Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 163 references

TabPack: Efficient Hyperparameter Ensembles for Tabular Deep Learning

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-07 · glm-5.2

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Tuning-free tabular model matches tuned baselines at 1/20th the compute

desk verdict TabPack packs MLPs with heterogeneous hyperparameters into one vectorized system with online greedy ensemble selection — a genuinely new pattern for tabular DL that works well in practice. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.05380 v1 pith:L7LARWDB submitted 2026-07-06 cs.LG

Yury Gorishniy , Akim Kotelnikov , Ivan Rubachev , Artem Babenko This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords tabpackhyperparameterefficientmlpsperformancetabulartuningdeep
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

TabPack replaces hyperparameter tuning with hyperparameter sampling. Instead of searching for the best single configuration of a multilayer perceptron (MLP) for a tabular dataset, TabPack packs dozens of MLPs with randomly sampled hyperparameters into one training run, trains them all in parallel through vectorized operations, and greedily selects the best ensemble members on the fly during training. The central claim is that this single tuning-free run achieves mean rank 2.6 across 17 datasets, matching or beating extensively tuned prior methods like TabM (rank 2.8) and RealMLP (rank 3.6), while requiring 2.4 hours of total compute versus 47.2 and 250.9 hours respectively. The key technical object is the packed hyperparameter ensemble: a single module containing m MLPs that differ in depth, dropout, learning rate, weight decay, and embedding parameters, all trained simultaneously and pruned selectively. The paper argues that the main value of hyperparameter diversity is not improving ensemble quality beyond what tuned same-hyperparameter ensembles achieve, but rather eliminating the need to tune at all.

What carries the argument

Packed hyperparameter ensembling: stacking m MLPs with different hyperparameters into a single tensor module, training them in parallel via batched matrix multiplications, and selecting ensemble members greedily during training using validation-set performance as the ensemble score.

What would settle it

Run TabPack on a new tabular domain where the optimal hyperparameters fall outside the default sampling ranges (e.g., where depth >3 or learning rates outside the specified log-uniform interval are needed) and check whether mean rank degrades relative to tuned baselines.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper shows that for tabular deep learning, the traditional hyperparameter tuning loop can be replaced by a single run that samples many configurations in parallel and lets greedy ensemble selection find what works. The authors demonstrate this with a packed-ensemble architecture where heterogeneous MLPs are stacked along a new dimension and trained together via batched matrix operations, with ensemble members chosen online based on validation performance. The result is that default TabPack on a MacBook runs faster than tuning some baselines on an A100 GPU, while achieving comparable or better mean rank across 17 medium-to-large datasets. The paper also finds that online ensemble (re-e-e

Load-bearing premise

The claim that TabPack is tuning-free rests on the assumption that the authors' default hyperparameter sampling ranges (e.g., depth 1-3, width 384, learning rate from a fixed log-uniform interval) are good enough across all tabular datasets. If these ranges are poorly suited to a new domain, performance could degrade with no recourse beyond adjusting the ranges — which is itself a form of tuning. The paper evaluates on 17 datasets but does not test sensitivity to range miss

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Practitioners can skip expensive hyperparameter search for tabular MLPs by running TabPack once with default sampling ranges, reducing experiment cycles from days to hours.
  • The packed-ensemble pattern could extend to other parts of the training pipeline — loss functions, data preprocessing, architectural choices — diversifying any vectorizable degree of freedom without separate training runs.
  • The finding that hyperparameter diversity primarily enables tuning-free workflows rather than improving raw ensemble quality suggests that future tabular architectures should be designed with built-in configuration robustness rather than relying on external search.
  • The ability to run competitively on consumer hardware (MacBook M4 Pro) shifts the accessibility boundary for tabular deep learning, potentially broadening adoption beyond GPU-equipped research labs.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper introduces TabPack, an efficient ensemble of MLPs with randomly sampled hyperparameters for tabular deep learning. The core idea is to pack many MLPs with diverse hyperparameters (depth, dropout, learning rate, etc.) into a single model, train them in parallel, and select ensemble members online during training. This eliminates the need for per-dataset hyperparameter tuning. Experiments on 17 medium-to-large datasets show that a single tuning-free run of TabPack achieves mean rank 2.6, competitive with extensively tuned TabM (rank 2.8) and RealMLP (rank 3.6), while requiring substantially less compute (2.4h total vs 47.2h and 250.9h respectively). Additional evaluations on TabArena and large-scale datasets (Appendix A.1, A.2) provide further evidence of generalizability.

