aiqbench analysis
This study reveals that LLM performance on imperfect tables is highly sensitive to row ordering and demonstrates that merely marking error locations is insufficient for accurate question answering. The research validates a new workflow combining shuffled table views with explicit repair guidance, which significantly boosts accuracy across multiple large language models. These findings are critical for developers building robust QA systems that must navigate noisy or structured data environments.
Understanding Errors in LLM-Based Question Answering over Imperfect Tables
arXiv:2610.04687v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We investigate error discovery and handling in question answering over imperfect tables through controlled studies across three large language models (LLMs) on human-reviewed RADAR-T examples. Answering questions over these tables requires handling errors that can affect the answer. We vary row order and compare original, error-marked, and repaired tables to test whether discovery depends on where errors appear and whether providing their locations is sufficient for accurate question answering. First, reordering rows changes error discovery even when the table contents and gold answer remain unchanged. Complete discovery is higher for back than front placements and, averaged over the tested mean positions, for compact than widely spaced layouts. Second, providing verified error locations alone is insufficient for accurate QA, leaving a substantial accuracy gap between error-marked and repaired tables. Providing tables with human-reviewed repairs already applied raises code-assisted QA accuracy by 39.0-59.1 percentage points over the error-marked tables across the three systems. GBDI, a simple workflow, puts these findings into practice by combining error discovery across shuffled table views with explicit guidance for verifying and handling the reported errors. On RADAR-T, GBDI raises observed QA accuracy by 3.8-18.5 percentage points over a code-agent baseline across five systems. These results highlight the importance of both reliable error discovery and effective error handling in question answering over imperfect tables. Our anonymous repository is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/GBDI-ICLR-2027-85BD/
Abstract:We investigate error discovery and handling in question answering over imperfect tables through controlled studies across three large language models (LLMs) on human-reviewed RADAR-T examples. Answering questions over these tables requires handling errors that can affect the answer. We vary row order and compare original, error-marked, and repaired tables to test whether discovery depends on where errors appear and whether providing their locations is sufficient for accurate question answering. First, reordering rows changes error discovery even when the table contents and gold answer remain unchanged. Complete discovery is higher for back than front placements and, averaged over the tested mean positions, for compact than widely spaced layouts. Second, providing verified error locations alone is insufficient for accurate QA, leaving a substantial accuracy gap between error-marked and repaired tables. Providing tables with human-reviewed repairs already applied raises code-assisted QA accuracy by 39.0-59.1 percentage points over the error-marked tables across the three systems. GBDI, a simple workflow, puts these findings into practice by combining error discovery across shuffled table views with explicit guidance for verifying and handling the reported errors. On RADAR-T, GBDI raises observed QA accuracy by 3.8-18.5 percentage points over a code-agent baseline across five systems. These results highlight the importance of both reliable error discovery and effective error handling in question answering over imperfect tables. Our anonymous repository is available at this https URL
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2610.04687 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2610.04687v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.04687 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 320 words
Related coverage

Research Note: Filtering Subversion-Relevant Information From Pretraining Data Is Feasible
LessWrong · Oct 5, 2026
J++ Lens: Jacobian Filtering Enables More Faithful Workspace Lenses
LessWrong · Oct 8, 2026

Game-Theoretic Disempowerment: Loss of Control to Agencyless AI
LessWrong · Sep 27, 2026

Jev: System One models for Prod, not God — with Diogo Almeida, CEO, TypeSafe AI
Latent Space · Sep 21, 2026