This study addresses the challenge of automatically detecting semantic column types in relational tables, a key task in many real-world applications. Zero-shot modeling eliminates the need for user-provided labeled training data, making it ideal for scenarios where data collection is costly or restricted due to privacy concerns. However, existing zero-shot models suffer from poor performance when the number of semantic column types is large, limited understanding of tabular structure, and privacy risks arising from dependence on high-performance closed-source LLMs. We introduce ZTab, a domain-based zero-shot framework that addresses both performance and zero-shot requirements. Given a domain configuration consisting of a set of predefined semantic types and sample table schemas, ZTab generates pseudo-tables for the sample schemas and fine-tunes an annotation LLM on them. ZTab is domain-based zero-shot in that it does not depend on user-specific labeled training data; therefore, no retraining is needed for a test table from a similar domain. We describe three cases of domain-based zero-shot. The domain configuration of ZTab provides a trade-off between the extent of zero-shot and annotation performance: a "universal domain" that contains all semantic types approaches "pure" zero-shot, while a "specialized domain" that contains semantic types for a specific application enables better zero-shot performance within that domain. Source code and datasets are available at https://github.com/hoseinzadeehsan/ZTab
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Comparison between (a) pure zero-shot column type annotation and (b) domain-based zero-shot ZTab. ZTab takes a class list and table schema collection as inputs, generates class prototypes (1) and pseudo-tables based on class prototypes (2), and fine-tunes an annotation LLM (3).
Dataset
# Class
# Training Tables
# Test Tables
WikiTable
255
397098
4764
SOTAB sch
82
44769
609
SOTAB sch-s
82
10631
609
SOTAB dbp
46
37631
279
T2D
37
160
109
Efthymiou
31
-
614
TABLE I: Summary of datasets
Category
Model
Train Data
Inf. Disclosure
Ours (Privacy)
ZTab-pri (Llama3.1-70B,Qwen-1.5B)
No
No
ZTab-pri (Llama3.1-70B,Llama-7B)
No
No
ZTab-pri (Llama3.1-70B,Mistral-7B)
No
No
ZTab-pri (Llama3.1-70B,Qwen2.5-7B)
No
No
Ours (Performance)
ZTab-per (GPT-4.1-mini,GPT-4.1-mini)
No
Yes
ZTab-per (GPT-4o-mini,GPT-4o-mini)
No
Yes
TABLE II: ZTab, baselines, and reference algorithms. Yes/No indicates whether a model uses training data and whether user information is disclosed at inference time.
Category
Model
In-Domain
Cross-Domain
Cross-Ontology
Comparing ZTab-privacy with zero-shot baselines that use open-source LLMs
TableLlama (Llama-7B)
48.2
77.5
38.1
ZTab-pri (Llama3.1-70B,Llama-7B)
65.7
82.0
67.1
Jellyfish (Mistral-7B)
24.0
68.5
26.7
ZTab-pri (Llama3.1-70B,Mistral-7B)
69.1
87.4
72.1
ArcheType ZS (T5)
43.3
73.0
48.3
GPT-20B-based
21.9
80.0
26.6
TABLE III: Main results: we compare ZTab-privacy with zero-shot baselines that use open-source LLMs, and compare ZTab-performance with zero-shot baselines that use closed-source LLMs.
In-Domain
Category
Model
WikiTable
SOTAB sch
SOTAB sch-s
SOTAB dbp
T2D
Efthymiou
Limaye
Zero-shot
TableLlama (Llama-7B)
59.6
32.6
32.6
38.1
78.2
68.9
86.0
ZTab-pri (Llama3.1-70B,Llama-7B)
24.7
73.1
71.9
69.6
90.4
82.5
85.9
Jellyfish (Mistral-7B)
0.0
8.4
8.4
26.7
76.7
58.9
78.0
ZTab-pri (Llama3.1-70B,Mistral-7B)
30.6
74.6
73.5
73.2
93.5
87.0
91.1
ArcheType ZS (T5)
6.3
40.1
40.1
48.3
81.6
67.7
78.3
TABLE IV: Details of Comparing ZTab-privacy with open-source based models for In-domain generalization.
In-Domain
Category
Model
WikiTable
SOTAB sch
SOTAB sch-s
SOTAB dbp
T2D
Efthymiou
Limaye
Zero-shot
Chorus (GPT-3.5)
15.3
60.3
60.3
64.8
83.4
82.5
87.4
GPT-3.5-based
28.3
64.0
64.0
70.0
89.4
82.7
90.4
CENTS (GPT-3.5)
25.6
49.7
49.7
53.7
88.0
87.9
89.5
ZTab-per (GPT-3.5,GPT-3.5)
42.3
77.3
77.0
77.4
96.2
92.4
92.5
CENTS (GPT-4o-mini)
33.0
59.8
59.8
61.1
92.4
85.6
86.8
TABLE VI: Details of Comparing ZTab-performance with closed-source based models for In-domain generalizations.
Fig. 3: Top 50 classes in WikiTable dataset ranked by improvement of ZTab-performance (GPT-4.1-mini,GPT-4.1-mini) over baseline CENTS (GPT-4.1-mini)
Dataset
ZTab
ZTab with pseudo-tables generated by TabGen [ 40 ]
WikiTable
34.1
12.9
SOTAB sch
76.9
39.5
SOTAB sch-s
75.1
35.7
SOTAB dbp
76.2
50.3
T2D
96.2
91.9
TABLE VIII: Effect of table generation on micro-F1 score.
