Large language models often struggle with complex long-horizon analytical tasks over unstructured tables, which typically feature hierarchical and bidirectional headers and non-canonical layouts. We formalize this challenge as Deep Tabular Research (DTR), requiring multi-step reasoning over interdependent table regions. To address DTR, we propose a novel agentic framework that treats tabular reasoning as a closed-loop decision-making process. We carefully design a coupled query and table comprehension for path decision making and operational execution. Specifically, (i) DTR first constructs a hierarchical meta graph to capture bidirectional semantics, mapping natural language queries into an operation-level search space; (ii) To navigate this space, we introduce an expectation-aware selection policy that prioritizes high-utility execution paths; (iii) Crucially, historical execution outcomes are synthesized into a siamese structured memory, i.e., parameterized updates and abstracted texts, enabling continual refinement. Extensive experiments on challenging unstructured tabular benchmarks verify the effectiveness and highlight the necessity of separating strategic planning from low-level execution for long-horizon tabular reasoning.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Existing Table QA pipelines (a) are limited to well-structured tables and shallow queries, and fail to handle unstructured tabular properties (b) and long-horizon analytical tasks (c), motivating our Deep Tabular Research.
Figure 2: A sketched overview for our proposed Deep Tabular Research framework for complex unstructured tabular reasoning. DTR decomposes analytical intent into meta operations, plans executable macro paths via expectation-guided search, and executes them with an experience-aware memory that records structured execution feedback and updates planning policies across iterations.
Methods
Accuracy
Analysis Depth
Feasibility
Aesthetics
Avg. Runtime (s) ↓
Total Output Tokens ↓
Avg. LLM Calls ↓
Win Rate
Score Rate
Win Rate
Score Rate
Win Rate
Score Rate
Win Rate
Score Rate
(Tie=0) ↑
(Tie=0.5) ↑
(Tie=0) ↑
(Tie=0.5) ↑
(Tie=0) ↑
(Tie=0.5) ↑
(Tie=0) ↑
(Tie=0.5) ↑
Table specific LLM
TableGPT2-7B
0.20
8.41
5.12
5.12
4.33
4.35
6.21
6.21
3.42
12,450
1.0
TableLLM-7B
0.15
6.22
3.84
3.84
3.10
3.12
4.55
4.55
3.15
10,820
1.0
StructGPT
0.10
4.15
2.10
2.10
1.85
1.86
2.30
2.30
4.88
8,420
1.0
Table 1: Full Comparisons over DTR-Bench to evaluate over accuracy, quality, and efficiency.
Methods
Fact Checking
Numerical Reasoning
Structure Comprehending
Data Analysis
Chart/Report Generation
EM ↑
F1 ↑
EM ↑
F1 ↑
EM ↑
F1 ↑
LLM-EVAL ↑
ROUGE ↑
PASS@1 ↑
ECR ↑
TableGPT2-7B
46.10
53.80
29.31
39.81
48.23
56.68
62.76
33.25
32.47
67.53
TableLLM-7B
38.25
44.12
22.40
31.65
41.10
49.34
55.80
28.42
18.20
42.15
StructGPT
25.40
32.15
14.55
20.80
30.25
38.60
42.33
19.50
5.12
12.44
GPT4o
43.39
51.87
27.63
36.68
42.68
52.89
65.24
33.10
10.39
25.32
DeepSeek-v3
57.21
53.42
47.05
50.61
43.31
74.63
61.40
34.76
9.09
24.68
Table 2: Comparisons over the RealHitBench dataset for five different task types.
Configuration
Meta
QDO
Exp.
Abst.
Acc.
Anal.
Feas.
Aesth.
+ Meta Info
✓
×
×
×
34.8
27.1
25.6
38.2
+ QDO
✓
✓
×
×
36.2
28.8
26.7
40.5
+ Expectation
✓
✓
✓
×
37.1
29.6
27.2
41.8
DTR Full
✓
✓
✓
✓
37.5
30.2
27.6
42.7
Table 3: Architecture ablation study of each components in DTR.
Prompt Strategy
Accuracy
Analysis
Code Error
Avg
Depth
Rate
Calls
No [THINK] (Direct)
35.2
27.8
42.3%
5.8
Simple [THINK] Hint
36.4
28.9
35.6%
5.2
[THINK]+[CODE]
37.5
30.2
28.4%
4.78
Multi-stage Reflection
37.2
29.8
26.1%
5.5
Table 4: Exploration over prompting strategy for think and code.
Figure 3: LLM call budget analysis. The blue curve shows performance (left y-axis) and the purple curve shows marginal gain (right y-axis). DTR’s 4.78-call configuration red star) achieves optimal efficiency by avoiding the plateau region.
