arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2603.22332cs.LGcs.AI

大型语言模型在缺失数据填补中的应用:理解行为、幻觉效应与控制机制

Large Language Models for Missing Data Imputation: Understanding Behavior, Hallucination Effects, and Control Mechanisms

Computer Science Division, Aeronautics Institute of Technology(航空技术研究所计算机科学系);Technology Institute, Federal University of São Paulo(圣保罗联邦大学技术学院);University of Coimbra, CISUC/LASI – Centre for Informatics and Systems of the University of Coimbra, Department of Informatics Engineering(科英布拉大学)

Arthur Dantas Mangussi, Ricardo Cardoso Pereira, Ana Carolina Lorena, Pedro Henriques Abreu

AI总结:

本文研究了大型语言模型在表格数据集缺失数据填补中的鲁棒性,通过零样本提示工程方法,对比了五种常用LLM与六种先进填补基线方法,发现LLM在真实数据集表现优异,但计算成本高,而传统方法在合成数据集更优。

摘要:

数据填补是处理现实世界数据集中缺失值的核心技术,这些数据集常面临缺失问题。尽管近期有进展,基于大型语言模型的填补研究仍受制于可扩展性挑战、跨模型比较受限以及在小规模或领域特定数据集上的评估。此外,异质实验协议和不一致的缺失机制(MCAR、MAR、MNAR)阻碍了方法间的系统性基准测试。本文通过零样本提示工程方法,研究了大型语言模型在表格数据集缺失数据填补中的鲁棒性。为此,我们进行了综合基准测试,比较了五种广泛使用的LLM与六种最先进的填补基线方法。实验设计在MCAR、MAR和MNAR机制下,对29个数据集(包括9个合成数据集)进行测试,缺失率高达20%。结果表明,领先的LLM,特别是Gemini 3.0 Flash和Claude 4.5 Sonnet,在真实世界开源数据集上优于传统方法。然而,这种优势似乎与模型在互联网规模语料库上预训练时学到的领域特定模式有关。相比之下,在合成数据集上,传统方法如MICE优于LLM,表明LLM的有效性由语义上下文驱动而非纯粹的统计重建。此外,我们发现了一个明显的权衡:虽然LLM在填补质量上表现优异,但它们的计算时间和货币成本显著更高。总体而言,本研究提供了一种大规模比较分析,将LLM定位为复杂表格数据的有前景的语义驱动填补器。

英文摘要:

Data imputation is a cornerstone technique for handling missing values in real-world datasets, which are often plagued by missingness. Despite recent progress, prior studies on Large Language Models-based imputation remain limited by scalability challenges, restricted cross-model comparisons, and evaluations conducted on small or domain-specific datasets. Furthermore, heterogeneous experimental protocols and inconsistent treatment of missingness mechanisms (MCAR, MAR, and MNAR) hinder systematic benchmarking across methods. This work investigates the robustness of Large Language Models for missing data imputation in tabular datasets using a zero-shot prompt engineering approach. To this end, we present a comprehensive benchmarking study comparing five widely used LLMs against six state-of-the-art imputation baselines. The experimental design evaluates these methods across 29 datasets (including nine synthetic datasets) under MCAR, MAR, and MNAR mechanisms, with missing rates of up to 20\%. The results demonstrate that leading LLMs, particularly Gemini 3.0 Flash and Claude 4.5 Sonnet, consistently achieve superior performance on real-world open-source datasets compared to traditional methods. However, this advantage appears to be closely tied to the models' prior exposure to domain-specific patterns learned during pre-training on internet-scale corpora. In contrast, on synthetic datasets, traditional methods such as MICE outperform LLMs, suggesting that LLM effectiveness is driven by semantic context rather than purely statistical reconstruction. Furthermore, we identify a clear trade-off: while LLMs excel in imputation quality, they incur significantly higher computational time and monetary costs. Overall, this study provides a large-scale comparative analysis, positioning LLMs as promising semantics-driven imputers for complex tabular data.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