
| Method | Base Model | Train Data Size | Finetuning Method | WikiTQ | TabFact |
| TableGPT2 † | Qwen2.5-72B | 2.36M | Full-Parameter | 71.5 | 82.5 |
| Table-R1-SFT (Yang et al.) † | Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct | 34K | Full-Parameter | 83.8 | 91.1 |
| Table-R1-SFT (Yang et al.) † | Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct | 34K | Full-Parameter | 81.9 | 89.9 |
| Table-R1-ZERO (Yang et al.) † | Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct | 49K | Full-Parameter | 81.2 | 87.6 |
| Table-R1-ZERO (Yang et al.) † | Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct | 49K | Full-Parameter | 79.8 | 87.6 |
| Table-R1 (Wu et al.) † | Qwen3-8B (Thinking mode) | 20K | Full-Parameter | 73.87 | - |
| Method | Qwen2.5-7B | Qwen3-4B(Thk) | ||
| WikiTQ | TabFact | WikiTQ | TabFact | |
| No-Prep | 50.69 | 71.99 | 77.46 | 92.89 |
| Operation-R1 | 69.27 | 88.34 | 81.63 | 93.47 |
| ORPO & VGR strategy | 63.49 | 85.67 | 73.87 | 89.53 |
| VGR strategy | 68.67 | 86.35 | 80.57 | 93.28 |
| Operation Merge | 68.16 | 85.67 | 76.84 | 88.49 |
| Dataset | Question Type | Method | Performance |
| TableBench | Fact checking | No Prep | 57.29 |
| CoTable | 41.67 | ||
| AutoPrep | 65.62 | ||
| Operation-R1 | 77.08 | ||
| Numerical reasoning | No Prep. | 11.59 | |
| CoTable | 29.22 |
| Dataset | Type | Prop. | Method | Accuracy (%) |
| WikiTQ | CF | 46.1% | No-Prep | 63.29 |
| CoTable | 56.72 | |||
| AutoPrep | 60.77 | |||
| Operation-R1 | 77.51 | |||
| NCF | 53.9% | No-Prep | 39.92 | |
| CoTable | 48.28 |
| Dataset | Method | Prepare | Extra | QA | Total Calls |
| WikiTQ | CoTable | 12537 | 197 | 4344 | 17078 |
| AutoPrep | 9691 | 8109 | 5248 | 20965 | |
| Operation-R1 | 4344 | 134 | 4831 | 9309 | |
| TabFact | CoTable | 6258 | 44 | 2024 | 8326 |
| AutoPrep | 3593 | 3780 | 2318 | 9691 | |
| Operation-R1 | 2024 | 56 | 2376 | 4456 |
| Dataset | Usage (%) | Accuracy (%) | ||
| No Prep | ours | ours w/ additional | ||
| Subset requiring aggregate operator ( ) | ||||
| TableBench-NR | 52.64 | 5.26 | 37.80 | 69.86 (+32.06) |
| TableBench-FV | 13.54 | 46.16 | 61.54 | 69.23 (+7.69) |
| Subset requiring clean_column operator ( ) | ||||
| WikiTQ | 13.63 | 45.43 | 52.36 | 56.93 (+4.57) |
| Training set | Query Num. | WikiTQ Acc. | TabFact Acc. |
| WikiTQ | 5403 | 69.66 | 88.44 |
| TabFact | 5000 | 69.77 | 88.49 |
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Benchmark | Task Type | CF (%) |
| WikiTQ | Short-form QA | 46.1 |
| HybridQA | Hybrid QA | 40.4 |
| SQA | Sequential QA | 100 |
| KET-QA | KB-Augmented QA | 44.0 |
| WikiSQL | NL2SQL | 71.1 |
| Dataset | No trigger | Full | Step3 | Step2 | Step1 |
| WikiTQ | 4001 | 343 | 7 | 92 | 45 |
| TabFact | 1715 | 309 | 2 | 54 | 37 |
| Dataset | Strategy | Accuracy | Extra LLM Calls |
| WikiTQ | Full-First-Origin | 69.27 | 431 |
| Binary rollback (ours) | 69.66 | 487 | |
| Step-by-step rollback | 68.95 | 941 | |
| TabFact | Full-First-Origin | 88.34 | 338 |
| Binary rollback (ours) | 88.44 | 402 | |
| Step-by-step rollback | 87.35 | 483 |
| Method | Model | WikiTQ | TabFact | ||
| Acc. (%) | Time (s) | Acc. (%) | Time (s) | ||
| CoTable | Qwen3-4B | 57.50 | 8008 | 86.46 | 4743 |
| Qwen3-4B (Thk) | 62.27 | 65837 | 89.62 | 25392 | |
Table QA
Table question answering studies how AI systems retrieve, interpret, and reason over structured data to answer natural-language questions.
See all 66 papers