LLMs typically linearize 2D tables into 1D sequences to fit their autoregressive architecture, which weakens row-column adjacency and other layout cues. In contrast, purely visual encoders can capture spatial cues, yet often struggle to preserve exact cell text. Our analysis reveals that these two modalities provide highly distinct information to LLMs and exhibit strong complementarity. However, direct concatenation and other fusion methods yield limited gains and frequently introduce cross-modal interference. To address this issue, we propose DiVA-Former, a lightweight architecture designed to effectively integrate vision and text information. DiVA-Former leverages visual tokens as dynamic queries to distill long textual sequences into digest vectors, thereby effectively exploiting complementary vision--text information. Evaluated across 13 table benchmarks, DiVA-Former improves upon the pure-text baseline by 23.9% and achieves consistent gains over existing baselines using visual inputs, textual inputs, or a combination of both.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Pilot study on TCR. “Any-Correct” denotes the proportion of examples for which either the vision or text modality yields the correct answer.
Figure 2: The overall architecture of DiVA-Former. The model leverages spatial visual tokens ( vi ) extracted from a table image as dynamic queries. These queries attend to the linearized table text tokens ( cj ) via Cross-Attention to generate compact digest vectors ( di ). A gating mechanism maintains an approximate identity mapping from the initial visual tokens to the output digest, preserving high-quality 2D spatial priors.
Method
Modality
Question Answering
Structure Understanding
Fact Verification
Text Generation
Avg
WTQ
FeTaQA
TAT
HiTab
TabMWP
TSR
TCE
RCE
TCR
TabFact
InfoTabS
RotoWire
WikiBio
Direct
Vision
55.1
17.4
75.8
63.5
74.1
14.8
36.1
14.2
39.5
72.0
77.6
13.9
13.1
43.6
Text
54.6
19.2
73.9
68.4
75.9
14.2
24.2
13.8
43.0
72.4
72.8
15.2
13.3
43.2
V+T
55.2
18.4
75.7
68.0
73.8
15.1
35.7
14.3
48.7
72.8
74.8
14.0
12.9
44.6
Adapter
Vision
52.9
47.8
72.2
60.1
82.0
73.6
78.6
53.7
46.8
70.8
64.4
16.7
29.2
57.6
Text
52.8
46.8
74.8
70.0
78.4
47.0
54.3
24.1
46.1
68.0
72.0
13.9
20.2
51.4
Table 1: Main results on 13 table benchmarks. The best results are highlighted in bold , and the second-best results are underlined . Our model delivers the strongest performance on 12 of the 13 benchmarks and surpasses all baselines in overall average score.
Figure 3: Prediction alignment barcode for the subset of examples where both unimodal settings fail. Each column represents a single example, and the color intensity indicates the number of correctly localized target coordinates. We categorize the comparison between DiVA-Former and the direct concat baseline into Win, Tie, and Loss groups. DiVA-Former successfully recovers substantially more of these difficult examples than direct concat, demonstrating that its performance gains stem from leveraging complementary cross-modal information to solve cases that unimodal approaches cannot.
Dataset
Direct concat
DiVA-Former
TCR
15.97%
55.23% (↑ 39.26%)
HiTab
4.35%
26.09% (↑ 21.74%)
TabMWP
3.70%
92.59% (↑ 88.89%)
WTQ
5.26%
21.05% (↑ 15.79%)
TabFact
5.56%
42.59% (↑ 37.03%)
InfoTabS
5.66%
41.51% (↑ 35.85%)
Table 2: Recovery rate on examples where both text-only and vision-only inputs fail.
Gate
Query
Context
Question Answering
Structure Understanding
Fact Verification
Text Generation
Avg
WTQ
FeTaQA
TAT
HiTab
TabMWP
TSR
TCE
RCE
TCR
TabFact
InfoTabS
RotoWire
WikiBio
✓
Text
Text
22.8
44.3
72.8
56.1
91.2
71.0
75.4
38.9
34.5
62.0
70.8
17.0
35.2
53.2
✓
Vision
Vision
48.6
47.9
72.8
58.8
89.2
76.7
78.5
61.3
64.2
71.2
72.4
18.3
32.3
60.9
✓
Text
Vision
60.0
45.8
74.5
65.3
91.0
75.0
85.2
73.9
63.1
76.3
69.1
17.5
34.3
63.9
Vision
Text
15.7
38.6
29.8
6.6
20.8
69.5
72.0
25.4
61.2
48.4
50.4
17.8
20.3
36.7
✓
Vision
Text
60.9
50.4
78.0
70.5
92.0
79.1
85.3
76.2
71.6
79.1
75.6
18.7
35.5
67.1
Table 3: Ablation on modality roles and identity-preserving gates. “Query” indicates the initialization source of the resampler queries, and “Context” denotes the token sequence used as Keys/Values in cross-attention. The full DiVA-Former setting (Text context + Vision queries) with identity-preserving gates achieves the best performance.
Figure 4: Hyperparameter analysis of DiVA-Former. Left: training loss curves under different initial gate values g0 . Middle: final average score across the 13 benchmarks under different initial gate values g0 . Right: final average score under different numbers of DiVA-Former layers.
