REVIEW 5 cited by
Vectorizing string entries for data processing on tables: when are larger language models better?
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Vectorizing string entries for data processing on tables: when are larger language models better?
read the original abstract
There are increasingly efficient data processing pipelines that work on vectors of numbers, for instance most machine learning models, or vector databases for fast similarity search. These require converting the data to numbers. While this conversion is easy for simple numerical and categorical entries, databases are strife with text entries, such as names or descriptions. In the age of large language models, what's the best strategies to vectorize tables entries, baring in mind that larger models entail more operational complexity? We study the benefits of language models in 14 analytical tasks on tables while varying the training size, as well as for a fuzzy join benchmark. We introduce a simple characterization of a column that reveals two settings: 1) a dirty categories setting, where strings share much similarities across entries, and conversely 2) a diverse entries setting. For dirty categories, pretrained language models bring little-to-no benefit compared to simpler string models. For diverse entries, we show that larger language models improve data processing. For these we investigate the complexity-performance tradeoffs and show that they reflect those of classic text embedding: larger models tend to perform better, but it is useful to fine tune them for embedding purposes.
Forward citations
Cited by 5 Pith papers
-
STRABLE: Benchmarking Tabular Machine Learning with Strings
A new corpus of 108 mixed string-numeric tables shows that advanced tabular learners with basic string embeddings perform well on most real-world data, while large LLM encoders help on free-text heavy tables.
-
Beyond IID: How General Are Tabular Foundation Models, Really?
Tabular foundation models excel on tiny- to medium-sized IID data but are outperformed by traditional tree-based and deep learning models on non-IID, large, and high-dimensional datasets, based on evaluations across 1...
-
MulTaBench: Benchmarking Multimodal Tabular Learning with Text and Image
MulTaBench is a new collection of 40 image-tabular and text-tabular datasets designed to test target-aware representation tuning in multimodal tabular models.
-
TabPFN-3: Technical Report
TabPFN-3 delivers state-of-the-art tabular prediction performance on benchmarks up to 1M rows, is up to 20x faster than prior versions, and introduces test-time scaling that beats non-TabPFN models by hundreds of Elo points.
-
TabPFN-3: Technical Report
TabPFN-3 scales tabular foundation models to 1M rows with synthetic pretraining, test-time compute, and benchmark-leading performance on tabular, relational, and tabular-text tasks while being up to 20x faster than Ta...
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.