ReliableTableQA:How Much Supervision Does Reliability Annotation Need?
Mirrored from arXiv — Machine Learning for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Machine Learning
Title:ReliableTableQA:How Much Supervision Does Reliability Annotation Need?
Abstract:We introduce ReliableTableQA, a framework for training an LLM to annotate the statistical reliability of tabular QA results, not whether the query is answerable, but whether the computed answer is statistically meaningful. In real enterprise analytics, a syntactically correct SQL query can return a value that is based on too small a sample, has an excessively wide confidence interval, or is too confounded to support action. Existing systems answer confidently in all such cases, a failure we quantify as the Unreliable Confident Answer Rate (UCAR). We contribute (1) a ten-category reliability taxonomy (R1-R10) covering hazards such as small-sample aggregates, multiple-comparison inflation, and distribution-tail mismatch; (2) a program-first data pipeline that generates 50,000 reliability-labeled training examples from a context-free grammar over public retail schemas, with schema-stratified SFT/GRPO splits; and (3) a controlled study of how much supervision calibrated reliability annotation actually requires. We find that a small, schema-stratified SFT set is remarkably sufficient: 200 examples raise reliability-flag F1 from 0.61 to 0.98 and parse rate from 0.52 to 1.00, drive UCAR to zero, and yield a model that generalizes to an unseen retail domain (Rel-F1 0.997 on held-out H&M). Against this strong SFT baseline, GRPO, commonly assumed to be essential, helps only when SFT is under-trained (+0.06-0.16 exact-flag-set match at 100 examples, in- and out-of-distribution) and provides no measurable benefit once SFT is adequate, a null result we confirm across a hard compound-flag slice, a strict exact-match metric, and out-of-distribution evaluation. Our findings reframe reliability annotation as a data-efficiency problem and delineate precisely when reinforcement fine-tuning does and does not pay off.
| Comments: | 12 pages, 2 figures |
| Subjects: | Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2607.20537 [cs.LG] |
| (or arXiv:2607.20537v1 [cs.LG] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.20537
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
|
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
References & Citations
Bookmark
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
Demos
Recommenders and Search Tools
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
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.
More from arXiv — Machine Learning
-
LoKiFormer: Locality-aware Attention with Decoupled Knowledge Memory for Efficient Large Language Model Pretraining
Aug 14
-
Which Site, and When: A Free-Satellite-Data Test of Himalayan Glacial Lake Bursts, Landslides, and Ice Floods
Aug 14
-
MARCH: Scaling Recurrent Memory with Content-Routed State Anchors
Aug 14
-
Multi-AUV Ad-hoc network-based Target Tracking: A Value Gradient Guidance Multi-Agent Diffusion Reinforcement Learning Approach
Aug 14
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.