TasksSotADatasetsPapersMethodsSubmitAbout
Papers With Code 2

A community resource for machine learning research: papers, code, benchmarks, and state-of-the-art results.

Explore

Notable BenchmarksAll SotADatasetsPapersMethods

Community

Submit ResultsAbout

Data sourced from the PWC Archive (CC-BY-SA 4.0). Built by the community, for the community.

Papers/AIT-QA: Question Answering Dataset over Complex Tables in ...

AIT-QA: Question Answering Dataset over Complex Tables in the Airline Industry

Yannis Katsis, Saneem Chemmengath, Vishwajeet Kumar, Samarth Bharadwaj, Mustafa Canim, Michael Glass, Alfio Gliozzo, Feifei Pan, Jaydeep Sen, Karthik Sankaranarayanan, Soumen Chakrabarti

2021-06-24NAACL (ACL) 2022 7Semantic ParsingQuestion Answering
PaperPDFCode(official)

Abstract

Recent advances in transformers have enabled Table Question Answering (Table QA) systems to achieve high accuracy and SOTA results on open domain datasets like WikiTableQuestions and WikiSQL. Such transformers are frequently pre-trained on open-domain content such as Wikipedia, where they effectively encode questions and corresponding tables from Wikipedia as seen in Table QA dataset. However, web tables in Wikipedia are notably flat in their layout, with the first row as the sole column header. The layout lends to a relational view of tables where each row is a tuple. Whereas, tables in domain-specific business or scientific documents often have a much more complex layout, including hierarchical row and column headers, in addition to having specialized vocabulary terms from that domain. To address this problem, we introduce the domain-specific Table QA dataset AIT-QA (Airline Industry Table QA). The dataset consists of 515 questions authored by human annotators on 116 tables extracted from public U.S. SEC filings (publicly available at: https://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml) of major airline companies for the fiscal years 2017-2019. We also provide annotations pertaining to the nature of questions, marking those that require hierarchical headers, domain-specific terminology, and paraphrased forms. Our zero-shot baseline evaluation of three transformer-based SOTA Table QA methods - TaPAS (end-to-end), TaBERT (semantic parsing-based), and RCI (row-column encoding-based) - clearly exposes the limitation of these methods in this practical setting, with the best accuracy at just 51.8\% (RCI). We also present pragmatic table preprocessing steps used to pivot and project these complex tables into a layout suitable for the SOTA Table QA models.

Related Papers

From Roots to Rewards: Dynamic Tree Reasoning with RL2025-07-17Enter the Mind Palace: Reasoning and Planning for Long-term Active Embodied Question Answering2025-07-17Vision-and-Language Training Helps Deploy Taxonomic Knowledge but Does Not Fundamentally Alter It2025-07-17City-VLM: Towards Multidomain Perception Scene Understanding via Multimodal Incomplete Learning2025-07-17Describe Anything Model for Visual Question Answering on Text-rich Images2025-07-16Is This Just Fantasy? Language Model Representations Reflect Human Judgments of Event Plausibility2025-07-16Warehouse Spatial Question Answering with LLM Agent2025-07-14Evaluating Attribute Confusion in Fashion Text-to-Image Generation2025-07-09