PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
June 3, 2026PNAS Nexus1 citationsOpen Access

Robustness is important: Limitations of LLMs for predictions on tabular data

View Full Paper
HLHejia LiuMYMochen YangGAGediminas Adomavičius

Key Points

  • The research aims to investigate the limitations and vulnerabilities of LLMs in making predictions on tabular data, especially concerning task-irrelevant changes.
  • Examined prediction errors in LLMs due to irrelevant changes in data representation, such as variable name alterations.
  • Analyzed attention scores of LLMs to identify patterns in how predictions are influenced by input positions.
  • Compared general-purpose LLMs with state-of-the-art tabular foundation models to evaluate prediction performance.
  • LLMs show up to 82% variation in prediction error due to task-irrelevant modifications.
  • A non-uniform attention pattern was observed, with certain data positions receiving disproportionately high focus during output generation.
  • State-of-the-art tabular models demonstrated improved performance, but still exhibited sensitivity to irrelevant variations.

Abstract

Abstract Large Language Models (LLMs) are being applied in a wide array of settings, well beyond typical language-oriented use cases. In particular, LLMs are increasingly used as a plug-and-play method for generating predictions on tabular data. Prior work has shown that LLMs, via in-context learning or supervised fine-tuning, perform comparably with many tabular supervised learning techniques. However, we identify a critical vulnerability of using LLMs for tabular prediction -- making changes to data representation that are completely irrelevant to the underlying learning task can drastically alter LLMs' predictions on the same data. For example, simply changing variable names can sway the size of prediction error by as much as 82% in certain settings. Such prediction sensitivity with respect to task-irrelevant variations manifests under both in-context learning and supervised fine-tuning, for both close-weight and open-weight general-purpose LLMs. Moreover, by examining the attention scores of two open-weight LLMs, we discover a non-uniform attention pattern: training examples and variable names/values occupying certain positions in the prompt receive more attention when generating output tokens, even though fundamentally there should not be different emphasis a priori on data rows / columns in specific positions. This partially explains the sensitivity due to task-irrelevant variations. We also consider several state-of-the-art tabular foundation models trained specifically for tabular prediction. They achieve better prediction performance than general-purpose LLMs but are still not immune to task-irrelevant variations. Overall, LLMs (especially general-purpose models) currently lack a basic level of robustness to be used as a principled prediction tool.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Liu et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a1fc616dee9eb8c0dce750fhttps://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgag197
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1GPTs are GPTs: Labor market impact potential of LLMs2024 · 705 citations
  2. 2Towards Automated Circuit Discovery for Mechanistic Interpretability2023 · 21 citations
  3. 3Can LLMs Serve As Time Series Anomaly Detectors?2024 · 1 citations
  4. 4Perception and communication.1958 · 4,311 citations
  5. 5A discipline-wide investigation of the replicability of Psychology papers over the past two decades2023 · 86 citations