We study how text serialization affects table lookup in instruction-tuned language models. Our diagnostic asks the model to find the row containing a specified value under one named column, then return the value under another named column in that same row. We render the same synthetic 256-cell tables in row-major form and in column-major form with each header placed beside its values, while varying the table aspect ratio across five shapes. Across three models, the better format changes with table shape: row-major performs better on tall tables, whereas column-major performs better on wide tables. At 64 x 4, row-major leads by 42.3-54.0 percentage points; at 4 x 64, column-major leads by 35.0-59.0 points. Mapping wrong answers back to their source cells reveals a complementary error pattern: row-major tends to preserve the correct row but lose the target column, while column-major tends to preserve the correct column but lose the row. We use the term relational locality to describe this pattern: serialization keeps one relation locally available while making the other depend on positional alignment. A separate non-tabular ordering experiment supports this interpretation. Thus, apparent width-related failures in text-serialized tables depend on linearization, not table shape alone.
Figures & tables
Row-major
Column-major with local headers
Column order: Employee | Department | Salary Grouping: rows Alice | Sales | 72000 Bob | Engineering | 95000 Carla | Finance | 83000
Figure 1: The same logical table in the two main experimental serializations. Readable names replace the random strings used in the experiments. Neither representation adds row labels; column-major labels each column once.
Figure 2: Exact lookup accuracy with Wilson 95% intervals. Each point contains 300 questions paired between row-major and locally headed column-major representations.
Figure 3: Row and column accuracy. Exact answers count toward both lines. Row-major increasingly loses columns with width; column-major increasingly loses rows with depth.
Figure 4: Accuracy versus fragments per group (Wilson 95% intervals).
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
64×4
16×16
4×64
Qwen Coder 3B
-42.3 [-48.7, -36.0]
-1.3 [-7.3, +5.0]
+39.3 [+33.7, +45.0]
Qwen 3B
-51.7 [-57.7, -46.0]
-6.0 [-12.7, +0.7]
+35.0 [+29.0, +41.0]
Phi-3.5 Mini
-54.0 [-59.7, -48.0]
+17.7 [+10.7, +24.7]
+59.0 [+53.3, +64.7]
Appendix
Table 1: Paired column-major-minus-row-major accuracy differences at the tall, square, and wide shapes. Intervals use 10,000 paired bootstrap resamples.
Figure 5: Exact lookup accuracy in the independent-axis experiment (150 fresh tables per cell). Transposing under global headers is uniformly poor. Attaching each header to its column span rotates the vulnerable axis from columns to rows.
Representation
Rows OR
Columns OR
Row-major, global headers
0.80 [0.74, 0.87]
0.41 [0.37, 0.44]
Column-major, global headers
0.65 [0.55, 0.77]
0.48 [0.40, 0.58]
Column-major, local headers
0.41 [0.37, 0.45]
0.71 [0.65, 0.77]
Appendix
Table 2: Change in exact-lookup odds for each doubling of rows or columns in the independent-axis grid, with logistic-model 95% intervals. Paired representation contrasts are reported separately.
In the LLM era, many symbolic and structured problems are presented to models through 1D text serialization. Yet some such problems are natively two-dimensional: their relevant relations, such as row--column correspondence or spatial adjacency, are defined by position in a 2D layout rather than by sequential order. This raises a representational question: does preserving the same symbolic entries in a 1D sequence also preserve the relational structure needed for computation? We study this issue through the lens of serialization friction: the representational mismatch in which the same underlying task instances and entries are still present, but relations that depend on layout become implicit under 1D serialization. The study uses a controlled synthetic testbed of three tasks: matrix transpose, Conway's Game of Life, and LU decomposition. In each task, the same instances are presented either as 1D text serialization or as their native 2D layout rendered as an image. Across this testbed, 1D serialization degrades more sharply as task size grows, and errors under serialization exhibit spatially structured patterns, suggesting that this presentation choice is consequential within our testbed. To further interpret these results, we add supplementary analyses that include a within-visual probe and an additional comparison of the two input presentations under the mixed-training transpose setting. These findings suggest that, for layout-defined tasks, reducing inputs to 1D serialization is not a neutral choice of representation.
Chung-Hsiang Lo, Lu Li, Diji Yang +4
1Northeastern University · University of Pennsylvania · 3UC Santa Cruz +3
Transformer-based table retrieval systems flatten structured tables into token sequences, making retrieval sensitive to the choice of serialization even when table semantics remain unchanged. We show that semantically equivalent serializations, such as csv, tsv, html, markdown, and ddl, can produce substantially different embeddings and retrieval results across multiple benchmarks and retriever families. To address this instability, we treat serialization embedding as noisy views of a shared semantic signal and use its centroid as a canonical target representation. We show that centroid averaging suppresses format-specific variation and can recover the semantic content common to different serializations when format-induced shifts differ across tables. Empirically, centroid representations outrank individual formats in aggregate pairwise comparisons across MPNet, BGE-M3, ReasonIR, and SPLADE. We further introduce a lightweight residual bottleneck adapter on top of a frozen encoder that maps single-serialization embeddings towards centroid targets while preserving variance and enforcing covariance regularization. The adapter improves robustness for several dense retrievers, though gains are model-dependent and weaker for sparse lexical retrieval. These results identify serialization sensitivity as a major source of retrieval variance and show the promise of post hoc geometric correction for serialization-invariant table retrieval.
Kushal Raj Bhandari, Adarsh Singh, Jianxi Gao +2
Department of Computer Science Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona, USA · ScaleAI San Francisco, CA, USA
Real-world tables are often heterogeneous, combining numerical features with free-form string columns. Table foundation models (TFMs) excel on numerical tables but require strings to be encoded numerically, while large language models (LLMs) hold semantic knowledge but are not designed for tabular predictions. Most existing bridges use LLMs as plug-in encoders for cell strings, yet how to extract representations effectively for tabular learning remains underexplored. We show that the interface between LLMs and tables matter as much as the LLM itself. Applied cell-wise, larger LLMs do not give better features. With our interface, the same LLMs improve steadily with size. TILE (Table-Interfaced LLM Embeddings) combines four ingredients: row serialization to provide cross-column context, intermediate-layer extraction to avoid layers specialized for next-token prediction, columnar pooling to remove mean pooling's length bias, and by-pass features to route numbers and categories past the LLM. Paired with TFMs, TILE sets a new state of the art for tables with strings. Across 100 datasets, it beats the strongest baseline on 89% of splits, with gains across 7 LLMs and 10 tabular learners, and ranks first on the 108-dataset STRABLE benchmark.