T A PE X :
T ABLE
P RE - TRAINING
VIA
L EARNING
A
N EURAL SQL E XECUTOR
Anonymous authors
Paper under double-blind review
A BSTRACT
Recent progress in language model pre-training has achieved a great success via leveraging large-scale unstructured textual data.
However, it is still a challenge to apply pre-training on structured tabular data due to the absence of large-scale high-quality tabular data.
In this paper, we propose T A PE X to show that table pretraining can be achieved by learning a neural SQL executor over a synthetic corpus, which is obtained by automatically synthesizing executable SQL queries and their execution outputs.
T A PE X addresses the data scarcity challenge via guiding the language model to mimic a SQL executor on the diverse, large-scale and highquality synthetic corpus.
We evaluate T A PE X on four benchmark datasets.
Experimental results demonstrate that T A PE X outperforms previous table pre-training approaches by a large margin and achieves new state-of-the-art results on all of them.
This includes improvements on the weakly-supervised WikiSQL denotation accuracy to 89 .
5 % ( +2 .
3% ), the WikiTableQuestions denotation accuracy to 57 .
5 % ( +4 . 8% ), the SQA denotation accuracy to 74 .
5 % ( +3 .
5% ), and the TabFact accuracy to 84 .
2 % ( +3 .
To our knowledge, this is the ﬁrst work to exploit table pre-training via synthetic executable programs and to achieve new state-of-the-art results on various downstream tasks.
I NTRODUCTION
Pre-trained language models (LMs) such as BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and BART (Lewis et al., 2020) have hit a success on a range of free-form natural language (NL) tasks.
By learning from a large amount of unstructured textual data, these models have demonstrated surprising capabilities in understanding NL sentences.
Inspired by this huge success, researchers have attempted to extend pre-training to structured tabular data (Herzig et al., 2020;
Yin et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2021a; Wang et al., 2021b;
Deng et al., 2020; 2021; Shi et al., 2021).
However, different from free-form NL sentences, tabular data often contains rich and meaningful structural information, for which existing pre-training approaches designed for unstructured data are not well suited.
To apply pre-training techniques on structured tabular data, there exist two key challenges: (i) where to obtain a large-scale pre-training corpus with high quality, and (ii) how to design an efﬁcient pretraining task for table pre-training.
For the ﬁrst challenge, existing works generally collect parallel data including NL sentences and tables as the pre-training corpus, since downstream tasks often involve a joint reasoning over both free-form NL sentences and tables.
They either crawled tables and their surrounding NL sentences from the Web (Herzig et al., 2020; Yin et al., 2020; Deng et al., 2021), or synthesized NL sentences on available tables (Yu et al., 2021a; Shi et al., 2021).
However, as pointed by Yin et al.
(2020), the raw data mined from the Web is extremely noisy and requires complicated heuristics to clean.
Conversely, the synthesis method is easier to control the data quality, but it usually requires experts to write hundreds of templates, which is both costly and often lacking diversity.
Regarding the pre-training task, existing works often employ different variants of Masked Language Modeling (MLM) (Devlin et al., 2019) to guide LMs to learn better representations of tabular data.
For example, T A P A S (Herzig et al., 2020) used MLM with whole word masking, and T A BERT (Yin et al., 2020) proposed Masked Column Prediction (MCP) to encourage the model to recover the names and data types of masked columns.
Despite their success, they still largely treat tabular data as a structural format of text, which leads to the need of an extremely large corpus for their table pre-training.
All of these hinder the progress of table pre-training. [Figure]
In this paper, we present a novel execution-centric table pre-training approach T
A PE X ( Ta ble P retraining via Ex ecution).
It addresses the above challenges and achieves efﬁcient table pre-training via approximating the structural reasoning process of formal languages over tables. The structural reasoning process is associated with the executability of tables, i.e., tables are inherently capable of supporting various reasoning operations (e.g., summing over a column in the table).
In particular, T A PE X approximates the structural reasoning process of SQL queries by pre-training LMs to mimic the behavior of a SQL execution engine on tables.
As shown in Figure 1, by sampling executable SQL queries over tables,
T A PE X ﬁrst synthesizes a large-scale pre-training corpus.
Then it continues pre-training a language model to output the execution results of these SQL queries, which are obtained from the SQL execution engine.
Since the diversity of SQL queries can be systematically guaranteed, we can easily synthesize a diverse, large-scale, and high-quality pre-training corpus.
Our key insight is that if a language model can be pre-trained to faithfully “execute” SQL queries and produce correct results, it should have a deep understanding of tables.
Thus, the execution pre-training task could be more efﬁcient in understanding tables and reasoning over tables.
To our knowledge, T A PE X is the ﬁrst one to explore table pre-training via synthetic executable programs.
T A PE X is conceptually simple and easy to implement.
In this paper, we regard the pre-training as a sequence generation task and employ an encoder-decoder model 1 .
Speciﬁcally, we employ the pre-trained encoder-decoder language model BART (Lewis et al., 2020) as the backbone.
Furthermore, we examine the effectiveness of T A PE X via two fundamental downstream tasks: table-based question answering (TableQA) and table-based fact veriﬁcation (TableFV).
To enable ﬁne-tuning of downstream tasks to take full advantage of T A PE X , we reformulate these tasks using the encoderdecoder sequence generation paradigm.
We evaluate T A
PE X using four well-known benchmark datasets.
Experimental results clearly demonstrate that T A PE X can bring signiﬁcant and consistent improvements on these datasets.
For example, T A PE X obtains an absolute improvement of 19 .
5% over BART in the W IKI T ABLE Q UESTIONS dataset.
Furthermore, T A PE X yields strong results even with a small pre-training corpus, demonstrating its high efﬁciency.
Finally, T A PE X achieves new state-of-the-art results on all experimental benchmarks, outperforming previous approaches by a large margin, including complicated table pre-training approaches with several heuristics in data processing.
We will make our code, model, and data publicly available to facilitate future research.
F INE -T UNING ON D OWNSTREAM T ASKS
Before diving into the details of our proposed table pre-training, we start by describing how to tackle downstream task ﬁne-tuning with the encoder-decoder sequence generation paradigm.
In this section, we ﬁrst present the background of two fundamental table related downstream tasks: tablebased question answering (TableQA) and table-based fact veriﬁcation (TableFV).
Then we elaborate on our generative ﬁne-tuning method in detail.
2. D OWNSTREAM T ASK F ORMULATION
As mentioned in § 1, downstream tasks always involve joint reasoning over free-form NL sentences and tables.
Therefore, examples of downstream tasks generally contain an NL sentence x and a (semi-)structured table T as the model input.
Each NL sentence consists of K tokens as x = x 1 , x 2 , · · · , x K , while each table T consists of M rows { r i } Mi =1 , in which each row r i contains N cell values { s (cid:104) i,j (cid:105) } Nj =1 .
Each cell s (cid:104) i,j (cid:105) includes a list of tokens and corresponds to a table header c j . [Figure]
As for the output, there are variations among different tasks.
In this paper, we focus on TableQA and TableFV.
TableQA aims to retrieve table content to answer the user’s question, and thus its output is either a list of cell values or number(s) calculated over the selected table region by aggregation functions (e.g., SUM ).
It is worth noting that for semi-structured tables, the answer may not be exactly table cell values, but their normalized forms (e.g., from 2k to 2,000 ), which makes downstream tasks more challenging (Oguz et al., 2020).
As for TableFV, the output is a binary decision yes or no , indicating whether the NL sentence follows the fact indicated by the table.
2. G ENERATIVE F INE -T UNING
In this section, we present a generative approach for downstream task ﬁne-tuning.
Unlike previous works, we model both TableQA and TableFT as sequence generation tasks and leverage generative
LMs to generate the output autoregressively.
Taking TableQA as an example, given an NL question, our method generates the answer by decoding it in a word-by-word fashion.
Architecture Our method theoretically applies for any LM as long as it can generate sequence, such as GPT3 (Brown et al., 2020) and
UniLM (Bao et al., 2020).
In our experiments, we implemented our method based on BART (Lewis et al., 2020), a widely used pre-trained encoder-decoder model.
BART follows a standard sequence-to-sequence Transformer architecture (Vaswani et al., 2017), with modifying ReLU activation functions to GeLU.
It is pre-trained via corrupting sentences (i.e., randomly sampling length-variable spans and masking each one with a single [MASK] token) and then optimizing a reconstruction loss.
As for the number of layers, we employ the BART Large conﬁguration in our experiments, i.e., 12 layers are used in both the encoder and the decoder.
Model Input As illustrated in Figure 2, the input contains an NL sentence and its corresponding table.
Encoding the NL sentence is relatively straightforward, while encoding the table is non-trivial since it exhibits underlying structures.
In practice, we ﬂatten the table into a sequence so that it can be fed directly into the model.
By inserting several special tokens to indicate the table boundaries, a ﬂattened table can be represented as T ∗ =
[HEAD] , c 1 , · · · , c N , [ROW] , 1 , r 1 , [ROW] , 2 , r 2 , · · · , r M .
Here [HEAD] and [ROW] are special tokens indicating the region of table headers and rows respectively, and the number after [ROW] is used to indicate the row index.
Notably, we also separate headers or cells in different columns using a vertical bar | .
Finally, we preﬁx the ﬂattened table T ∗ with the NL sentence x and feed them into the model encoder.
Model Output With attending on the encoder, the decoder is responsible for modeling the outputs of both TableQA and TableFV.
For TableQA, the output is the concatenation of the answer(s) separated by commas, and the decoder generates it autoregressively.
In this way, our model can readily support (almost) all operators and their compositions in TableQA.
For TableFV, as BART does for sequence classiﬁcation tasks (Lewis et al., 2020), the same input is fed into both the encoder and decoder, and a binary classiﬁer upon the hidden state of the last token in the decoder is used for the output.
Notably, our method can be easily extended to other table related tasks in a similar way.
Fine-Tuning Strategy Since our approach can perform various downstream tasks on the same architecture, it can easily perform multi-task learning.
Therefore, we explore two ways of ﬁnetuning, one for vanilla ﬁne-tuning and the other for multi-task ﬁne-tuning.
The former is to ﬁne-tune the model on each individual downstream task.
The latter is inspired by T A P A S (Herzig et al., 2020) and T5 (Raffel et al., 2020), which ﬁrst ﬁne-tunes the model on related or similar intermediate downstream tasks and then continues to ﬁne-tune it on the target downstream task.
[Figure]
Discussion Our approach comes with several advantages: (i) Flexibility : due to the powerful expressiveness of encoder-decoder models, our approach can readily adapt to (almost) any kind of output.
(ii) Conveniency : our approach does not require any modiﬁcation (e.g., table-speciﬁc masking) on pre-trained LMs, and can be trained in an end-to-end manner.
(iii) Transferability : since we formulate downstream tasks as sequence generation tasks, which allows different tasks to share the same training protocol, it is easy to perform multi-task ﬁne-tuning for our approach.
T ABLE P RE - TRAINING VIA E XECUTION
As mentioned in § 1, T A PE X achieves efﬁcient table pre-training by training LMs to mimic the behavior of a SQL execution engine.
In this section, we illustrate how to conduct table pre-training from two aspects: the pre-training task and the pre-training corpus.
3. P RE - TRAINING T ASK
Following the MLM task in NL pre-training, existing works usually use reconstruction tasks for table pre-training.
They generally take corrupted tables and NL sentences as input and try to recover the corrupted parts, in order to strengthen the linking between NL sentences and tables.
While these pre-training tasks perform well, they tend to be less efﬁcient since they usually require an extremely large pre-training corpus.
To design efﬁcient tasks for table pre-training, we argue that the key lies in the executability of tables.
That is to say, structured tables enable us to perform discrete operations on them via programming languages such as SQL queries, while unstructured text does not.
Taking this into account, T A PE X adopts SQL execution as the only pre-training task.
As illustrated in Figure 3, the pre-training of T A PE X is similar to the procedure of the above generative ﬁne-tuning.
Given an executable SQL query and a table T , T A PE X ﬁrst concatenates the SQL query and the ﬂattened table T ∗ to feed into the model encoder.
Then it obtains the query’s execution result through an off-the-shelf SQL executor (e.g., MySQL) to serve as the supervision for the model decoder.
Intuitively, the pretraining procedure is to encourage a language model to be a neural SQL executor.
We believe that if a language model can be trained to faithfully “execute” SQL queries and produce correct results, then it should have a deep understanding of tables.
3. P RE - TRAINING C ORPUS
Synthesizing the pre-training corpus is very important for table pre-training.
Generally, there are two key factors: the table source and the SQL query sampling strategy.
Table Source Following previous work by Yin et al. (2020), we choose publicly available semistructured tables as the table source.
However, rather than requiring millions of raw tables in (Yin et al., 2020), T A PE X works well even with only a few thousand tables.
Therefore, instead of fetching noisy tables from the Web and then heuristically ﬁltering them, we pick high-quality tables right from existing public datasets.
Concretely, we randomly select nearly 1 , 500 tables from the training set of W IKI T ABLE Q UESTIONS (Pasupat & Liang, 2015) as the table source for our pre-training corpus.
It should be mentioned that there is no overlap between the tables used in our pre-training
[Table] [Table]
[Table] [Table]
[Table]
and the tables used in the dev and test sets of all downstream tasks, so there is no data leakage problem.
Query Sampling
Regarding the sampling of diverse SQL queries, there are various choices in the literature.
We can either sample SQL queries according to a probabilistic context-free grammar (Wang et al., 2021a), or instantiate SQL templates over different tables (Zhong et al., 2020a).
In our experiments, we follow the latter, where SQL templates are automatically extracted from the
S QUALL dataset (Shi et al., 2020b).
An example SQL template is: SELECT num 1 WHERE text= val 1 , where num 1 and text 1 correspond to a numeric column and a text column respectively, and val 1 refers to one of the cell values with respect to the column text 1 .
Given a SQL template, at each instantiation, we uniformly sample headers and cell values from a sampled table to ﬁll the template, forming a concrete SQL query.
Notably, SQL queries that execute with empty results are discarded, because empty results do not reﬂect much information about the executability of tables.
This way, we can obtain a large-scale pre-training corpus with high quality.
E XPERIMENTS
In this section, we evaluate T A PE X on different downstream tasks to verify its effectiveness.
Dataset and Evaluation We evaluate the performance of our approach on weakly-supervised WikiSQL (W IKI SQL-W EAK ) (Zhong et al., 2017), W IKI T ABLE Q UESTIONS (Pasupat & Liang, 2015), SQA (Iyyer et al., 2017), and T AB F ACT (Chen et al., 2019).
The dataset statistics are shown in Table 1.
Compared to W IKI SQL-W EAK , which only requires ﬁltering and optionally aggregating on table cell values, W IKI T ABLE Q UESTIONS requires more complicated reasoning capabilities, such as sorting the given table.
SQA is a conversational benchmark, which requires our approach to model the conversational context.
For TableQA datasets, the evaluation metric is denotation accuracy, which checks whether the predicted answer(s) is equal to the ground-truth answer(s).
It is worth noting that we evaluate our approach on W IKI SQL-W EAK with answer annotations provided by T A P A S (Herzig et al., 2020), since nearly 2% of answers obtained from the ofﬁcial evaluation
[Table] [Table]
script are incorrect.
For T AB F ACT , the evaluation metric is accuracy, which is calculated using the percentage of correct prediction.
Implementation Details We implement our approach based on fairseq (Ott et al., 2019).
During pre-training, we synthesize up to 5 million pairs of SQL queries and their execution results for
T A PE X .
In the following, unless speciﬁed explicitly, all the experimental results are by default evaluated under the 5 million setting.
Our pre-training procedure runs up to 50 , 000 steps with a batch size of 256 .
It takes about 36 hours on 8 Tesla V100 GPUs to ﬁnish the pre-training.
The best pre-training checkpoint is selected based on the loss on the validation set.
For all downstream datasets, the ﬁne-tuning procedure runs up to 20 , 000 steps with a batch size of 128 .
For both pretraining and ﬁne-tuning, the learning rate is 3 × 10 − 5 .
4. M AIN R ESULTS
Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5 summarize the experimental results of various models on
W IKI SQL-W EAK , W IKI T ABLE Q UESTIONS , SQA and T AB F ACT respectively.
For both dev and test sets of all datasets, we report the median performance of our approach for ﬁve random runs.
W IKI SQL-W EAK As shown in Table 2, T A PE X outperforms all the baselines by a large margin.
On the test set of W IKI SQL-W EAK , T A PE X registers a denotation accuracy of 89 .
5% , which is 3 .
7% higher than BART and 2 .
3% higher than the previous best performance.
This is signiﬁcant since the previous best model has already utilized the execution-guided decoding.
In short, T A PE X achieves a new state-of-the-art result on the well-known benchmark W IKI SQL-W EAK .
