Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly improved table understanding tasks such as Table Question Answering (TableQA), yet challenges remain in ensuring reliability, scalability, and efficiency, especially in resource-constrained or privacy-sensitive environments. In this paper, we introduce MATA, a multi-agent TableQA framework that leverages multiple complementary reasoning paths and a set of tools built with small language models. MATA generates candidate answers through diverse reasoning styles for a given table and question, then refines or selects the optimal answer with the help of these tools. Furthermore, it incorporates an algorithm designed to minimize expensive LLM agent calls, enhancing overall efficiency. MATA maintains strong performance with small, open-source models and adapts easily across various LLM types. Extensive experiments on two benchmarks of varying difficulty with ten different LLMs demonstrate that MATA achieves state-of-the-art accuracy and highly efficient reasoning while avoiding excessive LLM inference. Our results highlight that careful orchestration of multiple reasoning pathways yields scalable and reliable TableQA. The code is available at https://github.com/AIDASLab/MATA.

Retraining-free MoE compression reduces deployment memory by pruning or merging experts, but often treats the compressed checkpoint as the final artifact. We argue that this view is incomplete: compressed MoE checkpoints are better understood as compressed initializations that benefit from a tiny post-compression adjustment stage. Across two MoE LLM backbones, four pruning/merging methods, three expert-retention ratios, and 28 benchmarks, we compare LM fine-tuning and teacher-based KD under matched small-data budgets and measured GPU costs. Using only 3,000 C4 examples and a single epoch of adjustment, Full FT recovers 37.3% of the original-to-compressed performance gap on average. Moreover, LM fine-tuning is more cost-effective than standard token-level KD, and full-parameter adjustment gives the strongest cost–recovery trade-off among the tested scopes. These results suggest that retraining-free compression should be paired with small post-compression adjustment to recover a substantial portion of the performance lost during compression.