Significance. The paper makes a practical and well-executed contribution to tabular deep learning. The core technical idea of packing heterogeneous-architecture MLPs into a single trainable module (Model Pack and Optimizer Pack, Section 3.3-3.4) is clean and the implementation is non-trivial. The experimental methodology is thorough: 17 datasets, multiple baselines with 100+ tuning iterations, a conservative multi-seed evaluation protocol, per-dataset results with standard deviations (Table 14), ablations (Table 1, Figure 8), and additional benchmarks (Appendix A.1, A.2). The falsifiable claim that TabPack on a MacBook outperforms tuned baselines on an A100 in terms of total compute is a striking and verifiable result. The analysis in Section 5.1 showing that hyperparameter diversity's main role is enabling the tuning-free workflow rather than improving raw performance is a valuable insight. Reproducible code is provided.

major comments (3)
  1. §3.7 and Table 7: The central 'tuning-free' claim depends on the default hyperparameter sampling ranges (e.g., depth UniformInt[1,3], width 384, Muon LR LogUniform[1e-3,1e-1]). The paper does not describe how these ranges were selected. Given that the benchmark (derived from Gorishniy et al. 2025) and the method share authors, there is a risk that the ranges were refined based on performance on these same 17 datasets, which would make the 'tuning-free' claim partially circular (tuning happened at the range-design level). The independent evaluations in Appendix A.1 and A.2 provide partial mitigation, but the TabArena evaluation (Appendix A.2) switches the ensemble score from validation metric to training loss, which is itself a dataset-specific adjustment. The paper should explicitly state how the ranges in Table 7 were chosen (e.g., based on prior work, held-out datasets, or intuition) —
  2. §3.5 and Appendix A.2 implementation note: The switch from validation metric to training loss as the ensemble score for TabArena is presented as a practical adjustment, but it is a dataset-specific hyperparameter choice that sits in tension with the 'tuning-free' framing. The paper should either (a) run TabArena with the default validation-metric ensemble score and report the resulting performance drop, or (b) explicitly acknowledge this as a limitation and discuss when users should expect to make such adjustments. As stated, the reader cannot assess how much the 'tuning-free' claim is weakened by this adjustment.
  3. §5.1, Table 1: TabPack_SameHP achieves rank 1.4±0.7 vs TabPack's 1.6±0.6, meaning traditional per-dataset tuning of TabPack's architecture actually outperforms the tuning-free default. The paper frames this as 'the tuning slightly improves the performance at the cost of noticeable increase of the total runtime.' However, the rank difference (1.4 vs 1.6) is within one standard deviation, and the paper does not test whether this difference is statistically significant. Given that this comparison directly bears on the claim that hyperparameter diversity is 'a reasonable default strategy' (§5.1), a statistical test or a more careful discussion of whether the difference is meaningful would strengthen the conclusion.
minor comments (7)
  1. Figure 6 (left): The triangle-square-triangle markers for dataset groups are explained in the legend but the specific group assignments per dataset are not immediately clear. Consider adding a table or annotation clarifying which datasets fall into 'worst 25%,' 'middle 50%,' and 'best 25%' groups.
  2. §3.3: The statement 'one can usually use smaller maximum widths and depths than in traditional single models' is not directly supported by the experiments. Table 7 shows width is fixed at 384, which is within the tuning range of baselines (UniformInt[64,1024] for TabM in Table 10). Consider softening this claim or providing evidence.
  3. Appendix A.3: The 'thought experiment' about why TabPack performs well on large regression tasks is speculative. While clearly labeled as such, it could benefit from being shortened or moved to a discussion of limitations, as it does not provide empirical evidence for the proposed mechanisms.
  4. Table 7: The dropout distribution '{0.0, Uniform[0.0,0.5]}' is ambiguous — it is unclear whether this means 50% chance of dropout=0.0 and 50% chance of sampling from Uniform[0,0.5], or something else. Clarify the mixture probability.
  5. §4.2: The conservative evaluation protocol reruns TabPack with only the M_ens selected base models. It would be useful to report what fraction of the full performance is retained in the conservative vs optimistic protocol, to quantify the cost of this conservatism.
  6. Figure 8: The y-axis label 'Rel. improv. over MLP' and the specific values (2.0%-3.0%) are not immediately interpretable. Consider clarifying whether this is the same relative improvement metric used in Figure 6.
  7. The paper introduces 'new periodic embeddings' in Appendix B but does not compare them against prior PLR or PBLD embeddings. A brief comparison or justification for why a new variant was needed would help readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive review. The three major comments all raise legitimate points about the strength of the 'tuning-free' claim and the statistical interpretation of our ablation. We address each below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §3.7 and Table 7: The central 'tuning-free' claim depends on the default hyperparameter sampling ranges. The paper does not describe how these ranges were selected. Given that the benchmark and the method share authors, there is a risk that the ranges were refined based on performance on these same 17 datasets, which would make the 'tuning-free' claim partially circular.

    Authors: The referee raises a valid concern. We will add an explicit description of how the sampling ranges in Table 7 were chosen. To be transparent: the ranges were designed based on our prior experience with tabular MLPs (Gorishniy et al. 2025) and general intuition about reasonable hyperparameter values for this model family, not through systematic optimization on the 17 benchmark datasets. For example, the depth range UniformInt[1,3] and width 384 reflect typical values from prior work; the Muon learning rate range LogUniform[1e-3,1e-1] matches the tuning space used for TabM (Table 11). We agree that some informal iteration on range design is difficult to fully rule out, and we will acknowledge this explicitly in the revised manuscript. The independent evaluations in Appendix A.1 (large-scale datasets) and A.2 (TabArena) provide partial mitigation, as these datasets are not part of the main benchmark. We will state all of this clearly so readers can assess the claim for themselves. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §3.5 and Appendix A.2 implementation note: The switch from validation metric to training loss as the ensemble score for TabArena is presented as a practical adjustment, but it is a dataset-specific hyperparameter choice that sits in tension with the 'tuning-free' framing. The paper should either (a) run TabArena with the default validation-metric ensemble score and report the resulting performance drop, or (b) explicitly acknowledge this as a limitation and discuss when users should expect to make such adjustments.

    Authors: This is a fair point. We will take option (b): explicitly acknowledge this adjustment as a limitation and discuss when users should expect to make it. Specifically, we will note that on datasets with small validation sets (as is common in TabArena), the validation metric becomes a noisier signal for greedy ensemble selection, and using training loss can be more stable. We will add a brief discussion of this trade-off in the revised manuscript. Running TabArena with the default validation-metric ensemble score and reporting the performance drop (option a) is a reasonable suggestion, and we will attempt it if time permits before the camera-ready deadline, but we commit to at least the explicit acknowledgment as a limitation. revision: partial

  3. Referee: §5.1, Table 1: TabPack_SameHP achieves rank 1.4±0.7 vs TabPack's 1.6±0.6, meaning traditional per-dataset tuning of TabPack's architecture actually outperforms the tuning-free default. The paper frames this as 'the tuning slightly improves the performance at the cost of noticeable increase of the total runtime.' However, the rank difference (1.4 vs 1.6) is within one standard deviation, and the paper does not test whether this difference is statistically significant.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the rank difference between TabPack_SameHP (1.4±0.7) and TabPack (1.6±0.6) is within one standard deviation and that we did not test for statistical significance. We will revise the discussion in §5.1 to be more careful: rather than implying that tuning 'slightly improves' performance, we will state that TabPack_SameHP performs comparably to TabPack, with no statistically significant difference detected, and that the main benefit of the tuning-free default is the dramatic reduction in runtime (2.4h vs 65.5h) rather than any performance sacrifice. We will also add a note that the comparison is underpowered for detecting small differences given the number of datasets. The core claim — that random hyperparameter sampling is a reasonable default strategy — is supported by the fact that it achieves statistically indistinguishable performance at a fraction of the cost, not by claiming it outperforms tuning. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; self-citations are for evaluation infrastructure, not for results that define the claim by construction.

full rationale

TabPack's central claim — that a single tuning-free run achieves competitive performance with tuned baselines — is an empirical claim evaluated against external baselines (XGBoost, RealMLP, ModernNCA, TabPFN-3, TabICLv2) from independent groups. The self-citations to Gorishniy et al. (2025) and Rubachev et al. (2025) provide evaluation infrastructure (datasets, preprocessing, metric definitions, experiment protocol) and one baseline (TabM), but none of these citations define TabPack's performance by construction. The default hyperparameter ranges in Table 7 are presented as practical design choices, not as first-principles derivations or predictions. The paper does not claim the ranges are derived from theory; it claims they work empirically. The concern that the ranges might have been informally tuned on the same 17 datasets is a generalizability risk (acknowledged via independent TabArena validation in Appendix A.2 and large-scale evaluation in Appendix A.1), not a circularity in the derivation chain. No step in the paper reduces an output to its input by definition or by self-citation. The one minor issue is that the TabArena evaluation switches the ensemble score from validation metric to training loss (Appendix A.2 implementation note), which is a dataset-specific adjustment, but this is transparently reported and does not constitute a circular argument. Overall, the derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

TabPack's free parameters are all fixed defaults rather than fitted per-dataset, which is the paper's central design choice. The load-bearing axiom is that the sampling ranges generalize. The invented entities (model pack, optimizer pack, online ensemble) are all concretely described and at least partially ablated, with no untestable postulates.

free parameters (6)
  • m (number of base models) = 64
    Fixed by default, not tuned. Chosen by the authors as a practical default.
  • m_ens (max ensemble size) = 32
    Fixed to match TabM baseline; not tuned per dataset.
  • p_base (base model early stopping patience) = 16
    Fixed default; reduced to 4 for large-scale experiments (Appendix A.1).
  • p_ens (ensemble early stopping patience) = 32
    Fixed default; reduced to 8 for large-scale experiments.
  • Base model width = 384
    Fixed constant width for all base models rather than sampled; justified by Table 1 showing DiverseWidths gives comparable performance at higher cost.
  • Hyperparameter sampling ranges (Table 7) = e.g., depth [1,3], dropout [0,0.5], LR LogUniform[1e-3,1e-1]
    Designed by authors as default ranges. Not tuned per dataset. These ranges are the core 'hyperparameters' of TabPack and their universality is assumed but not tested beyond the 17 datasets.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Greedy forward ensemble selection (Caruana et al. 2004) produces good ensembles from a pool of candidates
    Used as the core ensemble construction primitive in Section 3.5. Well-established prior art.
  • domain assumption Packed-ensemble style vectorization (Laurent et al. 2023) correctly preserves individual model behavior when models are padded to max dimensions
    Section 3.3: narrower models zero-padded, shallower models skip deeper layers. The correctness of this padding strategy is assumed, not formally proven, but is straightforward to verify.
  • ad hoc to paper The default hyperparameter sampling ranges generalize across tabular datasets
    The entire tuning-free claim rests on these ranges being universally good. Tested on 17 datasets but not proven to generalize. This is the load-bearing assumption.
  • domain assumption Validation set performance is a reliable proxy for test set ensemble quality
    Greedy ensemble selection and early stopping both use validation set (Section 3.5-3.6). Authors acknowledge in Appendix C this may fail with small validation sets or distribution shift.
  • domain assumption Muon optimizer (Jordan et al. 2024) is suitable for tabular MLPs
    Adopted as default for all methods based on Gorishniy et al. (2026). Applied uniformly so does not bias comparisons, but is an assumption about optimizer choice.
invented entities (3)
  • Model Pack independent evidence
    purpose: Vectorized container for heterogeneous MLPs with different architectures, enabling parallel forward/backward passes
    The packing mechanism is described concretely (Section 3.3, Figures 4-5) and its throughput advantage is measured (Figure 3). Falsifiable: if packing did not accelerate training, Figure 3 would show no speedup.
  • Optimizer Pack independent evidence
    purpose: Vectorized container for optimizers with different hyperparameters (learning rate, weight decay)
    Described in Section 3.4 and Figure 5 (right). Enables different base models to use different optimizer settings. Falsifiable: if optimizer packs did not correctly implement per-model updates, training would diverge.
  • Online ensemble construction independent evidence
    purpose: Rebuilds the greedy ensemble once per epoch from current base model states plus previous ensemble members
    Section 3.5. Ablated against offline ensemble (Table 1, Figure 6): online (rank 1.6) outperforms offline (rank not directly comparable but shown worse in Figure 6). The ablation provides independent evidence the online approach matters.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TabPack: Efficient Hyperparameter Ensembles for Tabular Deep Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L7LARWDB

@misc{pith2026260705380,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TabPack: Efficient Hyperparameter Ensembles for Tabular Deep Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L7LARWDB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.05380}
}
read the original abstract

