Recent progress in Large Language Model (LLM) based Table Question Answering (TableQA) has demonstrated strong performance on standard benchmarks. However, existing benchmarks mainly focus on well-structured tables and fail to reflect the irregular structures and complex reasoning commonly encountered in real-world scenarios. We propose CompTab, a benchmark designed to evaluate TableQA under complex reasoning and irregular table conditions. CompTab covers six representative types, including semantic ambiguity, multi-hop reasoning, transposed tables, merged cells, missing values, and outliers. It is constructed from real-world seed tables across multiple domains using controlled LLM based generation and human verification to ensure realism and diversity. In addition, to improve the generalization of LLMs under complex and irregular table settings, we propose a two-stage training framework that progressively aligns models with textual reasoning and executable decision signals, instantiated as CompTabLLM. Evaluations on 38 representative LLMs and CompTabLLM show clear limitations of existing LLMs under realistic conditions, while the proposed framework improves generalization. CompTab thus provides a challenging benchmark for advancing TableQA in real-world.

Understanding research papers remains challenging for foundation models due to specialized scientific discourse and complex figures and tables, yet existing benchmarks offer limited fine-grained evaluation at scale. To address this gap, we introduce RPC-Bench, a large-scale question-answering benchmark built from review–rebuttal exchanges of high-quality computer science papers, containing 15K human-verified QA pairs. We design a fine-grained taxonomy aligned with the scientific research flow to assess models’ ability to understand and answer why, what, and how questions in scholarly contexts. We also define an elaborate LLM–human interaction annotation framework to support large-scale labeling and quality control. Following the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm, we develop a scalable framework that evaluates models on correctness-completeness and conciseness, with high agreement to human judgment. Experiments reveal that even the strongest models (GPT-5) achieve only 68.2% correctness-completeness, dropping to 37.46% after conciseness adjustment, highlighting substantial gaps in precise academic paper understanding.