Dataset
ZTab
ZTab w/o S
ZTab w/o P
WikiTable
34.1
28.4
3.9
SOTAB sch
76.9
71.1
18.6
SOTAB sch-s
75.1
71.1
18.6
SOTAB dbp
76.2
72.7
31.3
T2D
96.2
93.9
67.4
Efthymiou
91.3
91.3
51.5
TABLE IX: Effect of pseudo-table settings on micro-F1 score.
Class Prototype Size
Dataset
All
50
25
12
6
WikiTable
34.1
32.8
32.4
31.2
30.9
SOTAB sch
76.9
75.9
75.4
74.7
73.6
SOTAB sch-s
75.1
74.2
73.3
72.5
72.8
SOTAB dbp
76.2
74.4
74.2
73.3
72.1
T2D
96.2
95.9
95.4
95.6
95.2
TABLE X: Effect of class prototype size e on micro-F1 score.
Presentation
col-by-col
col-by-col
row-by-row
row-by-row
Prediction
target
all
target
all
WikiTable
34.1
31.3
32.2
28.8
SOTAB sch
76.9
74.0
74.3
71.5
SOTAB sch-s
75.1
73.5
74.1
71.1
SOTAB dbp
76.2
75.2
74.3
72.0
T2D
96.2
94.4
95.1
92.4
TABLE XI: Effect of prompt design on micro-F1 score.
Dataset
#Schemas
#Unique Schemas
WikiTable
397,098
9,849
SOTAB sch
44,769
4,189
SOTAB sch-s
10,631
1,643
SOTAB dbp
37,631
1,780
T2D
160
64
TABLE XII: Number of total and unique schemas in datasets.
Fig. 4: Effect of fine-tuning epochs on micro F1 score (avg. over datasets).
Learning Dataset
ZTab
ZTab only-remapping
SOTAB sch
75.2
55.6
SOTAB sch-s
74.4
54.9
TABLE XIV: Effect of label remapping on micro-F1 under ontology shift.
Zero-shot learning lets models recognize classes or solve tasks absent from task-specific training examples by using semantic descriptions or pretrained knowledge.
Table annotation is crucial for making web and enterprise tables usable in downstream NLP applications. Unlike textual data where learning semantically rich token or sentence embeddings often suffice, tables are structured combinations of columns wherein useful representations must jointly capture column's semantics and the inter-column relationships. Existing models learn by linearizing the 2D table into a 1D token sequence and encoding it with pretrained language models (PLMs) such as BERT. However, this leads to limited semantic quality and weaker generalization to unseen or rare values compared to modern LLMs, and degraded structural modeling due to 2D-to-1D flattening and context-length constraints. We propose TabEmb, which directly targets these limitations by decoupling semantic encoding from structural modeling. An LLM first produces semantically rich embeddings for each column, and a graph-based module over columns then injects relationships into the embeddings, yielding joint semantic-tructural representations for table annotation. Experiments show that TabEmb consistently outperforms strong baselines on different table annotation tasks. Source code and datasets are available at https://github.com/hoseinzadeehsan/TabEmb
Ehsan Hoseinzade, Ke Wang, Anandharaju Durai Raju
School of Computing Science Simon Fraser University Burnaby, Canada
Tabular machine learning typically relies on per-dataset workflows, fitting tree ensembles or running AutoML searches from scratch for every task. We present TabFM, a 400M-parameter tabular foundation model that formulates supervised tabular prediction as in-context learning. TabFM produces calibrated zero-shot predictions in a single forward pass without task-specific tuning. Trained entirely on synthetic tables generated from structural causal models, TabFM learns general tabular representations that transfer zero-shot to real-world tasks. Across all 51 benchmark datasets in TabArena (38 classification and 13 regression), zero-shot TabFM ranks first among default tabular foundation models and outperforms tuned AutoML pipelines. Two extensions over the same frozen weights improve performance further on both tracks: multi-view feature expansion with ensembling and post-hoc calibration (TabFM+), and LLM-guided, dataset-specific data processing and feature engineering (TabFM-Auto).
Generating accurate and informative column descriptions (e.g. "membership status of customers" for the column name "cust_mem") is essential for a wide range of downstream NLP tasks on tabular data, including NL2SQL, table question answering, and entity linking. This problem arises in enterprises, domain sciences, government data portals, and so on. Despite its importance, most real-world datasets suffer from missing or cryptic documentation, often due to abbreviated column names or domain-specific jargon. Existing approaches largely rely on single-prompt large language models (LLMs), which struggle with three key issues: (i) inconsistent or incorrect handling of abbreviations, (ii) hallucinated or incomplete descriptions, and (iii) redundancy or vagueness that hinders downstream performance. We present TACO, a task-aware framework for automatic column description generation using LLMs. TACO introduces a three-step pipeline: (1) abbreviation expansion, which standardizes column names; (2) description generation, which produces initial semantic descriptions enriched with synonyms and search-oriented keywords; and (3) description revision, which refines these outputs using simulated downstream tasks. In addition, we investigate human-in-the-loop extensions and release new evaluation datasets for entity linking and schema enrichment. Extensive experiments across public and proprietary datasets show that TACO consistently outperforms existing methods, improving downstream task performance by up to 32%.
Ting Cai, Rakesh R. Menon, Yiru Chen +8
University of Wisconsin-Madison · Adobe · Purdue University