Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42292881›Full record

ArticlePNAS nexus2026

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

Hejia Liu, Mochen Yang, Gediminas Adomavicius

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Hejia LiuDepartment of Information and Decision Sciences, University of Minnesota, 321 19th Ave S, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3363-6959
Mochen YangDepartment of Information and Decision Sciences, University of Minnesota, 321 19th Ave S, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5101-9041
Gediminas AdomaviciusDepartment of Information and Decision Sciences, University of Minnesota, 321 19th Ave S, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5251-5098

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

generative AIlarge language modelsprediction on tabular datarobustness

Identifiers

PMID42292881
PMCPMC13253566

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.