CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 13Machine Learning and Data ClassificationData Mining and Machine Learning ApplicationsDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning

TabArena: A Living Benchmark for Machine Learning on Tabular Data

Open access
Erickson, Nick, Purucker, Lennart, Tschalzev, Andrej, Holzmüller, David, Desai, Prateek Mutalik, Salinas, David, Hutter, Frank·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2506.16791arXiv 2506.16791
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

With the growing popularity of deep learning and foundation models for tabular data, the need for standardized and reliable benchmarks is higher than ever. However, current benchmarks are static. Their design is not updated even if flaws are discovered, model versions are updated, or new models are released. To address this, we introduce TabArena, the first continuously maintained living tabular benchmarking system. To launch TabArena, we manually curate a representative collection of datasets and well-implemented models, conduct a large-scale benchmarking study to initialize a public leaderboard, and assemble a team of experienced maintainers. Our results highlight the influence of validation method and ensembling of hyperparameter configurations to benchmark models at their full potential. While gradient-boosted trees are still strong contenders on practical tabular datasets, we observe that deep learning methods have caught up under larger time budgets with ensembling. At the same time, foundation models excel on smaller datasets. Finally, we show that ensembles across models advance the state-of-the-art in tabular machine learning. We observe that some deep learning models are overrepresented in cross-model ensembles due to validation set overfitting, and we encourage model developers to address this issue. We launch TabArena with a public leaderboard, reproducible code, and maintenance protocols to create a living benchmark available at https://tabarena.ai.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2506.16791

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Deep learning approaches show superior performance over traditional tabular methods, in line with findings in [14].

    “highlighting the superior performance of deep learning approaches over traditional tabular methods, in line with findings in [14].”

    From A Multimodal Deep Learning Framework for Predicting ICU Deterioration: Integrating ECG Waveforms with Clinical Data and Clinician Benchmarking (2026) · cites this paper as [14]

    Section 3.1 (p. 7) reports that neural networks were the strongest individual models on average after post-hoc ensembling. But the claim omits that condition: the same passage ranks CatBoost first under conventional tuning, and the Introduction (p. 2) says the best deep learning methods are equal to or better than gradient-boosted trees, not that deep learning approaches are generally superior. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • RealMLP has been shown to perform competitively with state-of-the-art tree-based methods on tabular benchmarks [14].

    “Tabular clinical features are encoded using RealMLP [35], an improved multilayer perceptron architecture that has been shown to perform competitively with state-of-the-art tree-based methods on tabular benchmarks [14].”

    From A Multimodal Deep Learning Framework for Predicting ICU Deterioration: Integrating ECG Waveforms with Clinical Data and Clinician Benchmarking (2026) · cites this paper as [14]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 93

  1. [1][1] R. Caruana, A. Niculescu-Mizil, G. Crew, and A. Ksikes. Ensemble selection from libraries of models. In R. Greiner, editor, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML'04) . Omnipress, 2004. -
  2. [2][2] V. Borisov, T. Leemann, K. Seßler, J. Haug, M. Pawelczyk, and G. Kasneci. Deep neural networks and tabular data: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , 2022. -
  3. [3][3] B. van Breugel and M. van der Schaar. Why tabular foundation models should be a research priority. In R. Salakhutdinov, Z. Kolter, K. Heller, A. Weller, N. Oliver, J. Scarlett, and F. Berkenkamp, editors, Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML'24) , volume 251 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research . PMLR, 2024. -
  4. [4][4] M. Herrmann, F. Lange, K. Eggensperger, G. Casalicchio, M. Wever, M. Feurer, D. Rügamer, E. Hüllermeier, A.-L. Boulesteix, and B. Bischl. Position: Why we must rethink empirical research in machine learning. In R. Salakhutdinov, Z. Kolter, K. Heller, A. Weller, N. Oliver, <!-- image --> J. Scarlett, and F. Berkenkamp, editors, Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML'24) , volume 251 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pages 18228-18247. PMLR, 2024. -
  5. [5][5] N. Hollmann, S. Müller, L. Purucker, A. Krishnakumar, M. Körfer, Shi Bin Hoo, Robin Tibor Schirrmeister, and Frank Hutter. Accurate predictions on small data with a tabular foundation model. Nature , 637(8045):319-326, 2025. -
  6. [6][6] Jun-Peng Jiang, Si-Yang Liu, Hao-Run Cai, Qile Zhou, and Han-Jia Ye. Representation learning for tabular data: A comprehensive survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.16109 , 2025. - · arXiv
  7. [7][7] R. Kohli, M. Feurer, B. Bischl, K. Eggensperger, and F. Hutter. Towards quantifying the effect of datasets for benchmarking: A look at tabular machine learning. In Data-centric Machine Learning Research Workshop at the International Conference on Learning Representations , 2024. -
  8. [8][8] Andrej Tschalzev, Sascha Marton, Stefan Lüdtke, Christian Bartelt, and Heiner Stuckenschmidt. A data-centric perspective on evaluating machine learning models for tabular data. In The Thirty-eight Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track , 2024. -
  9. [9][9] Yury Gorishniy, Akim Kotelnikov, and Artem Babenko. Tabm: Advancing tabular deep learning with parameter-efficient ensembling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24210 , 2024. - · arXiv
  10. [10][10] Ivan Rubachev, Nikolay Kartashev, Yury Gorishniy, and Artem Babenko. Tabred: Analyzing pitfalls and filling the gaps in tabular deep learning benchmarks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.19380 , 2024. - · arXiv
  11. [11][11] Andrej Tschalzev, Lennart Purucker, Stefan Lüdtke, Frank Hutter, Christian Bartelt, and Heiner Stuckenschmidt. Unreflected use of tabular data repositories can undermine research quality. In The Future of Machine Learning Data Practices and Repositories at ICLR 2025 , 2025. -
  12. [13][13] P. Geurts, D. Ernst, and L. Wehenkel. Extremely randomized trees. 63(1):3-42, 2006. -
  13. [14][14] T. Chen and C. Guestrin. XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system. In B. Krishnapuram, M. Shah, A. Smola, C. Aggarwal, D. Shen, and R. Rastogi, editors, Proceedings of the 22nd ACMSIGKDDInternational Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD'16) , pages 785-794, 2016. -
  14. [15][15] G. Ke, Q. Meng, T. Finley, T. Wang, W. Chen, W. Ma, Q. Ye, and T.-Y. Liu. Lightgbm: A highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree. In I. Guyon, U. von Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett, editors, Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS'17) , 2017. -
  15. [16][16] L. Prokhorenkova, G. Gusev, A. Vorobev, A. Dorogush, and A. Gulin. Catboost: Unbiased boosting with categorical features. In S. Bengio, H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, K. Grauman, N. Cesa-Bianchi, and R. Garnett, editors, Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS'18) , page 6639-6649, 2018. -
  16. [17][17] Yin Lou, Rich Caruana, Johannes Gehrke, and Giles Hooker. Accurate intelligible models with pairwise interactions. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining , pages 623-631, 2013. -
