skip to main content
10.1145/3447548.3467434acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageskddConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

TUTA: Tree-based Transformers for Generally Structured Table Pre-training

Published:14 August 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

We propose TUTA, a unified pre-training architecture for understanding generally structured tables. Noticing that understanding a table requires spatial, hierarchical, and semantic information, we enhance transformers with three novel structure-aware mechanisms. First, we devise a unified tree-based structure, called a bi-dimensional coordinate tree, to describe both the spatial and hierarchical information of generally structured tables. Upon this, we propose tree-based attention and position embedding to better capture the spatial and hierarchical information. Moreover, we devise three progressive pre-training objectives to enable representations at the token, cell, and table levels. We pre-train TUTA on a wide range of unlabeled web and spreadsheet tables and fine-tune it on two critical tasks in the field of table structure understanding: cell type classification and table type classification. Experiments show that TUTA is highly effective, achieving state-of-the-art on five widely-studied datasets.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

KDD21-fp3291.mp4.mp4

mp4

79 MB

References

  1. Chandra Sekhar Bhagavatula, Thanapon Noraset, and Doug Downey. Tabel: entity linking in web tables. In International Semantic Web Conference. Springer, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Zhe Chen and Michael Cafarella. Automatic web spreadsheet data extraction. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Semantic Search over the Web, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Zhe Chen and Michael Cafarella. Integrating spreadsheet data via accurate and low-effort extraction. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 1126--1135, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Jiaoyan Chen, Ernesto Jiménez-Ruiz, Ian Horrocks, and Charles Sutton. Colnet: Embedding the semantics of web tables for column type prediction. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 29--36, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Jiaoyan Chen, Ernesto Jiménez-Ruiz, Ian Horrocks, and Charles Sutton. Learning semantic annotations for tabular data. arXiv preprint:1906.00781, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Wenhu Chen, Hongmin Wang, Jianshu Chen, Yunkai Zhang, Hong Wang, Shiyang Li, Xiyou Zhou, and William Yang Wang. Tabfact: A large-scale dataset for table-based fact verification. arXiv preprint:1909.02164, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Eric Crestan and Patrick Pantel. Web-scale table census and classification. In Proceedings of international conference on Web search and data mining, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Xiang Deng, Huan Sun, Alyssa Lees, You Wu, and Cong Yu. Turl: Table understanding through representation learning. arXiv preprint:2006.14806, 2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. Bert: Pretraining of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint:1810.04805, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Haoyu Dong, Shijie Liu, Zhouyu Fu, Shi Han, and Dongmei Zhang. Semantic structure extraction for spreadsheet tables with a multi-task learning architecture. In Workshop on Document Intelligence at NeurIPS 2019, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Haoyu Dong, Shijie Liu, Shi Han, Zhouyu Fu, and Dongmei Zhang. Tablesense: Spreadsheet table detection with convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 69--76, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Haoyu Dong Dong, Jinyu Wang, Zhouyu Fu, Shi Han, and Dongmei Zhang. Neural formatting for spreadsheet tables. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, pages 305--314, 2020.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Wensheng Dou, Shi Han, Liang Xu, Dongmei Zhang, and Jun Wei. Expandable group identification in spreadsheets. In Proceedings of the 33rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pages 498--508, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Julian Eberius, Katrin Braunschweig, and Others. Building the dresden web table corpus: A classification approach. In 2015 IEEE/ACM 2nd International Symposium on Big Data Computing (BDC), pages 41--50. IEEE, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Jing Fang, Prasenjit Mitra, Zhi Tang, and C Lee Giles. Table header detection and classification. In Twenty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Besnik Fetahu, Avishek Anand, and Maria Koutraki. Tablenet: An approach for determining fine-grained relations for wikipedia tables. In The World Wide Web Conference, pages 2736--2742, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Majid Ghasemi-Gol and Pedro Szekely. Tabvec: Table vectors for classification of web tables. arXiv preprint:1802.06290, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Majid Ghasemi Gol, Jay Pujara, and Pedro Szekely. Tabular cell classification using pre-trained cell embeddings. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), pages 230--239. IEEE, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Julius Gonsior, Josephine Rehak, Maik Thiele, Elvis Koci, Michael Günther, and Wolfgang Lehner. Active learning for spreadsheet cell classification. In EDBT/ICDT Workshops, 2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Tong Guo, Derong Shen, Tiezheng Nie, and Yue Kou. Web table column type detection using deep learning and probability graph model. In International Conference on Web Information Systems and Applications, pages 401--414. Springer, 2020.