# ReliableTableQA:How Much Supervision Does Reliability Annotation Need?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.20537 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.20537/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 10 of its 15 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 10 Jul 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [Spider: A Large-Scale Human-Labeled Dataset for Complex and Cross-Domain Semantic Parsing and Text-to-SQL Task](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1809.08887/) (2018)
- [Can LLM Already Serve as A Database Interface? A BIg Bench for Large-Scale Database Grounded Text-to-SQLs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.03111/) (2023)
- [AbstentionBench: Reasoning LLMs Fail on Unanswerable Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.09038/) (2025)
- [HoloClean: Holistic Data Repairs with Probabilistic Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1702.00820/) (2017)
- [Reasoning-SQL: Reinforcement Learning with SQL Tailored Partial Rewards for Reasoning-Enhanced Text-to-SQL](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.23157/) (2025)
- [Reliable Text-to-SQL with Adaptive Abstention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.10858/) (2025)
- [TrustSQL: Benchmarking Text-to-SQL Reliability with Penalty-Based Scoring](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.15879/) (2024)
- [Calibrating LLMs for Text-to-SQL Parsing by Leveraging Sub-clause Frequencies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.23804/) (2025)
- [Node-Level Uncertainty Estimation in LLM-Generated SQL](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.13984/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.