  17. [18][18] Harsha Nori, Samuel Jenkins, Paul Koch, and Rich Caruana. Interpretml: A unified framework for machine learning interpretability. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.09223 , 2019. - · arXiv
  18. [19][19] N. Erickson, J. Mueller, A. Shirkov, H. Zhang, P. Larroy, M. Li, and A. Smola. Autogluontabular: Robust and accurate automl for structured data. arXiv:2003.06505 [stat.ML] , 2020. - · arXiv
  19. [20][20] David Holzmüller, Léo Grinsztajn, and Ingo Steinwart. Better by default: Strong pre-tuned mlps and boosted trees on tabular data. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 37:26577-26658, 2024. -
  20. [21][21] Han-Jia Ye, Huai-Hong Yin, and De-Chuan Zhan. Modern neighborhood components analysis: A deep tabular baseline two decades later. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.03257 , 2024. - · arXiv
  21. [22][22] Jingang Qu, David Holzmüller, Gaël Varoquaux, and Marine Le Morvan. Tabicl: A tabular foundation model for in-context learning on large data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05564 , 2025. - · arXiv
  22. [23][23] Junwei Ma, Valentin Thomas, Rasa Hosseinzadeh, Hamidreza Kamkari, Alex Labach, Jesse C Cresswell, Keyvan Golestan, Guangwei Yu, Maksims Volkovs, and Anthony L Caterini. Tabdpt: Scaling tabular foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.18164 , 2024. - · arXiv
  23. [26][26] Myung Jun Kim, Leo Grinsztajn, and Gael Varoquaux. Carte: Pretraining and transfer for tabular learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 23843-23866. PMLR, 2024. -
  24. [27][27] Anders Krogh and Jesper Vedelsby. Neural network ensembles, cross validation, and active learning. In G. Tesauro, D. Touretzky, and T. Leen, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 7. MIT Press, 1994. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper\_files/paper/1994/file/ b8c37e33defde51cf91e1e03e51657da-Paper.pdf . -
  25. [28][28] B. Bischl, G. Casalicchio, M. Feurer, F. Hutter, M. Lang, R. Mantovani, J. N. van Rijn, and J. Vanschoren. Openml benchmarking suites and the openml100. arXiv:1708.03731v1 [stat.ML] , 2019. - · arXiv
  26. [29][29] B. Bischl, G. Casalicchio, M. Feurer, F. Hutter, M. Lang, R. Mantovani, J. van Rijn, and J. Vanschoren. OpenML benchmarking suites. In J. Vanschoren and S. Yeung, editors, Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmarks , 2021. -
  27. [30][30] Y. Gorishniy, I. Rubachev, V. Khrulkov, and A. Babenko. Revisiting deep learning models for tabular data. In M. Ranzato, A. Beygelzimer, K. Nguyen, P. Liang, J. Vaughan, and Y. Dauphin, editors, Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS'21) , pages 18932-18943, 2021. -
  28. [32][32] L. Grinsztajn, E. Oyallon, and G. Varoquaux. Why do tree-based models still outperform deep learning on typical tabular data? In S. Koyejo, S. Mohamed, A. Agarwal, D. Belgrave, K. Cho, and A. Oh, editors, Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS'22) , 2022. -
  29. [33][33] D. McElfresh, S. Khandagale, J. Valverde, V. Prasad C, G. Ramakrishnan, M. Goldblum, and C. White. When do neural nets outperform boosted trees on tabular data? In A. Oh, T. Naumann, A. Globerson, K. Saenko, M. Hardt, and S. Levine, editors, Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS'23) , pages 76336-76369, 2023. -
  30. [34][34] S. Fischer, L. Harutyunyan, M. Feurer, and B. Bischl. Openml-ctr23 - a curated tabular regression benchmarking suite. In A. Faust, C. White, F. Hutter, R. Garnett, and J. Gardner, editors, Second International Conference on Automated Machine Learning - Workshop Track , 2023. -
  31. [35][35] P. Gijsbers, M. Bueno, S. Coors, E. LeDell, S. Poirier, J. Thomas, B. Bischl, and J. Vanschoren. Amlb: an automl benchmark. 25(101):1-65, 2024. -
  32. [36][36] Han-Jia Ye, Si-Yang Liu, Hao-Run Cai, Qi-Le Zhou, and De-Chuan Zhan. A closer look at deep learning on tabular data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.00956 , 2024. - · arXiv
