CURED: Creating, Understanding, and Repairing Errors Demonstrator

High-quality training data is essential for the success of machine learning models. However, real-world datasets often contain mixed types of errors arising from systematic flaws in data preparation pipelines, including label errors, feature errors, and spurious correlations. Effective debugging of training data requires both detecting erroneous samples and identifying their specific error types to enable targeted repair, yet existing data cleaning and attribution methods fail to adequately address this dual requirement. In this paper, we propose DeMix, a novel framework that simultaneously diagnoses erroneous samples and their error types. Our key insight is that different error types produce distinct patterns on model behavior. DeMix captures such error-specific patterns by influence vectors that characterize how each training sample affects model predictions across all validation samples. We formulate training data debugging as a multi-label classification problem where a classifier is developed to predict error types directly from influence vectors. We further introduce an intervention-based learning strategy that guides the classifier to capture invariant rationales specific to each error type, ensuring the learned classifier generalizes effectively. Empirical evaluations on 11 tasks across tabular data prediction, recommendation systems, and LLM alignment demonstrate that DeMix significantly outperforms state-of-the-art approaches, achieving a 22.61% improvement in data debugging F1-score and a 9.32% gain in task model performance after data repair. Code is available at: https://github.com/SJTU-DMTai/DeMix.

Tabular Foundation Models (TFMs) achieve state-of-the-art zero-shot accuracy on small tabular datasets, but their in-context learning assumes approximately clean inputs: real- world missing values, outliers, and duplicates create a prior mismatch that degrades both accuracy and calibration. We study reinforcement learning for tabular data cleaning, a learned policy that sequences cleaning operators and introduce L2C-TFM with a model-aware reward (TFMAwareReward). We are explicit about what this reward optimizes: it regularizes the Wasserstein distance between the cleaned and the original (dirty) data, a distributional-stability term, which we measure as a diagnostic. Across six experiments on ten OpenML datasets: (i) three of seven reward designs collapse to degenerate strategies, so reward engineering is non-trivial; (ii) under an 8-seed repeated-holdout protocol the model-aware reward matches a random-forest-reward baseline on accuracy (p=0.38), with a benefit confined to minority-class macro-F1 under class imbalance that is partly a reward-agnostic calibrated-threshold effect; and (iii) a policy pre-trained on one dataset transfers to held-out datasets. A diagnostic analysis shows that the two distances are distinct objectives: cleaning tends to move data away from the prior, and prior-distance, not distance-to-dirty, is what tracks downstream quality. We therefore treat prior alignment as a motivating objective and a target for future work, not a property of the reward evaluated here. Code, datasets, and the nested evaluation harness are available at https://github.com/LaureBerti/Learn2Clean/tree/master/Learn2Clean_TFM.

While large language models (LLMs) perform well on table tasks, they still make data referencing errors (DREs), i.e., incorrectly citing or omitting table values, despite understanding the table structure. Beyond final-answer accuracy, DREs directly compromise the correctness and reliability of intermediate reasoning steps. Yet prior studies have only offered limited, small-scale analyses. In this work, we present the first systematic evaluation of tabular data referencing errors across different models and tasks. Our results show that DREs occur across all tested models (1.7B to 20B parameters). Furthermore, we demonstrate that incorporating data referencing as a critic significantly improves answer accuracy up to 12.0%, through critic-based filtering and rejection sampling. Finally, we trained a lightweight 4B-parameter critic model that achieves an average F1 score of 78.2% in detecting both in-distribution and out-of-distribution DREs, and effectively assists inference for larger models.