HELIOS: Harmonizing Early Fusion, Late Fusion, and LLM Reasoning for Multi-Granular Table-Text Retrieval
Organizations: POSTECH, Republic of Korea · Sungkyunkwan University, Republic of Korea
Abstract
Table-text retrieval aims to retrieve relevant tables and text to support open-domain question answering. Existing studies use either early or late fusion, but face limitations. Early fusion pre-aligns a table row with its associated passages, forming "stars," which often include irrelevant contexts and miss query-dependent relationships. Late fusion retrieves individual nodes, dynamically aligning them, but it risks missing relevant contexts. Both approaches also struggle with advanced reasoning tasks, such as column-wise aggregation and multi-hop reasoning. To address these issues, we propose HELIOS, which combines the strengths of both approaches. First, the edge-based bipartite subgraph retrieval identifies finer-grained edges between table segments and passages, effectively avoiding the inclusion of irrelevant contexts. Then, the query-relevant node expansion identifies the most promising nodes, dynamically retrieving relevant edges to grow the bipartite subgraph, minimizing the risk of missing important contexts. Lastly, the star-based LLM refinement performs logical inference at the star graph level rather than the bipartite subgraph, supporting advanced reasoning tasks. Experimental results show that HELIOS outperforms state-of-the-art models with a significant improvement up to 42.6% and 39.9% in recall and nDCG, respectively, on the OTT-QA benchmark.
Figures & tables
| Model | AR@2 | AR@5 | AR@10 | AR@20 | AR@50 | nDCG@50 | HITS@4k |
| Iterative Retriever | – | – | – | – | – | – | 27.2 |
| Fusion Retriever | – | – | – | – | – | – | 52.4 |
| OTTeR † | 31.4 | 49.7 | 62.0 | 71.8 | 82.0 | 25.9 | 70.1 |
| DoTTeR † | 31.5 | 51.0 | 61.5 | 71.9 | 80.8 | 26.7 | 70.3 |
| CORE † | 35.3 | 50.7 | 63.1 | 74.5 | 83.1 | 25.4 | 77.2 |
| COS † | 44.4 | 61.6 | 70.8 | 79.5 | 87.8 | 33.6 | 81.8 |
| Model | AR@2 | AR@5 | AR@10 | AR@20 | AR@50 | EM | F1 |
| COS † | 50.7 | 59.7 | 67.1 | 72.4 | 79.5 | 54.4 | 63.7 |
| HELIOS | 70.5 | 77.8 | 81.0 | 82.6 | 86.2 | 59.6 | 69.1 |
| Algorithm | Dev | Test | ||
| EM | F1 | EM | F1 | |
| OTTeR | 37.1 | 42.8 | 37.3 | 43.1 |
| DoTTeR | 37.8 | 43.9 | 35.9 | 42.0 |
| CORE | 49.0 | 55.7 | 47.3 | 54.1 |
| COS | 56.9 | 63.2 | 54.9 | 61.5 |
| HELIOS | 59.3 | 65.8 | 57.0 | 64.3 |
| Algorithm | EM | F1 |
| HOLMES † | 30.3 | 42.0 |
| HELIOS | 57.1 | 66.4 |
| Algorithm | AR@2 | AR@5 | AR@10 | AR@20 | AR@50 | nDCG@50 | EM | F1 |
| HELIOS | 63.3 | 76.7 | 85.0 | 90.4 | 94.2 | 47.0 | 59.3 | 65.8 |
| w/ Finetuned SLR | 63.2 | 76.8 | 85.1 | 90.3 | 94.8 | 47.6 | 59.4 | 65.9 |
| w/o QNE | 62.5 | 74.7 | 82.7 | 88.4 | 92.7 | 45.1 | 56.9 | 63.2 |
| w/o SLR | 60.0 | 75.2 | 84.7 | 90.1 | 94.6 | 46.5 | 59.0 | 65.7 |
| Retrieval Unit | AR@2 | AR@5 | AR@10 | AR@20 | AR@50 | nDCG@50 |
| Node | 29.3 | 47.4 | 58.8 | 68.5 | 79.5 | 23.8 |
| Star Graph | 37.9 | 57.4 | 66.9 | 76.4 | 84.5 | 28.5 |
| Edge | 49.1 | 63.1 | 70.6 | 77.6 | 85.1 | 34.2 |
| Algorithm | Execution Time (s) | nDCG@50 |
| DoTTeR | 0.08 | 26.7 |
| CORE | 4.13 | 25.4 |
| COS | 3.75 | 33.6 |
| COS w/ ColBERT & bge | 5.46 | 36.5 |
| HELIOS | 5.14 | 47.0 |
| HELIOS w/ Finetuned SLR | 4.76 | 47.6 |
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Component | Processing Time |
| Entity recognition | 3h 14m 32s |
| Entity linking | 2h 20m 48s |
| Edge indexing | 22h 29m 54s |
| Passage indexing | 7h 49m 01s |
| Table segment indexing | 2h 29m 09s |
| Component | Training Time |
| Edge retriever | 2h 49m 37s |
| Edge reranker | 1h 25m 32s |
| Node reranker | 1h 39m 20s |
| Expanded query retriever (passages) | 36m 32s |
| Expanded query retriever (tables) | 4h 14m 45s |
Information Retrieval
Information Retrieval studies how to find, rank, and organize relevant information in large collections of data.
See all 459 papers