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Modality
Vision
Text
V + T
2wikimqa
74.12
78.26
77.43
dureader
33.54
40.49
41.51
gov_report
25.47
26.26
25.79
hotpotqa
62.86
74.33
74.30
multi_news
21.62
23.06
22.69
multifieldqa_en
54.66
59.55
58.42
Appendix
Table 4: Comparison between visual compression and direct text input on long-context benchmarks. Despite strong performance from the visual compression framework, direct text input remains better on most datasets, indicating that current soft-embedding methods still incur non-trivial information loss.
Method
Modality
Question Answering
Structure Understanding
Fact Verification
Text Generation
Overall
WTQ
FeTaQA
TAT
HiTab
TabMWP
TSR
TCE
RCE
TCR
TabFact
InfoTabS
RotoWire
WikiBio
Direct
Vision
55.1
17.4
75.8
63.5
74.7
14.8
36.1
13.8
39.5
72.0
77.6
13.9
13.1
43.6
Text
54.6
19.2
73.9
68.4
75.3
14.2
24.2
14.8
43.0
72.4
72.8
15.2
13.3
43.2
V+T
55.2
18.4
75.7
68.0
73.8
15.1
35.7
14.3
48.7
72.8
74.8
14.0
12.9
44.6
T+V
54.8
18.3
70.8
68.5
76.2
14.0
35.4
14.5
45.9
70.8
75.2
13.5
13.6
44.0
Adapter
Vision
52.9
47.8
72.2
60.1
82.0
73.6
78.6
53.7
46.8
70.8
64.4
16.7
29.2
57.6
Appendix
Table 5: Main results with different modality order. Rows with modality T+V are highlighted in red.
Figure 5: Full-set per-example prediction alignment analysis on TCR. The left region corresponds to examples where DiVA-Former outperforms direct concatenation, the middle region indicates ties, and the right region contains examples where DiVA-Former underperforms. Notably, many examples in the left region are cases that unimodal models and direct concatenation fail to solve at all, while even on some examples in the right region DiVA-Former still recovers a substantial number of coordinates.
Large Language Models (LLMs) and Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are increasingly evaluated on table reasoning tasks, but the role of table representation remains under-explored. In practice, the same table content may appear in different structural formats, such as HTML, Markdown, and LaTeX, or as rendered images. However, existing evaluations often let content, format, layout, and modality vary together, making it difficult to isolate representation effects. We introduce TABVERSE, a controlled multimodal table benchmark that aligns the same table content across multiple structural formats and rendered images, with question category and difficulty tags. This design enables systematic evaluation of representation effects while holding table content fixed. We evaluate LLMs and VLMs across three tasks: Question Answering (QA), Structural Understanding Capability (SUC), and Structure Reconstruction (SR). Our results show that representation choice substantially affects table understanding. Models generally perform better with structured text than with rendered images, but the size of this gap depends on the task, model, and format. HTML is often the most robust text format, while row-sensitive structural tasks and syntactically usable LaTeX reconstruction remain challenging. These findings show that table representation is a key factor in reliable table evaluation.
Momina Ahsan, Sarfraz Ahmad, Ming Shan Hee +2
1Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence (MBZUAI) · 2Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD)
Table images preserve structural information that are often lost in text serialization, and reasoning over them requires locating relevant rows, columns, and cells step by step. Current multimodal large language models (MLLMs) encode the whole image once before reasoning, so they cannot pick up row-, column-, and cell-level evidence as the question unfolds. Encoder-side table structure and generic interleaved visual chain-of-thought still do not bind each reasoning step to that structure. We propose InterTab, an Interleaved structure-aware framework for CoT reasoning over Table images, interleaves chain-of-thought with tool calls that crop structure-aligned table regions. First, we build InterTab-22K, includes reasoning trajectories in which each step is tied to both a structural location and a bounding box. InterTab is trained in two stages: supervised structure-aware alignment (SSA) on InterTab-22K teaches the model to interleave reasoning with structure-aligned crops, and active localization optimization (ALO) further optimizes answer correctness, localization IoU, and output format, while penalizing missing or excessive tool calls. Experiments on nine table benchmarks show that InterTab improves the average accuracy of its backbone from 68.28% to 73.17% and achieves the best average performance among all compared methods. Code and data will be released soon.
Hanqian Li, Sirui Huang, Chen Ling +12
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · Ant Group · Hong Kong Polytechnic University +4
Pre-trained foundation models have recently made significant progress in table-related tasks such as table understanding and reasoning. However, recognizing the structure and content of unstructured tables using Vision Large Language Models (VLLMs) remains under-explored. To bridge this gap, we propose a benchmark based on a hierarchical design philosophy to evaluate the recognition capabilities of VLLMs in training-free scenarios. Through in-depth evaluations, we find that low-quality image input is a significant bottleneck in the recognition process. Drawing inspiration from this, we propose the Neighbor-Guided Toolchain Reasoner (NGTR) framework, which is characterized by integrating diverse lightweight tools for visual operations aimed at mitigating issues with low-quality images. Specifically, we transfer a tool selection experience from a similar neighbor to the input and design a reflection module to supervise the tool invocation process. Extensive experiments on public datasets demonstrate that our approach significantly enhances the recognition capabilities of the vanilla VLLMs. We believe that the benchmark and framework could provide an alternative solution to table recognition.
Yitong Zhou, Mingyue Cheng, Qingyang Mao +3
State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Intelligence, University of Science and Technology of China · Artificial Intelligence Research Institute, iFLYTEK Co., Ltd