W IKI T ABLE Q UESTIONS
On the more challenging W IKI T ABLE Q UESTIONS , T A PE X also achieves a new state-of-the-art denotation accuracy of 57 .
5% , surpassing the previous best system
[Table]
by 4 . 8% (Table 3). Meanwhile, we ﬁnd that BART alone can only reach the denotation accuracy of 38 . 0% , much worse than the performance of previous pre-training models.
We conjecture that the performance degradation could be attributed to the relatively small amount of training data in W IKI T ABLE Q UESTIONS [Table] which makes the adaptation of BART to tabular structures more challenging.
However, T A PE X delivers a dramatic improvement of 19 .
5% over BART, indicating that in the low data regime, the improvements introduced by T A PE X are often more signiﬁcant.
SQA Table 4 presents the performance of various models on the test set of SQA, where T A PE X again obtains a new state-of-the-art denotation accuracy in terms of both the conversation level ( 48 .
4% ) and the sentence level ( 74 . 5% ).
This improvement is also a surprise to us since SQA is a conversational dataset while our pre-training task is context-free.
Meanwhile, the substantial improvements of T A PE X over BART on SQA continues to verify the same observation that T A PE X alleviates the low resource issue.
T AB F ACT
Beyond TableQA, T A PE X also excels at TableFV.
As shown in Table 5, T A PE X achieves new state-of-the-art results on all subsets of T AB F ACT .
For example, it surpasses the previous best system by 4 . 0% on Test complex .
The result shows that T A PE X endows BART with generic table understanding capabilities, which could be adapted to different downstream tasks, regardless of whether these tasks are highly similar to the T A PE X pre-training task or not.
Overall Results Experimental results on four datasets show that T A PE X can broadly improve the model ability on understanding tables, especially in the low data regime.
4. M ULTI - TASK R ESULTS
As discussed in § 2.2, our approach can easily perform multi-task learning, thereby conferring beneﬁts to downstream tasks.
To verify it, we conducted multi-task ﬁne-tuning experiments and obtained the following ﬁndings: (1) when initialized by BART, multi-task ﬁne-tuning boosts the performance of the target task signiﬁcantly; (2) when initialized by T A PE X , the gain of multi-task ﬁne-tuning tends to be marginal, suggesting that most of the “skills” (loosely speaking) gained by multi-task learning can be acquired by our table pre-training.
Detailed results can be found in Appendix B.
A NALYSIS
In this section, we carefully analyze our approach in terms of various aspects.
Besides, we perform an exploratory analysis to provide more insights for future work, which can be found in Appendix C.
SQL Execution by Pre-training In order to understand how well T A PE X performs SQL execution after pre-training, we analyze its performance on nearly 20 , 000 held-out SQL queries over unseen tables.
Overall, the SQL execution accuracy is relatively high, as T A
PE
X correctly “executes” 89 .
6% of the SQL queries 2 .
In particular, T A PE X performs better on Filter , Aggregate and Superlative operators, indicating that it is highly accurate in table cell selection and table
Who are the only players listed that played in 2011 ?
[HEAD] player | year | round | result | opponent [ROW] 1 ray mond van bar ne ve ld
| 2009 | quarter - ﬁnal | won | j elle k la as en [ROW] 2 ray mond van bar ne ve ld | 2010 | 2 nd round | won | bre nd an d olan [ROW] 3 ad rian le w is | 2011 | ﬁnal | won | g ary and erson
[Figure]
Scaling up the pre-training corpus of T A PE X generally brings positive effects across datasets.
[Figure]
aggregating.
Regarding Arithmetic and Comparative operators, T A PE X also does a good job, demonstrating its numerical reasoning skill on tables.
To summarize, T A PE X has learned to be a neural SQL executor with good selection, aggregating and numerical capabilities.
Table Reasoning by Pre-training To understand if T A PE X can improve table reasoning, we compare the performance of T A PE X to BART on 500 randomly selected questions and manually analyzed them in Table 6.
One can ﬁnd
that T A
PE
X signiﬁcantly boosts the performance on all operators, implying that it does enhance BART’s capabilities for joint reasoning over text and tables.
Table Understanding by Pre-training To provide insight on if T A PE X helps downstream tasks understand tables better, we visualize and analyze the self-attention of T A PE X (without ﬁne-tuning) on sampled W IKI T ABLE Q UESTIONS examples.
As shown in Figure 4, T A PE X seems to focus more on the row and the header where a cell corresponds to.