In deep learning for tabular data, efficient ensembles of multilayer perceptrons (MLPs) have recently emerged as effective and practical architectures. Existing methods of this kind use the same hyperparameters for all underlying MLPs, which requires hyperparameter tuning for achieving the best performance. In this work, we introduce TabPack, an efficient MLP ensemble with strong out-of-the-box performance and reduced reliance on traditional tuning. In a single run, TabPack samples and trains many MLPs with different hyperparameters efficiently in parallel and selects ensemble members on the fly during training. Thus, TabPack only requires specifying ranges from which to sample MLP hyperparameter rather than exact hyperparameter values, which naturally demands less precision for good performance. In experiments on medium-to-large public datasets, TabPack with default settings performs on par with extensively tuned prior methods, thus substantially reducing effort and compute resources needed to achieve competitive results on tabular tasks. Notably, running the default TabPack configuration on a modern MacBook took less time than tuning some baselines on an industry-grade GPU.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05380 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A summary of the results from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A high-level overview of TabPack. (Left) TabPack is constructed by packing multiple base models and optimizers with randomly sampled hyperparameters into a single model–optimizer pair. (Right) Training TabPack consists of training its base models independently in parallel and updating the ensemble once per epoch using intermediate base-model checkpoints. The ensemble is the main output of TabPack training. Ensembles… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Inference throughput for an MLP of depth 3 and width 384 on one NVIDIA A100 GPU with different batch sizes in three regimes: (1) single-process, (2) multi-process, where multiple processes run in parallel using the same GPU (the process count is tuned to show the full potential of this approach), and (3) packed (64 MLPs are stacked into one and applied to 64 stacked batches in parallel). 3.3. Model Pack As a model, … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Packing multiple heterogeneous MLP backbones into one. (Left) Weights of m = 3 MLP backbones of different widths (d1 < d2 < d3) and depths (2, 2, 1). Biases are omitted for simplicity. Wi j denotes the weights of the j-th layer in the i-th MLP. (Right) Weights of the s…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Left) A forward pass for a pack of linear layers. The input X consists of m object representations padded with zeros to dmax and stacked along the pack dimension. The remaining notation follows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (Left) Task performance of tabular models, on the 17 datasets from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Performance of tabular models as a function of the time budget, averaged over the 17 datasets from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Task performance of TabPack† depending on different hyperparameters, averaged over the 17 datasets from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Results on medium-sized datasets (at least 10K objects in total) from the TabArena-Lite benchmark (Erickson et al., 2025). Linear KNN PerpetualBooster TabSTAR RandomForest FastaiMLP ExtraTrees TorchMLP EBM ModernNCA XGBoost xRFM TabPack CatBoost LightGBM TabM TabDPT Re…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Results on small-sized datasets (less than 10K objects in total) from the TabArena-Lite benchmark (Erickson et al., 2025). 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Inference throughput on NVIDIA A100 on 17 datasets from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

163 extracted references · 163 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    KDD , year=

    Optuna: A Next-generation Hyperparameter Optimization Framework , author=. KDD , year=

    work page

  2. [2]

    ASPLOS , year =

    PyTorch 2: Faster Machine Learning Through Dynamic Python Bytecode Transformation and Graph Compilation , author =. ASPLOS , year =

    work page

  3. [3]

    ICLR , year=

    Towards Understanding Ensemble, Knowledge Distillation and Self-Distillation in Deep Learning , author=. ICLR , year=

    work page

  4. [4]

    NeurIPS , year=

    Depth Uncertainty in Neural Networks , author=. NeurIPS , year=

    work page

  5. [5]

    Arik and Tomas Pfister , journal=

    Sercan O. Arik and Tomas Pfister , journal=. Tab

    work page

  6. [6]

    arXiv , volume=

    Layer Normalization , author=. arXiv , volume=

    work page

  7. [7]

    Keerthi , journal=

    Sarkhan Badirli and Xuanqing Liu and Zhengming Xing and Avradeep Bhowmik and Khoa Doan and Sathiya S. Keerthi , journal=. Gradient Boosting Neural Networks: Grow

    work page

  8. [8]

    Dara Bahri and Heinrich Jiang and Yi Tay and Donald Metzler , booktitle=

    work page

Show all 163 references
  1. [9]

    Nature Communications , volume=

    Searching for Exotic Particles in High-energy Physics with Deep Learning , author=. Nature Communications , volume=

  2. [10]

    arXiv , volume=

    Generalization Properties of Retrieval-based Models , author=. arXiv , volume=

  3. [11]

    Computers and Electronics in Agriculture , volume=

    Comparative Accuracies of Artificial Neural Networks and Discriminant Analysis in Predicting Forest Cover Types from Cartographic Variables , author=. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture , volume=

