mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

AnnotatedTables: A Large Tabular Dataset with Language Model Annotations

arXiv 2406.16349 ↗First posted 24 Jun 2024cs.LGcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Tabular data is ubiquitous in real-world applications and abundant on the web, yet its annotation has traditionally required human labor, posing a significant scalability bottleneck for tabular machine learning. Our methodology can successfully annotate a large amount of tabular data and can be flexibly steered to generate various types of annotations based on specific research objectives, as we demonstrate with SQL annotation and input-target column annotation as examples. As a result, we release AnnotatedTables, a collection of 32,119 databases with LLM-generated annotations. The dataset includes 405,616 valid SQL programs, making it the largest SQL dataset with associated tabular data that supports query execution. To further demonstrate the value of our methodology and dataset, we perform two follow-up research studies. 1) We investigate whether LLMs can translate SQL programs to Rel programs, a database language previously unknown to LLMs, while obtaining the same execution results. Using our Incremental Prompt Engineering methods based on execution feedback, we show that LLMs can produce adequate translations with few-shot learning. 2) We evaluate the performance of TabPFN, a recent neural tabular classifier trained on Bayesian priors, on 2,720 tables with input-target columns identified and annotated by LLMs. On average, TabPFN performs on par with the baseline AutoML method, though the relative performance can vary significantly from one data table to another, making both models viable for practical applications depending on the situation. Our findings underscore the potential of LLMs in automating the annotation of large volumes of diverse tabular data.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 44 of its 80 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Jun 2024.

Builds on

44 of 80 references.

References · 44

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
  2. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
  3. 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
  4. 2016XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting Systemcited by 5,166
  5. 2019HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?cited by 4,100
  6. 2020Longformer: The Long-Document Transformercited by 3,413
  7. 2022Emergent Abilities of Large Language Modelscited by 2,512
  8. 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,276
  9. 2022Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language modelscited by 1,998
  10. 2022Rethinking the Role of Demonstrations: What Makes In-Context Learning Work?cited by 1,434
  11. 2018Spider: A Large-Scale Human-Labeled Dataset for Complex and Cross-Domain Semantic Parsing and Text-to-SQL Taskcited by 1,139
  12. 2023ChatGPT Outperforms Crowd-Workers for Text-Annotation Taskscited by 870
32 more
  1. 2023StarCoder: may the source be with you!cited by 799
  2. 2020Long Range Arena: A Benchmark for Efficient Transformerscited by 700
  3. 2023Can LLM Already Serve as A Database Interface? A BIg Bench for Large-Scale Database Grounded Text-to-SQLscited by 688
  4. 2022TabPFN: A Transformer That Solves Small Tabular Classification Problems in a Secondcited by 674
  5. 2021Tabular Data: Deep Learning is Not All You Needcited by 535
  6. 2023Are Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models a Mirage?cited by 523
  7. 2021Deep Neural Networks and Tabular Data: A Surveycited by 491
  8. 2023Text-to-SQL Empowered by Large Language Models: A Benchmark Evaluationcited by 385
  9. 2020AutoGluon-Tabular: Robust and Accurate AutoML for Structured Datacited by 383
  10. 2017The Case for Learned Index Structurescited by 188
  11. 2017OpenML Benchmarking Suitescited by 178
  12. 2020Auto-Sklearn 2.0: Hands-free AutoML via Meta-Learningcited by 174
  13. 2023Is ChatGPT better than Human Annotators? Potential and Limitations of ChatGPT in Explaining Implicit Hate Speechcited by 166
  14. 2019SParC: Cross-Domain Semantic Parsing in Contextcited by 144
  15. 2017SQLNet: Generating Structured Queries From Natural Language Without Reinforcement Learningcited by 135
  16. 2023A comprehensive evaluation of ChatGPT's zero-shot Text-to-SQL capabilitycited by 119
  17. 2021KaggleDBQA: Realistic Evaluation of Text-to-SQL Parserscited by 106
  18. 2019A Comprehensive Exploration on WikiSQL with Table-Aware Word Contextualizationcited by 88
  19. 2018TypeSQL: Knowledge-based Type-Aware Neural Text-to-SQL Generationcited by 81
  20. 2019Neo: A Learned Query Optimizercited by 80
  21. 2023GPTEval: A Survey on Assessments of ChatGPT and GPT-4cited by 73
  22. 2020Bao: Learning to Steer Query Optimizerscited by 62
  23. 2023How to Prompt LLMs for Text-to-SQL: A Study in Zero-shot, Single-domain, and Cross-domain Settingscited by 58
  24. 2020Kaggle forecasting competitions: An overlooked learning opportunitycited by 56
  25. 2020DeepRecSys: A System for Optimizing End-To-End At-scale Neural Recommendation Inferencecited by 54
  26. 2022A Survey on Text-to-SQL Parsing: Concepts, Methods, and Future Directionscited by 52
  27. 2022Recent Advances in Text-to-SQL: A Survey of What We Have and What We Expectcited by 47
  28. 2019Deep Unsupervised Cardinality Estimationcited by 36
  29. 2019A Pilot Study for Chinese SQL Semantic Parsingcited by 33
  30. 2020Relational Data Synthesis using Generative Adversarial Networks: A Design Space Explorationcited by 21
  31. 2020TableQA: a Large-Scale Chinese Text-to-SQL Dataset for Table-Aware SQL Generationcited by 12
  32. 2021KGTorrent: A Dataset of Python Jupyter Notebooks from Kagglecited by 10

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 2.

3 papers.