With the rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs), growing efforts have been made on LLM-based table retrieval. However, existing studies typically focus on single-table query, and implement it by similarity matching after encoding the entire table. These methods usually result in low accuracy due to their coarse-grained encoding which incorporates much query-irrelated data, and are also inefficient when dealing with large tables, failing to fully utilize the reasoning capabilities of LLM. Further, multi-table query is under-explored in retrieval tasks. To this end, we propose a hierarchical multi-table query method based on LLM: Fine-Grained Multi-Table Retrieval FGTR, a new retrieval paradigm that employs a human-like reasoning strategy. Through hierarchical reasoning, FGTR first identifies relevant schema elements and then retrieves the corresponding cell contents, ultimately constructing a concise and accurate sub-table that aligns with the given query. To comprehensively evaluate the performance of FGTR, we construct two new benchmark datasets based on Spider and BIRD . Experimental results show that FGTR outperforms previous state-of-the-art methods, improving the F_2 metric by 18% on Spider and 21% on BIRD, demonstrating its effectiveness in enhancing fine-grained retrieval and its potential to improve end-to-end performance on table-based downstream tasks.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Illustration of the human cognitive process for table comprehension and the motivation for fine-grained retrieval. (a) Humans typically adopt a hierarchical approach: they first scan schemas to identify relevant columns and then locate the specific rows needed, effectively creating a mental sub-table. (b) Performance comparison on BirdQA demonstrating the necessity of retrieval. Feeding the compact, retrieved sub-table significantly boosts QA accuracy, whereas feeding the full table leads to context window overflow and catastrophic failure.
Figure 2. The overall architecture of our FGTR framework, which consists of an offline preprocessing phase and a two-stage online retrieval process: Schema Retrieval and Cell Retrieval.
Method
Spider
BIRD
R
P
F2
SR
R
P
F2
SR
Full-schema
100
11.94
100
100
100
8.87
100
100
Gold-Based
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Backbone (Llama3-8b)
C3
70.74
74.83
71.52
32.45
52.00
75.00
55.40
28.34
FGTR
74.12
80.32
75.28
39.54
72.28
76.04
73.00
35.19
Table 1. Schema retrieval results on Spider and BIRD datasets under different backbone models. R, P, and F2 denote recall, precision, and F2 , respectively. * indicates results reported in the original papers. †indicates results from our reproduction. @n indicates voting with n predictions. +key indicates schema filling is used.
Method
Spider
BIRD
R
P
F2
SR
R
P
F2
SR
Full BD
100
8.07
-
100
100
2.94
-
100
Gold-based
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
TableRAG
92.84
8.82
31.96
63.08
87.40
5.70
22.60
42.97
FGTR (k=3)
94.98
32.74
68.82
72.73
96.74
26.17
62.85
76.13
FGTR (k=5)
97.73
24.31
69.93
84.43
97.42
18.19
52.06
83.20
Table 2. Cell retrieval results on Spider and BIRD datasets. k indicates retrieval of the top-k most similar values, while adapt refers to our adaptive cell mapping mechanism.
Method
Components
Downstream Accuracy (%)
SR
CR
BirdQA
SpiderQA
TabFACT
WTQ
FGTR
✓
✓
53.76
78.26
76.25
60.27
✓
✗
–
75.21
74.84
55.47
✗
✓
46.72
74.80
67.20
56.28
✗
✗
–
66.08
62.90
53.00
TableRAG
–
45.50
48.61
69.42
56.63
Table 3. Ablation study of the schema retrieval (SR) and cell retrieval (CR) components. Using both components in our FGTR model yields the best performance across all four downstream QA and fact-verification datasets. The performance of two baseline methods, TableRAG and Dater, is included for comparison. The "-" symbol indicates that the input table was too large to fit into the model’s context window.
Method
Spider
BIRD
Schema Retrieval
Cells Retrieval
Schema Retrieval
Cells Retrieval
R
P
F2
R
P
F2
R
P
F2
R
P
F2
FGTR
98.32
70.72
91.20
97.78
84.75
94.86
97.27
72.00
90.89
92.48
90.54
92.09
-w/o column explaining
96.63
68.41
89.27
-
-
-
92.17
70.30
86.84
-
-
-
-w/o question parsing
95.71
59.73
85.42
-
-
-
93.54
65.20
86.06
-
-
-
-w/o schema mapping
91.62
76.38
88.21
-
-
-
89.08
81.33
87.43
-
-
-
Table 4. Ablation study of FGTR on Spider and BIRD datasets for both schema retrieval and cell retrieval.
Figure 3. Performance comparison of FGTR and TableRAG across different table sizes. The x-axis represents table size (number of tokens). The left y-axis and the bar chart show the distribution of table sizes in our datasets. The right y-axis corresponds to the line plots, which compare the EM accuracy of FGTR against TableRAG on four downstream tasks. Each subplot corresponds to a different dataset.
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 4. Oriainal tables from BirdQA with FGTR relecance heat-map. In the schema retrieval phase, deeper orange indicates higher frequency fields, while in the cell retrieval phase, green intensity distinguishes between constrained (dark) and dependent (light) cells.
Figure 5. Original tables from WTQ with FGTR relecance heat-map.
Dataset
Overall
Per Question
# DBs
# Questions
Tables/DB
Cols/Table
Rows/Table
Tables/Q
Cols/Q
SpiderQA
166
965
5.13
5.01
17
1.52
2.99
BIRDQA
95
1,182
7.25
10.66
55,448
2.17
4.95
WTQ
1,876
2,000
1.0
6.41
28.01
1.00
-
TabFACT
1,695
2,000
1.0
6.25
13.43
1.00
-
Appendix
Table 5. Statistical overview of the benchmark datasets. The "Overall" columns describe the general and structural properties of the source databases, including total counts of databases and questions, the average number of tables per database, and the average columns and rows per table. The "Per Question" columns detail the complexity of the ground-truth schema for an average question, reporting the mean number of relevant tables and columns.
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.
Sungho Park, Joohyung Yun, Jongwuk Lee +1
POSTECH, Republic of Korea · Sungkyunkwan University, Republic of Korea
Table Retrieval (TR) has traditionally been formulated as an ad-hoc retrieval problem, where relevance is primarily determined by topical semantic similarity. With the growing adoption of LLM-based agentic systems, access to structured data is increasingly instruction-driven, where relevance is conditional on explicit content and schema constraints rather than topical similarity alone. We therefore formalize Instruction-Following Table Retrieval (IFTR), a new task that requires models to jointly satisfy topical relevance and fine-grained instruction constraints. We identify two core challenges in IFTR: (i) sensitivity to content scope, such as inclusion and exclusion constraints, and (ii) awareness of schema-grounded requirements, including column semantics and representation granularity--capabilities largely absent in existing retrievers. To support systematic evaluation, we introduce FollowTable, the first large-scale benchmark for IFTR, constructed via a taxonomy-driven annotation pipeline. We further propose a new metric, termed the Instruction Responsiveness Score, to evaluate whether retrieval rankings consistently adapt to user instructions relative to a topic-only baseline. Our results indicate that existing retrieval models struggle to follow fine-grained instructions over tabular data. In particular, they exhibit systematic biases toward surface-level semantic cues and remain limited in handling schema-grounded constraints, highlighting substantial room for future improvements.
Rihui Jin, Yuchen Lu, Ting Zhang +7
Southeast University Nanjing, China Key Laboratory of New Generation Artificial Intelligence Technology and Its Interdisciplinary Applications (Southeast University), Ministry of Education · Huawei Noah’s Ark Lab Shenzhen, China
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) enhances Large Language Models (LLMs) by grounding responses in external knowledge during inference. However, conventiona RAG systems under-perform on structured tabular data, largely due to coarse retrieval granularity and insufficient table semantic comprehension. To address these limitations, we introduce FT-RAG, a fine-grained framework that employs knowledge association by decomposing tables into entry-level semantic units to construct a structured graph. FT-RAG employs a structural neighbor expansion mechanism to find semantically connected entities during graph retrieval, followed by multi-modal fusion to consolidate the context of table retrieval results. Further, to address the scarcity of specialized datasets in this domain, we introduce Multi-Table-RAG-Lib, a benchmark comprising 9870 QA pairs with high complexity and difficulty, curated to demand multi-table integration and text-table information fusion for reasoning. FT-RAG surpasses top-performing baselines across all metrics, achieving a 23.5% and 59.2% improvement in table-level and cell-level Hit Rates, respectively. Generation performance also sees a remarkable 62.2% increase in exact value accuracy recall. These metrics verify the framework's effectiveness in factual grounding across both pure tabular and heterogeneous table-text contexts. Therefore, our method establishes a new state-of-the-art performance for complex reasoning over mixed-modality documents.
Zebin Guo, Weidong Geng, Ruichen Mao
Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia, USA · Zhejiang University Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China · Zhejiang Lab Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China