Matched via arXiv identifier search · Strong overlap with paper title keywords
- Stars
- 0
- Last push
- Oct 13, 2025 (248d ago)
Risk flags
- No CI pipeline detected
- No tagged releases
- No Docker setup
Junjie Xing, Yeye He, Mengyu Zhou, Haoyu Dong, Shi Han, Dongmei Zhang, Surajit Chaudhuri
Core AI workload signals detected from paper context and implementation/artifact evidence.
Language models such as GPT and Llama have shown remarkable ability on diverse natural language tasks, yet their performance on complex table tasks (e.g., NL-to-Code and data cleaning) remains suboptimal. Improving performance typically requires task-specific fine-tuning, which depends on expensive human labeling and is prone to overfitting. In this work, we propose Table-LLM-Specialist, a self-trained fine-tuning pa ...
radigm designed for table tasks. Our key insight is that many table tasks admit two dual formulations: a generative version and a classification version. Leveraging this duality, we introduce a Generator-Validator paradigm that iteratively generates and validates training data using language models, enabling effective fine-tuning without manually labeled data. Extensive evaluations on Llama, GPT-3.5, and GPT-4 show that Table-LLM-Specialist achieves (1) strong performance across diverse tasks compared to base models, for example, models fine-tuned on GPT-3.5 often surpass GPT-4 level quality; (2) lower deployment cost by enabling smaller models to reach high quality with reduced latency and cost; and (3) better generalization across multiple benchmarks, due to training on diverse, systematically generated data from real-world tables. Our code is available at https://github.com/microsoft/Table-Specialist. Models fine-tuned with Table-LLM-Specialist have been integrated into Microsoft Excel and are deployed in production for automated table data cleaning.
No concrete benchmark grounding is available yet. Treat the page as context or an implementation starting point only.
Language models such as GPT and Llama have shown remarkable ability on diverse natural language tasks, yet their performance on complex table tasks (e.g., NL-to-Code and data cleaning) remains suboptimal.
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
Hardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.
Matched via arXiv identifier search · Strong overlap with paper title keywords
Risk flags
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
Hardware requirements
No verified implementation available
No benchmark numbers could be verified. You will not be able to validate reproduction correctness against published numbers.
No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.
These repositories had low-confidence matching signals and are hidden by default.
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet.
Continue with targeted Hugging Face searches derived from the paper title and method context:
Tip: start with models, then check datasets/spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Direct artifact matches are currently sparse. Use targeted Hugging Face searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Tasks
None detected
Methods
Transformer
Domains
Natural Language Processing, Large Language Models
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXExplore Similar Papers
Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.
Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.