SciTaRC: Benchmarking QA on Scientific Tabular Data that Requires Language Reasoning and Complex Computation
Abstract
Domain fit: AI-adjacent · Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
We introduce SciTaRC, an expert-authored benchmark of questions about tabular data in scientific papers requiring both deep language reasoning and complex computation. We show that current state-of-the-art AI models fail on at least 23% of these questions, a gap that remains significant even for highly capable open-weight models like Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct, which fails on 65.5% of the tasks. Our analysis reveals a universal "execution bottleneck": both code and language models struggle to faithfully execute plans, even when provided with correct strategies. Specifically, code-based methods prove brittle on raw scientific tables, while natural language reasoning primarily fails due to initial comprehension issues and calculation errors.
Results and benchmarks
We introduce SciTaRC, an expert-authored benchmark of questions about tabular data in scientific papers requiring both deep language reasoning and complex computation.
| Task | Dataset | Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Natural language processing | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Accuracy | 21.3 | paper-derived |
| Natural language processing | DS-R1-Dist-32B | Accuracy | 41.5 | paper-derived |
| Natural language processing | OpenAI | EM . | 22.1 | paper-derived |
| Natural language processing | xAI | EM . | 34.0 | paper-derived |
Audit each benchmark finding before selecting an implementation path. Evidence refs map to the disclosure below.
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 95/100, grounding 68/100, status medium.
Implementation
No direct implementation yet
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Time to first repro: a few days
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Repositories and ecosystem
No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.
These repositories had low-confidence matching signals and are hidden by default.
- JHU-CLSP/SciTaRC
Confidence: Low · 1 stars
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Datasets
Spaces
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Tasks
Natural language processing
Methods
Transformer
Domains
Natural Language Processing
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXJump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.