Papers › ReAcTable: Enhancing ReAct for Table Question Answering
ReAcTable: Enhancing ReAct for Table Question Answering
Yunjia Zhang, Jordan Henkel, Avrilia Floratou, Joyce Cahoon, Shaleen Deep, Jignesh M. Patel
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Table Question Answering (TQA) presents a substantial challenge at the intersection of natural language processing and data analytics. This task involves answering natural language (NL) questions on top of tabular data, demanding proficiency in logical reasoning, understanding of data semantics, and fundamental analytical capabilities. Due to its significance, a substantial volume of research has been dedicated to exploring a wide range of strategies aimed at tackling this challenge including approaches that leverage Large Language Models (LLMs) through in-context learning or Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting as well as approaches that train and fine-tune custom models. Nonetheless, a conspicuous gap exists in the research landscape, where there is limited exploration of how innovative foundational research, which integrates incremental reasoning with external tools in the context of LLMs, as exemplified by the ReAct paradigm, could potentially bring advantages to the TQA task. In this paper, we aim to fill this gap, by introducing ReAcTable (ReAct for Table Question Answering tasks), a framework inspired by the ReAct paradigm that is carefully enhanced to address the challenges uniquely appearing in TQA tasks such as interpreting complex data semantics, dealing with errors generated by inconsistent data and generating intricate data transformations. ReAcTable relies on external tools such as SQL and Python code executors, to progressively enhance the data by generating intermediate data representations, ultimately transforming it into a more accessible format for answering the questions with greater ease. We demonstrate that ReAcTable achieves remarkable performance even when compared to fine-tuned approaches. In particular, it outperforms the best prior result on the WikiTQ benchmark, achieving an accuracy of 68.0% without requiring training a new model or fine-tuning.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2310.00815")
Code
Syntology Ran 12 of 14 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 2 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 12 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: official repository: 14 samples from 1 repository, 12 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
14 samples harvested; 12 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 2 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 14 of the 14 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from yunjiazhang/reactable. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
cc0da5b0802e9c63 · report
b85d9bc26ff2e614 · report
88546384ad84b949 · report
7180fc1ec0102f1e · report
4c07388a9e0b0c59 · report
d362da205b859c10 · report
a45d4f4937e13ce9 · report
a96370ed557030b6 · report
d36ac54a744f2e4d · report
cdf3e617d4e9fa9a · report
487c2b67e9994abc · report
7d08d54b37310ff6 · report
46c6b158cb4dd891 · report
85430df17257a172 · report
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections