ArticlePNAS nexus2026
Robustness is important: Limitations of LLMs for predictions on tabular data.
Article in PNAS nexus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- HybridSense-LLM: A Structured Multimodal Framework for Large-Language-Model-Based Wellness Prediction from Wearable Sensors with Contextual Self-Reports.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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 (ICL) or supervised fine-tuning (SFT), 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 ICL and SFT, for both close-weight and open-weight general-purpose LLMs. Moreover, by examining the attention scores of two open-weight LLMs, we discover a nonuniform 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.