Skip to content
← Back to explorer

TableMind++: An Uncertainty-Aware Programmatic Agent for Tool-Augmented Table Reasoning

Mingyue Cheng, Shuo Yu, Chuang Jiang, Xiaoyu Tao, Qingyang Mao, Jie Ouyang, Qi Liu, Enhong Chen · Mar 8, 2026 · Citations: 0

Data freshness

Extraction: Fresh

Check recency before relying on this page for active eval decisions. Use stale pages as context and verify against current hub results.

Metadata refreshed

Mar 10, 2026, 2:57 AM

Recent

Extraction refreshed

Mar 13, 2026, 5:20 AM

Fresh

Extraction source

Persisted extraction

Confidence 0.45

Abstract

Table reasoning requires models to jointly perform semantic understanding and precise numerical operations. Most existing methods rely on a single-turn reasoning paradigm over tables which suffers from context overflow and weak numerical sensitivity. To address these limitations, we previously proposed TableMind as a tuning-based autonomous programmatic agent that simulates human-like interaction within a lightweight large language model (LLM). TableMind internalizes planning, action, and reflection through a two-stage training strategy involving supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on filtered high-quality data and reinforcement learning (RL) via a multi-perspective reward and the Rank-Aware Policy Optimization (RAPO) algorithm. While TableMind establishes a solid foundation for programmatic agents, the inherent stochasticity of LLMs remains a critical challenge that leads to hallucinations. In this paper, we extend this foundation to TableMind++ by introducing a novel uncertainty-aware inference framework to mitigate hallucinations. Specifically, we propose memory-guided plan pruning to retrieve historical trajectories for validating and filtering out logically flawed plans to address epistemic uncertainty. To ensure execution precision, we introduce confidence-based action refinement which monitors token-level probabilities to detect and self-correct syntactic noise for aleatoric uncertainty mitigation. Finally, we employ dual-weighted trajectory aggregation to synthesize a robust consensus from multiple reasoning paths. Extensive experiments on diverse benchmarks demonstrate that TableMind++ consistently outperforms previous baselines and proprietary models to validate the effectiveness of integrating autonomous training with uncertainty quantification. Our code is available.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • Extraction confidence is 0.45 (below strong-reference threshold).

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

Extraction confidence is 0.45 (below strong-reference threshold).

Trust level

Low

Eval-Fit Score

25/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence: Low

Field Provenance & Confidence

Each key protocol field shows extraction state, confidence band, and data source so you can decide whether to trust it directly or validate from full text.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

Evidence snippet: Table reasoning requires models to jointly perform semantic understanding and precise numerical operations.

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction evidenced

Includes extracted eval setup.

Evidence snippet: Table reasoning requires models to jointly perform semantic understanding and precise numerical operations.

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No explicit QC controls found.

Evidence snippet: Table reasoning requires models to jointly perform semantic understanding and precise numerical operations.

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No benchmark anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: Table reasoning requires models to jointly perform semantic understanding and precise numerical operations.

Reported Metrics

partial

Precision

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction evidenced

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

Evidence snippet: To ensure execution precision, we introduce confidence-based action refinement which monitors token-level probabilities to detect and self-correct syntactic noise for aleatoric uncertainty mitigation.

Rater Population

missing

Unknown

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

Rater source not explicitly reported.

Evidence snippet: Table reasoning requires models to jointly perform semantic understanding and precise numerical operations.

Human Data Lens

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Unknown
  • Unit of annotation: Trajectory
  • Expertise required: Law, Coding
  • Extraction source: Persisted extraction

Evaluation Lens

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: Long Horizon
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Confidence: 0.45
  • Flags: ambiguous

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

precision

Research Brief

Deterministic synthesis

To address these limitations, we previously proposed TableMind as a tuning-based autonomous programmatic agent that simulates human-like interaction within a lightweight large language model (LLM). HFEPX signals include Automatic Metrics, Long Horizon with confidence 0.45. Updated from current HFEPX corpus.

Generated Mar 13, 2026, 5:20 AM · Grounded in abstract + metadata only

Key Takeaways

  • To address these limitations, we previously proposed TableMind as a tuning-based autonomous programmatic agent that simulates human-like interaction within a lightweight large…
  • Specifically, we propose memory-guided plan pruning to retrieve historical trajectories for validating and filtering out logically flawed plans to address epistemic uncertainty.

Researcher Actions

  • Treat this as method context, then pivot to protocol-specific HFEPX hubs.
  • Identify benchmark choices from full text before operationalizing conclusions.
  • Validate metric comparability (precision).

Caveats

  • Generated from title, abstract, and extracted metadata only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
  • Extraction confidence is probabilistic and should be validated for critical decisions.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • To address these limitations, we previously proposed TableMind as a tuning-based autonomous programmatic agent that simulates human-like interaction within a lightweight large language model (LLM).
  • Specifically, we propose memory-guided plan pruning to retrieve historical trajectories for validating and filtering out logically flawed plans to address epistemic uncertainty.
  • To ensure execution precision, we introduce confidence-based action refinement which monitors token-level probabilities to detect and self-correct syntactic noise for aleatoric uncertainty mitigation.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • To address these limitations, we previously proposed TableMind as a tuning-based autonomous programmatic agent that simulates human-like interaction within a lightweight large language model (LLM).
  • While TableMind establishes a solid foundation for programmatic agents, the inherent stochasticity of LLMs remains a critical challenge that leads to hallucinations.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: precision

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.