Organizations: The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · Ant Group · Hong Kong Polytechnic University · Zhejiang University · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · City University of Hong Kong · University of Illinois at Chicago
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.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of two CoT-based reasoning methods on a table image.
Figure 2: Construction pipeline of InterTab-22K . Step 1: GLM-5.3-Flash is instructed to generate multi-turn trajectories with get_sub_table , where wrong visual evidence are corrected by locating the referenced cell in the table metadata. Step 2: LLM-as-judge for filtering trajectories based on visual-evidence structure and answer correctness. Step 3: deduplicate trajectories by sample IDs, do length-filtered, and balanced across the eight source datasets for SFT.
Figure 3: Overview of the InterTab framework. First, we perform supervised alignment of each reasoning step with interleaved, structure-aware visual tokens using InterTab-22K . Second, we optimize the model using ALO with tool and task rewards, enabling an active policy for interleaved reasoning and accurate visual localization.
Model
HiTab
InfoTabs
TabFact
TabMWP
TATQA
WikiTQ
FeTaQA
HybridQA
VTQA
Average
General-purpose MLLMs
GLM-4.1V-9B ( Team et al., 2026 )
71.43
72.93
82.03
86.58
38.37
72.03
38.81
54.01
51.75
63.10
InternVL3.5-8B ( Wang et al., 2025b )
77.12
71.67
87.10
95.53
51.26
69.07
42.17
70.94
49.67
68.28
Kimi-VL-A3B-Instruct ( Kimi Team et al., 2025 )
62.46
66.76
70.43
54.72
16.04
56.99
38.92
48.73
38.11
50.35
LLaVA-1.6 ( Liu et al., 2024 )
16.84
37.81
49.78
39.34
9.03
16.64
13.33
9.93
21.24
23.77
Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct ( Bai et al., 2025b )
73.86
71.65
76.00
89.84
40.78
60.14
39.20
39.87
46.64
59.78
Table 1: Performance comparison on nine table understanding benchmarks. Accuracy (%) is reported for all benchmarks. Best results are in bold and second-best results are underlined.
Reasoning
HiTab
InfoTabs
TabFact
TabMWP
TATQA
WikiTQ
FeTaQA
HybridQA
VTQA
Average
Text-only CoT
71.45
70.44
87.01
94.91
51.25
72.78
45.19
72.60
54.40
68.89
Interleaved (Ours)
77.45
73.59
87.95
96.35
57.25
75.03
50.10
81.00
59.80
73.17
Δ
+6.00
+3.15
+0.94
+1.44
+6.00
+2.25
+4.91
+8.39
+5.41
+4.28
Table 2: Interleaved reasoning versus a matched text-only baseline. Accuracy (%) is reported.
Figure 4: Training-strategy comparison. Top: accuracy of SSA-only, ALO-only, and SSA+ALO. Bottom: accuracy gain of SSA+ALO over each baseline, in percentage points.
Configuration
HiTab
InfoTabs
TabFact
TabMWP
TATQA
WikiTQ
FeTaQA
HybridQA
VTQA
Average
Ours
77.45
73.59
87.95
96.35
57.25
75.03
50.10
81.00
59.80
73.17
w/o call penalty
76.39
70.70
86.59
94.80
54.87
74.13
43.03
80.01
62.75
71.47
Δ
−1.06
−2.89
−1.36
−1.55
−2.38
−0.90
−7.07
−0.99
+2.95
−1.69
w/o localization
76.14
68.72
86.02
97.46
51.99
73.93
40.95
80.59
56.86
70.30
Δ
−1.31
−4.87
−1.93
+1.11
−5.26
−1.10
−9.15
−0.41
−2.94
−2.87
Table 3: Reward-component ablation. Accuracy (%) is reported. Δ is the change relative to Ours.
Figure 5: (a) Average accuracy across unpenalized allowances. (b) Per-benchmark change from N0=7 . (c) Accuracy on held-out Visual Table QA.
Figure 6: Case study of InterTab. Our method accurately localizes the most relevant region.
Appendix figures & tables13 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Statistic
Mean
Min
Max
General
Total source samples
21,721
Samples containing tool calls
21,721 (100%)
Unique tools
1 ( get_sub_table )
Effective samples per SSA epoch
53,048 (with upsampling)
Conversation & Reasoning
Appendix
Table 4: Statistics of the SSA source dataset before upsampling. Text tokens are counted using the Qwen3-VL tokenizer without chat-template framing or image-patch tokens; literal <image> placeholders are retained. Observations contain only image placeholders.
Dataset
SSA source
SSA/epoch
ALO train
ALO val.
FeTaQA
1,311
6,631
400
10
HiTab
1,216
6,631
400
10
HybridQA
6,513
6,631
400
10
InfoTabs
410
6,631
400
10
TabFact
6,631
6,631
400
10
TabMWP
4,380
6,631
400
10
Appendix
Table 5: Dataset composition before and after SSA upsampling. ALO samples are drawn without replacement from the SSA source pool. ALO counts precede prompt-length filtering.
Hyperparameter
SSA
ALO
Framework
LLaMA-Factory
verl
Distributed strategy
DeepSpeed ZeRO-3
FSDP2
Initialization
Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
Instruct / SSA checkpoint
Vision tower
Frozen
Frozen
Multimodal projector
Frozen
Frozen
Learning rate
10−5
10−6
Appendix
Table 6: Training configurations. The SSA run was configured for three epochs, while the checkpoint used to initialize ALO was saved after epoch one (step 829). ALO values refer to the completed llmjudge_v1 main experiments, not sensitivity runs.
Figure 7: Inference prompt. The model may call get_sub_table and must place the final answer in <answer> tags.
Figure 8: Rollout prompt. Each step explains the needed evidence, then requests one complementary crop.
Figure 9: LLM-as-a-judge prompt. The judge checks semantic equivalence to the reference answer.
Figure 10: Effect of removing individual training sources. Left: score loss relative to the full mixture; positive values favor the full mixture. Outlined cells identify the corresponding source benchmark. Right: self-task and cross-task mean losses. VTQA is used only for evaluation.
Figure 11: ALO dynamics from the Base and SSA checkpoints. Curves show training reward, policy entropy, policy-gradient loss, and mean response length with EMA coefficient 0.9. The comparison covers the same 398 updates for each initialization.
Metric
Base → ALO
SSA → ALO
Mean reward
0.674
0.832
Rollout correctness (%)
79.89
87.61
Localization IoU
0.492
0.697
Format score
0.497
0.981
Policy entropy
0.039
0.069
Policy-gradient loss standard deviation
0.0346
0.0228
Appendix
Table 7: Late-training diagnostics from unsmoothed logs, averaged over steps 301–398 (98 updates). Policy-gradient loss variability is the sample standard deviation across updates. Higher is better for reward, correctness, and IoU; entropy and call count are descriptive diagnostics.
Figure 12: Decomposition of rollout reward during ALO. Positive areas show weighted correctness, tool-quality, and format contributions; the negative area combines missing-tool and excess-call penalties. The black curve is the observed total reward. All temporal components use EMA coefficient 0.9.
Figure 13: Rollout-level components during ALO. Lines show per-step means and shaded bands show the 10th–90th percentile range across rollouts, with EMA coefficient 0.9 applied to both. Bands represent rollout dispersion, not confidence intervals or variation across training seeds.
Figure 14: Rollout outcomes grouped by tool-call count across all recorded updates. Top: mean score, correctness, and tool quality; score error bars show 1.96 times the standard error within each bucket. Bottom: the fraction of rollouts in each bucket. The final bucket pools counts of ten or more.
Figure 15: Spearman correlations among rollout metrics, computed separately for Base and SSA across all recorded updates. The total score includes correctness, tool quality, and format by construction; these associations are descriptive and do not establish causality.
Table reasoning with language models typically assumes access to clean textual tables. In practice, tables are often serialized into text, which can corrupt cell contents, distort structural relationships, and discard visual cues, leaving the model to reason over incomplete evidence. In contrast, table images retain this information, but using it requires both accurate perception and reasoning grounded in the relevant cells. To address this, we propose MERIT (Multimodal Evidence Reasoning over Image Tables), a three-stage framework for learning to reason over table images, with serialized tables serving as optional auxiliary inputs (if provided). Our analysis identifies visual evidence acquisition as a bottleneck, motivating table-specific encoder adaptation through reconstruction, localization, and color-conditioned supervision. Building on the adapted representations, supervised fine-tuning teaches explicit evidence selection and reasoning using verified trajectories. Finally, reinforcement learning refines the policy with separate rewards for evidence correctness, calculation, final answers, and output format. By providing feedback on intermediate steps, the framework targets retrieval and computational errors that final-answer supervision alone does not distinguish. We evaluate the approach on table question answering and fact verification, analyze the contributions of visual inputs and training components, and assess generalization to additional datasets with different table structures and visual presentations.
Haoyang Jiang, Zhuotong Fan, Mingyang Yi +3
Renmin University of China · Independent Researcher · Beike Inc.
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
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)