Figure 4: Path selection evolution across 10 batches. Colors changing from light blue to deep purple indicate both exploration and exploitation, respectively.
Conduct a risk-return analysis across all {Category} by examining the relationship between {NumericCol1} (returns) and {NumericCol2} (risk metrics). Identify the efficient frontier segments.
Social Researcher
Inequality Analysis
Measure the distribution of {NumericCol} across {Category} using Gini coefficient and decile ratios. Investigate structural factors driving inequality.
Data Analyst
Anomaly Detection
Use statistical methods (z-scores) to identify unusual patterns in {NumericCol} across {Category} . Investigate anomalies and assess impact.
Student/Researcher
Statistical Testing
Conduct rigorous statistical analysis of {NumericCol} across {Category} : test for normality, perform ANOVA/Kruskal-Wallis tests, and calculate effect sizes.
Appendix
Table 6: Representative Question Templates by Persona
Figure 12
Figure 5: Employment Distribution in 1984: Agriculture (4.5%) vs Non-Agriculture (95.5%)
Figure 6: Employment Trends 1983-1990: Employed population grew from 56.8M to 65.1M while unemployed declined from 6.3M to 3.9M
Figure 7: Scatter plot showing the relationship between unemployment rate and civilian labor force size over 16 years (1983-1998)
Multi-step LLM reasoning over structured tables fails because planning and execution share no explicit cell-grounding contract. Existing methods constrain the planner to a left-to-right factorization at odds with table permutation invariance, and score intermediate states by generated content alone, overlooking cell grounding. We conduct a pilot study showing that diffusion language models (DLMs) produce more human-aligned and permutation-stable cell attention on tables than autoregressive models, with a 40.2% median reduction in attention-AUROC variability under row reordering. Motivated by this, we propose TABALIGN, a planned table reasoning framework that operationalizes the contract. TABALIGN pairs a masked DLM planner, whose bidirectional denoising emits plan steps as binary cell masks, with TABATTN, a lightweight verifier trained on 1,600 human-verified attention standards to score each step by its attention overlap with the plan-designated mask. Across eight benchmarks covering table question answering and fact verification, TABALIGN improves average accuracy by 15.76 percentage points over the strongest open-source baseline at comparable 8B-class scale, with a matched-backbone ablation attributing 2.87 percentage points of this gain to the DLM planner over an AR planner on a fixed reasoner. Cleaner DLM plans also accelerate downstream reasoning execution by 44.64%.
Tung Sum Thomas Kwok, Zeyong Zhang, Xinyu Wang +6
University of California, Los Angeles · SimpleWay · New Jersey Institute of Technology +4
Tables are ubiquitous across diverse domains, yet reasoning over them remains a significant challenge for modern large language models (LLMs). Current approaches typically linearize tables into sequences, inherently overlooking their intrinsic two-dimensional and hierarchical structure. To address this, we propose H2Table (Hierarchical Hypergraph-Enhanced Table Reasoning), a novel framework that represents complex tables as hierarchical nested hypergraphs. To process this representation, we design a tailored hypergraph encoder to facilitate message passing between hyperedges (headers) and nodes (cells), thereby perceiving the semantic entailment relationships between them within complex tables. Furthermore, we introduce a set of learnable query vectors acting as a lightweight bridge to extract representative structural embeddings from the encoder into the LLM. Experimental results demonstrate that our approach effectively handles complex table question answering tasks with hierarchical nested headers. Notably, on the HiTab dataset, H2Table achieves an average improvement of 22.88% over state-of-the-art baselines on highly complex tables with a nesting depth of four. Our code is available at: https://github.com/lila120/h2table.
Jia Ling, Yangfan Wang, Chen Tang +4
Harbin Institute of Technology · AI Research Center, Midea Group (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. · Changchun University of Science and Technology +1
Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown strong performance on table question answering, yet their accuracy often degrades as table size increases. We find that this degradation is not uniform across question types. Localization-sensitive questions are particularly affected by irrelevant table content, while questions requiring broader evidence may still benefit from full-table reasoning. Based on this observation, we propose a question-adaptive framework that dynamically selects between localized and full-table reasoning. The framework constructs question-specific sub-tables through operation-aware table decomposition and uses the predicted question type to determine the appropriate reasoning mode. We further introduce silver reference sub-tables for evaluating evidence selection and construct SLQA, a benchmark based on real-world long tables. Experiments on WikiTQ and SLQA show that localization is particularly effective for lookup and local reasoning questions, while adaptive selection between localized and full-table reasoning achieves the best overall performance. These results highlight that long-table QA requires deciding not only how to localize, but also when to localize. Our code and datasets will be made available upon publication of the paper.