Taking the example from Figure 4, the attention weights imply that “adrian lewis” is closely associated with the ﬁrst column “player” and the entire third row, which are the positions of “adrian lewis” in the structured table.
The Scale of Pre-training Corpus Figure 5 illustrates downstream performance with different scales of the pre-training corpus.
It can be seen that even if our pre-training corpus is synthetic, scaling up the pre-training corpus generally brings positive effects.
The observation is analogous to the one in language modeling (Brown et al., 2020): the larger the pre-training corpus, the better the downstream performance.
By the comparison across different datasets, we can ﬁnd that for simple tasks like W IKI SQL-W EAK , the gains by scaling up pre-training corpus become marginal, while they remain non-trivial for complex tasks like T AB F ACT .
Meanwhile, both downstream datasets in the low data regime show a positive trend by increasing the pre-training corpus.
Conclusively, the scale matters when the downstream task is difﬁcult, or the downstream dataset is relatively small.
The Efﬁciency of Pre-training As mentioned in § 1, the pre-training efﬁciency of existing table pre-training approaches is relatively low, as they usually require an extremely large corpus.
Therefore, taking W IKI T ABLE Q UESTIONS as an example, we compare the pre-training efﬁciency of T A PE X with T A P A S (Herzig et al., 2020), T A BERT (Yin et al., 2020) and G RA PP A (Yu et al., 2021a).
It is worth noting that part of the pre-training corpus for G RA PP A comes from humanannotated, high-quality parallel data.
As shown in Figure 6, T A PE X can yield very promising performance when using a much smaller pre-training corpus, indicating that our proposed SQL execution pre-training task is more efﬁcient than other table pre-training tasks.
Limitations
The ﬁrst limitation of our approach is that it cannot ideally handle large tables.
As mentioned above, we employ the table ﬂattening technique to represent a table.
It works well when the table is relatively small, but it becomes infeasible when the table is too large to ﬁt in memory.
In practice, we can compress tables by removing some unrelated rows or columns, which would decrease downstream performance.
The second limitation is that the task of text-to-SQL cannot beneﬁt from our proposed table pre-training.
We have tried to apply T A PE X to enhance a text-toSQL task, where the input remains the same and the output converts to SQL.
However, T A PE X does not show a signiﬁcant advantage over BART.
We attribute this to two factors: ﬁrst, our synthetic pre-training corpus does not contribute to grounding, one of the most important factors for semantic parsing (Liu et al., 2021); second, table reasoning capabilities (e.g., aggregate) learned by T A PE X may not be necessary for SQL generation.
For example, a model could still understand an NL phrase “total” as the aggregation function “sum”, even though it is unaware of the mathematical meaning of “sum”.
Both of these are our future work to extend T A PE X .
R ELATED W ORK
Table Pre-training The work most related to ours is table pre-training whose key factors include the pre-training corpus and the pre-training task.
As for the pre-training corpus, most of previous works almost collect NL-table data to perform table pre-training.
They either mined a large corpus of tables and their NL sentence contexts (Yin et al., 2020; Herzig et al., 2020), leveraged human-annotated parallel NL-table datasets for pre-training (Deng et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2021a), or synthesized a NL-table corpus using human-written templates (Yu et al., 2021a; Eisenschlos et al., 2020).
Our work is different from theirs because we are the ﬁrst to use pure synthetic SQL-table data for table pre-training, which allows us to automatically synthesize a diverse, large-scale, and high-quality pre-training corpus.
As for the pre-training task, existing works proposed several pretraining tasks, such as Mask Column Prediction (Yin et al., 2020), Multi-choice Cloze at the Cell
Level (Wang et al., 2021b) and Structure Grounding (Deng et al., 2021).
Different from all of them, we present a novel SQL execution task to perform table pre-training.
Joint Understanding on Table and Text As our experiments are mainly on TableQA and TableFV, our work is also closely related to previous methods for these tasks.
For TableQA, previous works almost formulate it as a weakly semantic parsing task (Liang et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2019), which employs reinforcement learning to optimize semantic parsers over tables.
Although these parsers produce logic forms (e.g., SQL), they have difﬁculties in training due to the large search space and the presence of spurious programs (Goldman et al., 2018).
In addition, another promising line of work has emerged in recent advances (Mueller et al., 2019; Herzig et al., 2020), which aims at answering NL sentences without logical forms.
This line of work predicts answer(s) by selecting cell values and optionally applying an aggregation operator to them.
They can be easily trained, but their modeling ability is limited.
For example, it is hard to support compound aggregation operators such as max(Year) - min(Year) .
What makes our approach different from these works is that we employ generative models to handle TableQA and can enjoy the end-to-end training and ﬂexibility simultaneously.
For TableFV, previous works usually employ specialized architectures with limited scalability (Shi et al., 2020a; Yang et al., 2020).
For example, Zhong et al.
(2020b) leveraged a graph construction mechanism, a semantic parser, and a semantic composition model to capture the connections among the NL sentence and the table.
While the approach works well for TableFV, it is not easily applied to other table-related tasks.
Compared with them, our approach works well for a variety of downstream tasks in the same architecture.
C ONCLUSION
In this paper, we present T A PE X , an execution-centric table pre-training approach whose corpus is automatically synthesized via sampling SQL queries and their execution results.
T A PE X addresses the data scarcity challenge in table pre-training by learning a neural SQL executor on a diverse, large-scale, and high-quality synthetic corpus.
Experimental results on four downstream datasets demonstrate that T A PE X outperforms previous table pre-training approaches by a large margin and achieves new state-of-the-art results on all of them.
Our work opens the way to exploit structured data by pre-training on synthetic executable programs, which is conceptually simple and has great potential to be extended to other research areas (e.g., knowledge base).
E THICS S TATEMENT
In this work we present a novel pre-training approach for tabular data, which approximates the structural reasoning process of formal languages over tables to achieve efﬁcient table pre-training.
Different from previous works which employ web crawling to construct a large-scale NL-table corpus for pre-training, our pre-training corpus is synthesized via sampling SQL queries and their execution results on public tables.
Compared with previous works, our pre-training corpus is more controllable with high-quality.
For example, compared with T A BERT which crawls 26 million noisy tables from the Web, our approach adopts 1 , 500 high-quality tables from public datasets, which greatly alleviates the potential privacy and bias issues raised by web crawling.
We evaluate our approach on two fundamental table-related tasks: table-based question answering and table-based fact veriﬁcation.
The former enables non-expert users to query databases without learning programming languages, while the latter helps users to verify whether a textual hypothesis is valid based on given tabular evidence.
Experimental results on four well-known benchmark datasets show that our approach achieves new state-of-the-art results on all of them, especially in the low data regime.
A E XAMPLES OF D OWNSTREAM D ATASETS
Table 7 show example inputs and outputs for our model.
Note that SQA is a conversation benchmark, and we directly concatenate the history and i -th question as the “sentence” part ( x ) in the input, as done in Liu et al.
B M ULTI - TASK R ESULTS
Table 8 presents the full experimental results on multi-task ﬁne-tuning mentioned in § 2.2.
Note that we chose W IKI SQL-W EAK and T AB F ACT as the transfer source because their training data are relatively rich. C E XPLORATORY A NALYSIS
In this section, we perform an exploratory analysis to provide more insights for future work.
Concretely, we explore two interesting research questions: (1) How does the difﬁculty of SQL queries
[Table]
in pre-training impact the performance of downstream tasks?
(2) Would it be better to use natural language sentences instead of SQL queries during pre-training? C. I MPACT OF SQL Q UERY D IFFICULTY IN P RE - TRAINING SQL Difﬁculty Criteria Inspired by Yu et al. , we suppose that the difﬁculty of a SQL query can be measured by the number of SQL elements.
An element can be either a SQL keyword (e.g., SELECT ), or a table schema (i.e., a header or a cell value).
In practice, we obtain elements of SQL queries via an off-the-shelf SQL parser 3 , which returns a stream of SQL elements for each
SQL query.
Empirically, we categorize SQL queries with ≤ 6 elements into Easy , > 6 and ≤elements into Medium , > 14 and ≤ 20 elements into Hard , and the rest into Extra Hard .
Example
SQL queries of different difﬁculty levels can be found in Table 9.
Based on the SQL difﬁculty criteria, we divide the templates from S QUALL (Shi et al., 2020b) into four levels of difﬁculty and gradually add them to the construction of the pre-training corpus from Easy-level ( ≤ Easy) to ExtraHard-level ( ≤ Extra Hard).
Notably, to avoid the effect of the scale of pre-training, we maintain the same amount of examples for the above pre-training corpus.
[Figure]
[Figure]
[Figure]
[Figure]
[Figure]
[Figure]
[Figure]
[Figure]
T a s k
P e rf o r m a n ce (
[Figure]
equivalent to using all SQL query templates.
Downstream Performance
The experimental results are shown in Figure 7.
As can be seen, it is helpful to add harder SQL queries to the pre-training corpus in most cases.
For example, compared to
BART
[Figure]
SQL Diﬃculty Level in Pre-training
E x t r a H a r d
H a r d
M e d i u m
E a s y
Q u e s t i o n D i ﬃ c u l t y
L e v e l i n D o w n s t r e a m 27.
≤ Easy, ≤ Medium achieves consistent improvements on the performance of downstream tasks (e.g., 10 . 6% on W IKI T ABLE Q UESTIONS ).
Meanwhile, we also notice that the impact of the difﬁculty of
SQL queries becomes less signiﬁcant after the Medium-level.
On the T AB F ACT dataset, involving
Extra-Hard-level SQL queries in pre-training even slightly hurts the performance.
Fine-Grained Analysis To understand the impact from a ﬁne-grained perspective
, we divide questions from the W IKI T ABLE Q UESTIONS dev set into the same four levels of difﬁculty, with the help of SQL query annotation for W IKI T ABLE Q UESTIONS questions provided by S QUALL .
All ﬁnegrained experimental results are presented in Figure 8.
We can see that with the addition of harder
SQL queries, the performance on questions at the same difﬁculty level are greatly improved.
For example, the addition of Medium level SQL queries boosts the performance of Medium-level questions from 38 .
2% ( ≤ Easy) to 56 .
2% ( ≤ Medium), which is in line with expectations.
More encouragingly, adding simpler SQL queries can even improve performance on harder questions.
For example, compared to BART, the ≤ Medium pre-training leads to an impressive improvement of up to 13 .
1% in the performance of Hard-level questions
[Table]
C. I MPACT OF N ATURAL L ANGUAGE IN P RE - TRAINING
[Table]
[Table]
Natural Language Generation Intuitively, compared to SQL queries, using NL sentences in pretraining is better for downstream tasks since the pre-training objective is nearly the same as the ﬁne-tuning objective.
However, it is non-trivial to obtain a ﬂuent NL sentence which faithfully reﬂects the semantics of a SQL query.
In this experiment, we follow Zhong et al.
(2020a) to train a
SQL-to-NL model and employ the model to translate SQL queries from the pre-training corpus into
NL sentences.
Concretely, our SQL-to-NL model is based on BART-Large (Lewis et al., 2020) and trained on the S QUALL dataset (Shi et al., 2020b), which contains nearly 9 , 000 SQL-NL pairs.
Then we apply the well-trained SQL-to-NL model to the pre-training corpus of T A PE X ( 0 .
5 Million)
and obtain a NL pre-training corpus of the same size.
By manually analyzing 100 sampled translated
NL sentences, we are surprised to ﬁnd that all NL sentences are ﬂuent, and nearly 68 % of them are faithful to the semantics of the corresponding SQL queries.
Table 10 presents some sampled
SQL queries and their corresponding translated NL sentences.
After obtaining the NL pre-training corpus, we follow the same pre-training and ﬁne-tuning procedures as T A PE X to leverage it.
Performance Comparison We compare the performance of all downstream tasks between
T A PE X with.
SQL and T A PE X with.
NL in Table 11.
Surprisingly, the performance of T A PE X with.
NL is comparable or even worse than the one of T A PE X with.
SQL.
For example, compared to using SQL queries in pre-training, using NL sentences causes a drop of 1 . 4% on W IKI T ABLEQ UESTIONS .
We attribute such drop to the fact that the translated NL sentences contain some noise.
Taking the second row in Table 11 as an example, the translated NL sentence includes extra information such as “in the 1989 major league baseball draft”, which may interfere with the pre-training.
D F INE - GRAINED A NALYSIS OF SQL E XECUTION
Figure 9 provides a ﬁne-grained analysis of the SQL execution accuracies for each operator type. [Table] Year
[Table]
Country Nations
Athens
Greece
Paris
France
St. Louis
USA
London
UK … … … …
Athens
Greece
Beijing
China
London
UK
Table
[Table]