  33. [37][37] David Salinas and Nick Erickson. Tabrepo: A large scale repository of tabular model evaluations and its automl applications. In AutoML Conference 2024 (ABCD Track) , 2024. -
  34. [38][38] Arpad E Elo. The proposed uscf rating system, its development, theory, and applications. Chess life , 22(8):242-247, 1967. -
  35. [39][39] Wei-Lin Chiang, Lianmin Zheng, Ying Sheng, Anastasios Nikolas Angelopoulos, Tianle Li, Dacheng Li, Banghua Zhu, Hao Zhang, Michael Jordan, Joseph E Gonzalez, et al. Chatbot arena: An open platform for evaluating llms by human preference. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning , 2024. -
  36. [40][40] J. Maier, F. Möller, and L. Purucker. Hardware aware ensemble selection for balancing predictive accuracy and cost. In M. Lindauer, K. Eggensperger, R. Garnett, J. Vanschoren, and J. Gardner, editors, Third International Conference on Automated Machine Learning Workshop Track , 2024. -
  37. [41][41] T. Nagler, L. Schneider, B. Bischl, and M. Feurer. Reshuffling resampling splits can improve generalization of hyperparameter optimization. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS'24) , 2024. -
  38. [42][42] Lennart Schneider, Bernd Bischl, and Matthias Feurer. Overtuning in hyperparameter optimization. In International Conference on Automated Machine Learning , 2025. -
  39. [43][43] L. Purucker, L. Schneider, M. Anastacio, J. Beel, B. Bischl, and H. Hoos. Q(d)o-es: Populationbased quality (diversity) optimisation for post hoc ensemble selection in automl. In A. Faust, C. White, F. Hutter, R. Garnett, and J. Gardner, editors, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Automated Machine Learning . Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 2023. -
  40. [44][44] L. Purucker and J. Beel. Cma-es for post hoc ensembling in automl: A great success and salvageable failure. In A. Faust, C. White, F. Hutter, R. Garnett, and J. Gardner, editors, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Automated Machine Learning . Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 2023. -
  41. [45][45] Manu Joseph. Pytorch tabular: A framework for deep learning with tabular data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.13638 , 2021. - · arXiv
  42. [47][47] Joseph D Romano, Trang T Le, William La Cava, John T Gregg, Daniel J Goldberg, Praneel Chakraborty, Natasha L Ray, Daniel Himmelstein, Weixuan Fu, and Jason H Moore. Pmlb v1.0: an open-source dataset collection for benchmarking machine learning methods. Bioinformatics , 38(3):878-880, 2022. -
  43. [48][48] Ricardo Knauer, Marvin Grimm, and Erik Rodner. Pmlbmini: A tabular classification benchmark suite for data-scarce applications. In AutoML Conference 2024 (ABCD Track) , 2024. -
  44. [49][49] Guri Zabërgja, Arlind Kadra, Christian Frey, and Josif Grabocka. Is deep learning finally better than decision trees on tabular data? arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03970 , 2024. - · arXiv
  45. [50][50] Si-Yang Liu, Hao-Run Cai, Qi-Le Zhou, and Han-Jia Ye. Talent: A tabular analytics and learning toolbox. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.04057 , 2024. - · arXiv
  46. [51][51] Yury Gorishniy, Ivan Rubachev, Nikolay Kartashev, Daniil Shlenskii, Akim Kotelnikov, and Artem Babenko. Tabr: Tabular deep learning meets nearest neighbors. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , 2024. -
  47. [52][52] Nathan Lambert, Valentina Pyatkin, Jacob Morrison, LJ Miranda, Bill Yuchen Lin, Khyathi Chandu, Nouha Dziri, Sachin Kumar, Tom Zick, Yejin Choi, et al. Rewardbench: Evaluating reward models for language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.13787 , 2024. - · arXiv
  48. [53][53] Colin White, Samuel Dooley, Manley Roberts, Arka Pal, Ben Feuer, Siddhartha Jain, Ravid Shwartz-Ziv, Neel Jain, Khalid Saifullah, Siddartha Naidu, et al. Livebench: A challenging, contamination-free llm benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.19314 , 2024. - · arXiv
  49. [56][56] Taha Aksu, Gerald Woo, Juncheng Liu, Xu Liu, Chenghao Liu, Silvio Savarese, Caiming Xiong, and Doyen Sahoo. Gift-eval: A benchmark for general time series forecasting model evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10393 , 2024. - · arXiv
  50. [57][57] X. Bouthillier, P. Delaunay, M. Bronzi, A. Trofimov, B. Nichyporuk, J. Szeto, N. Mohammadi Sepahvand, E. Raff, K. Madan, V. Voleti, S. Ebrahimi Kahou, V. Michalski, T. Arbel, C. Pal, G. Varoquaux, and P. Vincent. Accounting for variance in machine learning benchmarks. In A. Smola, A. Dimakis, and I. Stoica, editors, Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems 3 , volume 3, pages 747-769, 2021. -
  51. [59][59] S. Herbold. Autorank: A python package for automated ranking of classifiers. Journal of Open Source Software , 5(48):2173-2173, 2020. -
  52. [60][60] Han-Jia Ye, Si-Yang Liu, and Wei-Lun Chao. A closer look at tabpfn v2: Strength, limitation, and extension. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.17361 , 2025. - · arXiv
  53. [61][61] M. Feurer, J. van Rijn, A. Kadra, P. Gijsbers, N. Mallik, S. Ravi, A. Müller, J. Vanschoren, and F. Hutter. OpenML-Python: an extensible Python API for OpenML. 22(100):1-5, 2021. -
  54. [63][63] Xiang Deng, Huan Sun, Alyssa Lees, You Wu, and Cong Yu. Turl: Table understanding through representation learning. ACM SIGMOD Record , 51(1):33-40, 2022. -
  55. [64][64] Madelon Hulsebos, Çagatay Demiralp, and Paul Groth. Gittables: A large-scale corpus of relational tables. Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data , 1(1):1-17, 2023. -
  56. [65][65] I-Cheng Yeh, King-Jang Yang, and Tao-Ming Ting. Knowledge discovery on rfm model using bernoulli sequence. Expert Systems with applications , 36(3):5866-5871, 2009. -
  57. [66][66] Jack W Smith, James E Everhart, William C Dickson, William C Knowler, and Robert Scott Johannes. Using the adap learning algorithm to forecast the onset of diabetes mellitus. In Proceedings of the annual symposium on computer application in medical care , page 261, 1988. -
  58. [67][67] Unknown. Annealing. https://doi.org/10.24432/C5RW2F , 1990. UCI Machine Learning Repository. - · DOI
  59. [68][68] Matteo Cassotti, Davide Ballabio, Roberto Todeschini, and Viviana Consonni. A similaritybased qsar model for predicting acute toxicity towards the fathead minnow (pimephales promelas). SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research , 26(3):217-243, 2015. -
  60. [69][69] H. Hofmann. Statlog (german credit data) [dataset]. https://doi.org/10.24432/C5NC77 , 1994. UCI Machine Learning Repository. - · DOI · Paper page
  61. [70][70] Marzia Ahmed, Mohammod Abul Kashem, Mostafijur Rahman, and Sabira Khatun. Review and analysis of risk factor of maternal health in remote area using the internet of things (iot). In InECCE2019: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Electrical, Control &amp; Computer Engineering, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia, 29th July 2019 , pages 357-365. Springer, 2020. -
  62. [71][71] I-C Yeh. Modeling of strength of high-performance concrete using artificial neural networks. Cement and Concrete research , 28(12):1797-1808, 1998. -
  63. [72][72] Kamel Mansouri, Tine Ringsted, Davide Ballabio, Roberto Todeschini, and Viviana Consonni. Quantitative structure-activity relationship models for ready biodegradability of chemicals. Journal of chemical information and modeling , 53(4):867-878, 2013. -
  64. [74][74] Neda Abdelhamid, Aladdin Ayesh, and Fadi Thabtah. Phishing detection based associative classification data mining. Expert Systems with Applications , 41(13):5948-5959, 2014. -
  65. [81][81] Marco Ricci, Bernardita Štiti´ c, Luca Urbinati, Giuseppe Di Guglielmo, Jorge A Tobón Vasquez, Luca P Carloni, Francesca Vipiana, and Mario R Casu. Machine-learning-based microwave sensing: A case study for the food industry. IEEE Journal on Emerging and Selected Topics in Circuits and Systems , 11(3):503-514, 2021. -
  66. [82][82] Marek Sikora and Łukasz Wróbel. Application of rule induction algorithms for analysis of data collected by seismic hazard monitoring systems in coal mines. Archives of Mining Sciences , 55(1):91-114, 2010. -
  67. [83][83] Geoffrey G Towell and Jude W Shavlik. Knowledge-based artificial neural networks. Artificial intelligence , 70(1-2):119-165, 1994. -
  68. [85][85] Isabelle Guyon, Amir Saffari, Gideon Dror, and Gavin Cawley. Agnostic learning vs. prior knowledge challenge. In 2007 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks , pages 829-834. IEEE, 2007. -
  69. [86][86] Mónica V Martins, Daniel Tolledo, Jorge Machado, Luís MT Baptista, and Valentim Realinho. Early prediction of student's performance in higher education: A case study. In Trends and Applications in Information Systems and Technologies: Volume 1 9 , pages 166-175. Springer, 2021. -
  70. [90][90] Paulo Cortez, António Cerdeira, Fernando Almeida, Telmo Matos, and José Reis. Modeling wine preferences by data mining from physicochemical properties. Decision support systems , 47(4):547-553, 2009. -
  71. [91][91] Deron Liang, Chia-Chi Lu, Chih-Fong Tsai, and Guan-An Shih. Financial ratios and corporate governance indicators in bankruptcy prediction: A comprehensive study. European journal of operational research , 252(2):561-572, 2016. -
  72. [92][92] Akshay Mathur, Laxmi Mounika Podila, Keyur Kulkarni, Quamar Niyaz, and Ahmad Y Javaid. Naticusdroid: A malware detection framework for android using native and custom permissions. Journal of Information Security and Applications , 58:102696, 2021. -
  73. [96][96] Tim Menzies and Justin S Di Stefano. How good is your blind spot sampling policy. In Eighth IEEE International Symposium on High Assurance Systems Engineering, 2004. Proceedings. , pages 129-138. IEEE, 2004. -
  74. [98][98] C Okan Sakar, S Olcay Polat, Mete Katircioglu, and Yomi Kastro. Real-time prediction of online shoppers' purchasing intention using multilayer perceptron and lstm recurrent neural networks. Neural Computing and Applications , 31(10):6893-6908, 2019. -
  75. [99][99] Tong Wang, Cynthia Rudin, Finale Doshi-Velez, Yimin Liu, Erica Klampfl, and Perry MacNeille. A bayesian framework for learning rule sets for interpretable classification. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 18(70):1-37, 2017. -
  76. [100][100] Steven C Bourassa, Martin Hoesli, Louis Merlin, and John Renne. Big data, accessibility and urban house prices. Urban Studies , 58(15):3176-3195, 2021. -
  77. [102][102] R Kelley Pace and Ronald Barry. Sparse spatial autoregressions. Statistics &amp; Probability Letters , 33(3):291-297, 1997. -
  78. [104][104] I-Cheng Yeh and Che-hui Lien. The comparisons of data mining techniques for the predictive accuracy of probability of default of credit card clients. Expert systems with applications , 36 (2):2473-2480, 2009. -
  79. [109][109] Prashant Rana. Physicochemical properties of protein tertiary structure. https://doi.org/ 10.24432/C5QW3H , 2013. UCI Machine Learning Repository. - · DOI
  80. [110][110] Isabelle Guyon, Vincent Lemaire, Marc Boullé, Gideon Dror, and David Vogel. Analysis of the kdd cup 2009: Fast scoring on a large orange customer database. In KDD-Cup 2009 Competition , pages 1-22. PMLR, 2009. -
  81. [111][111] Hadley Wickham. Data analysis. In ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis , pages 189-201. Springer, 2016. -
  82. [112][112] Beata Strack, Jonathan P DeShazo, Chris Gennings, Juan L Olmo, Sebastian Ventura, Krzysztof J Cios, and John N Clore. Impact of hba1c measurement on hospital readmission rates: analysis of 70,000 clinical database patient records. BioMed research international , 2014(1):781670, 2014. -
  83. [113][113] IDA2016Challenge. Ida2016challenge [dataset]. https://doi.org/10.24432/C5V60Q , 2016. UCI Machine Learning Repository. - · DOI
  84. [114][114] Katherine Accetta, Conny Aerts, Victor Silva Aguirre, Romina Ahumada, Nikhil Ajgaonkar, N Filiz Ak, Shadab Alam, Carlos Allende Prieto, Andres Almeida, Friedrich Anders, et al. The seventeenth data release of the sloan digital sky surveys: Complete release of manga, mastar, and apogee-2 data. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series , 259(2):35, 2022. -
  85. [117][117] Carlos Huertas. Gradient boosting trees and large language models for tabular data few-shot learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04324 , 2024. - · arXiv
  86. [118][118] Y. Shen, Y. Lu, Y. Li, Y. Tu, W. Zhang, and B. Cui. Divbo: Diversity-aware cash for ensemble learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35:2958-2971, 2022. -
  87. [119][119] R. Caruana, A. Munson, and A. Niculescu-Mizil. Getting the most out of ensemble selection. In C. Clifton, N. Zhong, J. Liu, B. Wah, and X. Wu, editors, Proceedings of the 6th IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM'06) , pages 828-833, 2006. -
  88. [120][120] M. Feurer, A. Klein, K. Eggensperger, J. Springenberg, M. Blum, and F. Hutter. Auto-sklearn: Efficient and robust automated machine learning. In F. Hutter, L. Kotthoff, and J. Vanschoren, editors, Automated Machine Learning: Methods, Systems, Challenges , chapter 6, pages 113-134. Springer, 2019. Available for free at http://automl.org/book . -
  89. [121][121] L. Purucker and J. Beel. Assembled-openml: Creating efficient benchmarks for ensembles in automl with openml. In I. Guyon, M. Lindauer, M. van der Schaar, F. Hutter, and R. Garnett, editors, First International Conference on Automated Machine Learning - Workshop Track , 2022. -
  90. [122][122] Sebastian Bordt, Harsha Nori, Vanessa Cristiny Rodrigues Vasconcelos, Besmira Nushi, and Rich Caruana. Elephants never forget: Memorization and learning of tabular data in large language models. In First Conference on Language Modeling , 2024. -
  91. [123][123] Marco Spinaci, Marek Polewczyk, Maximilian Schambach, and Sam Thelin. Contexttab: A semantics-aware tabular in-context learner. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.10707 , 2025. - · arXiv
  92. [124][124] Anurag Garg, Muhammad Ali, Noah Hollmann, Lennart Purucker, Samuel Müller, and Frank Hutter. Real-tabpfn: Improving tabular foundation models via continued pre-training with real-world data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.03971 , 2025. - · arXiv
  93. [125][125] Alan Arazi, Eilam Shapira, and Roi Reichart. Tabstar: A foundation tabular model with semantically target-aware representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.18125 , 2025. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Erickson, N., Purucker, L., Tschalzev, A., Holzmüller, D., Desai, P. M., Salinas, D., & Hutter, F.
Affiliations
  • Amazon (United States) (US)
  • University of Freiburg (DE)
  • University of Mannheim (DE)
  • Institut national de recherche en sciences et technologies du numérique (FR)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
Pages
17285-17350
ISSN
1049-5258 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2506.16791
arXiv
2506.16791
OpenAlex
W4414987631
Cited by
13
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 13
FWCI
12.43
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • neural information processing systems (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (539134284, SFB1597, 499552394)
  • Hector Stiftung
  • European Regional Development Fund (FEIH_2698644)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Data Mining and Machine Learning Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Keywords
tabular data, benchmarking, leaderboards, gradient boosting decision tree, foundation models, data curation, reproducibility

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review