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Jonathan Herzig, Paweŀ Krzysztof Nowak, Thomas Müller, Francesco Piccinno, and Julian Martin Eisenschlos. Tapas: Weakly supervised table parsing via pretraining. arXiv preprint:2004.02349, 2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Marcin Kardas, Piotr Czapla, Pontus Stenetorp, Sebastian Ruder, Sebastian Riedel, Ross Taylor, and Robert Stojnic. Axcell: Automatic extraction of results from machine learning papers. arXiv preprint:2004.14356, 2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Elvis Koci, Maik Thiele, Wolfgang Lehner, and Oscar Romero. Table recognition in spreadsheets via a graph representation. In 2018 13th IAPR International Workshop on Document Analysis Systems (DAS), pages 139--144. IEEE, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Elvis Koci, Maik Thiele, Josephine Rehak, Oscar Romero, and Wolfgang Lehner. Deco: A dataset of annotated spreadsheets for layout and table recognition. In International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition. IEEE, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Guillaume Lample and Alexis Conneau. Cross-lingual language model pretraining. arXiv preprint:1901.07291, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Larissa R Lautert, Marcelo M Scheidt, and Carina F Dorneles. Web table taxonomy and formalization. ACM SIGMOD Record, 42(3):28--33, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Oliver Lehmberg, Dominique Ritze, Robert Meusel, and Christian Bizer. A large public corpus of web tables containing time and context metadata. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web, pages 75--76, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Seung-Jin Lim and Yiu-Kai Ng. An automated approach for retrieving hierarchical data from html tables. In Proceedings of the eighth international conference on Information and knowledge management, pages 466--474, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Xuan-Phi Nguyen, Shafiq Joty, Steven CH Hoi, and Richard Socher. Tree-structured attention with hierarchical accumulation. arXiv preprint:2002.08046, 2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Kyosuke Nishida, Kugatsu Sadamitsu, Ryuichiro Higashinaka, and Yoshihiro Matsuo. Understanding the semantic structures of tables with a hybrid deep neural network architecture. In Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Viacheslav Paramonov, Alexey Shigarov, and Varvara Vetrova. Table header correction algorithm based on heuristics for improving spreadsheet data extraction. In International Conference on Information and Software Technologies. Springer, 2020.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Panupong Pasupat and Percy Liang. Compositional semantic parsing on semi-structured tables. arXiv preprint:1508.00305, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Kexuan Sun Harsha Rayudu Jay Pujara. A hybrid probabilistic approach for table understanding. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, and Ilya Sutskever. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Dominique Ritze and Christian Bizer. Matching web tables to dbpedia-a feature utility study. context, 42(41):19--31, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Vighnesh Shiv and Chris Quirk. Novel positional encodings to enable tree-based transformers. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 5998--6008, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Petar Veličković, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Lio, and Yoshua Bengio. Graph attention networks. arXiv preprint:1710.10903, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Yau-Shian Wang, Hung-Yi Lee, and Yun-Nung Chen. Tree transformer: Integrating tree structures into self-attention. arXiv preprint:1909.06639, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Xinxin Wang. Tabular abstraction, editing, and formatting. 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Pengcheng Yin, Graham Neubig, Wen-tau Yih, and Sebastian Riedel. Tabert: Pretraining for joint understanding of textual and tabular data. arxiv, 2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Kai Yang, Michihiro Yasunaga, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, James Ma, Irene Li, et al. Spider: A large-scale human-labeled dataset for complex and cross-domain semantic parsing and text-to-sql task. arXiv preprint:1809.08887, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Richard Zanibbi, Dorothea Blostein, and James R Cordy. A survey of table recognition. Document Analysis and Recognition, 7(1):1--16, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Vicky Zayats, Kristina Toutanova, and Mari Ostendorf. Representations for question answering from documents with tables and text. ArXiv:2101.10573, 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Li Zhang, Shuo Zhang, and Krisztian Balog. Table2vec: Neural word and entity embeddings for table population and retrieval. In Proceedings of International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Xingyao Zhang, Linjun Shou, Jian Pei, Ming Gong, Lijie Wen, and Daxin Jiang. A graph representation of semi-structured data for web question answering. arXiv preprint:2010.06801, 2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Chen Zhao and Yeye He. Auto-em: End-to-end fuzzy entity-matching using pre-trained deep models and transfer learning. In The World Wide Web Conference, pages 2413--2424, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Mengyu Zhou, Wang Tao, Ji Pengxin, and Others. Table2analysis: Modeling and recommendation of common analysis patterns for multi-dimensional data. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2020.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. TUTA: Tree-based Transformers for Generally Structured Table Pre-training

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      KDD '21: Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining
      August 2021
      4259 pages
      ISBN:9781450383325
      DOI:10.1145/3447548

      Copyright © 2021 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 14 August 2021

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate1,133of8,635submissions,13%

      Upcoming Conference

      KDD '24

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader