Yeye He
Publications
Auto-Fill: Learning to Predict Missing Values Accurately with Specialist Language Models
Predicting missing cell values in tabular data is a fundamental problem in data cleaning. While state-of-the-art reasoning models show great promise in predicting missing values in tables, by reasoning holistically across rows and columns, they are costly to deploy at scale and tend to be overconfident, often generating hallucinated or false-positive predictions. In this paper, we observe that achieving high-precision missing-value prediction in tables requires a distinct combination of three capabilities: (1) world knowledge, (2) text-based reasoning, and (3) code-based reasoning. We systematically explore design choices for combining these capabilities, and propose an Auto-Fill approach that post-trains three specialist small language models (SLMs), each optimized for one capability. We develop a calibrated ensemble mechanism that either dynamically selects the most confident specialist or abstains, ensuring high accuracy. Extensive experiments on 11 benchmarks with 2200 real tables drawn from diverse domains show that Auto-Fill achieves superior accuracy compared to state-of-the-art reasoning models (e.g., o3-pro, Gemini 3 Pro, and DeepSeek R1), while operating at a fraction (less than 1%) of the cost of these frontier models. Our results highlight the effectiveness of specialization and calibrated abstention in the important domain of tabular data. Auto-Fill is publicly available at https://github.com/lyrain2001/auto-fill.
The Price Reversal Phenomenon: When Cheaper Reasoning Models End Up Costing More
Developers and consumers increasingly choose reasoning language models (RLMs) based on their listed API prices. However, how accurately do these prices reflect actual inference costs? We conduct the first systematic study of this question, evaluating 8 frontier RLMs across 9 diverse tasks covering competition math, science QA, code generation, and multi-domain reasoning. We uncover the pricing reversal phenomenon: in 21.8% of model-pair comparisons, the model with a lower listed price actually incurs a higher total cost, with reversal magnitude reaching up to 28x. For example, Gemini 3 Flash's listed price is 78% cheaper than GPT-5.2's, yet its actual cost across all tasks is 22% higher. We trace the root cause to vast heterogeneity in thinking token consumption: on the same query, one model may use 900% more thinking tokens than another. In fact, removing thinking token costs reduces ranking reversals by 70% and raises the rank correlation (Kendall's $τ$ ) between price and cost rankings from 0.563 to 0.873. We further show that per-query cost prediction is fundamentally difficult: repeated runs of the same query yield thinking token variation up to 9.7x, establishing an irreducible noise floor for any predictor. Our findings demonstrate that listed API pricing is an unreliable proxy for actual cost, calling for cost-aware model selection and transparent per-request cost monitoring.