  4. [12]

    ICML , year=

    Improving Language Models by Retrieving from Trillions of Tokens , author=. ICML , year=

  5. [13]

    Neural Computation , volume=

    Local Learning Algorithms , author=. Neural Computation , volume=

  6. [14]

    Chen, Tianqi and Guestrin, Carlos , booktitle=

  7. [15]

    arXiv , volume =

    Jintai Chen and Jiahuan Yan and Danny Ziyi Chen and Jian Wu , title =. arXiv , volume =

  8. [16]

    Trompt: Towards a Better Deep Neural Network for Tabular Data , booktitle =

    Kuan. Trompt: Towards a Better Deep Neural Network for Tabular Data , booktitle =

  9. [17]

    Nat Struct Mol Biol , year=

    AlphaFold2 and the future of structural biology , author=. Nat Struct Mol Biol , year=

  10. [18]

    EMNLP , year=

    Case-based Reasoning for Natural Language Queries over Knowledge Bases , author=. EMNLP , year=

  11. [19]

    ImageNet:

    Jia Deng and Wei Dong and Richard Socher and Li. ImageNet:

  12. [20]

    An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale , author=

  13. [21]

    arXiv , volume=

    Deep Ensembles: A Loss Landscape Perspective , author=. arXiv , volume=

  14. [22]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , year=

    GPyTorch: Blackbox Matrix-Matrix Gaussian Process Inference with GPU Acceleration , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , year=

  15. [23]

    Vetrov and Andrew Gordon Wilson , title =

    Timur Garipov and Pavel Izmailov and Dmitrii Podoprikhin and Dmitry P. Vetrov and Andrew Gordon Wilson , title =. NeurIPS , year =

  16. [24]

    Deep Learning , author=

  17. [25]

    NeurIPS , year=

    Revisiting Deep Learning Models for Tabular Data , author=. NeurIPS , year=

  18. [26]

    NeurIPS , year=

    On Embeddings for Numerical Features in Tabular Deep Learning , author=. NeurIPS , year=

  19. [27]

    Yury Gorishniy and Ivan Rubachev and Nikolay Kartashev and Daniil Shlenskii and Akim Kotelnikov and Artem Babenko , booktitle=. Tab

  20. [28]

    Yury Gorishniy and Akim Kotelnikov and Artem Babenko , booktitle=. Tab

  21. [29]

    Benchmarking Optimizers for MLPs in Tabular Deep Learning , author=

  22. [30]

    Datasets and Benchmarks

    Why do tree-based models still outperform deep learning on typical tabular data? , author=. NeurIPS, the "Datasets and Benchmarks" track , year=

  23. [31]

    TabPFN-3: Technical Report , author=

  24. [32]

    ICML , year=

    Retrieval Augmented Language Model Pre-Training , author=. ICML , year=

  25. [33]

    Training independent subnetworks for robust prediction , author =

  26. [34]

    ICML , year=

    The tree ensemble layer: Differentiability meets conditional computation , author=. ICML , year=

  27. [35]

    CVPR , year =

    Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition , author =. CVPR , year =

  28. [36]

    category

    Helton Tech, LLC , journal=. category

  29. [37]

    Noah Hollmann and Samuel Müller and Katharina Eggensperger and Frank Hutter , booktitle=. Tab

  30. [38]

    arXiv , volume=

    Better by Default: Strong Pre-Tuned MLPs and Boosted Trees on Tabular Data , author=. arXiv , volume=

  31. [39]

    Le , title =

    Weizhe Hua and Zihang Dai and Hanxiao Liu and Quoc V. Le , title =

  32. [40]

    arXiv , volume=

    TabTransformer: Tabular Data Modeling Using Contextual Embeddings , author=. arXiv , volume=

  33. [41]

    ICML , year =

    Sergey Ioffe and Christian Szegedy , title =. ICML , year =

  34. [42]

    arXiv , volume=

    A Memory Transformer Network for Incremental Learning , author=. arXiv , volume=

  35. [43]

    arXiv , volume=

    Few-shot Learning with Retrieval Augmented Language Models , author=. arXiv , volume=

  36. [44]

    An Introduction to Statistical Learning , author=

  37. [45]

    NeurIPS , year=

    Joint Training of Deep Ensembles Fails Due to Learner Collusion , author=. NeurIPS , year=

  38. [46]

    Alan Jeffares and Tennison Liu and Jonathan Crabbé and Fergus Imrie and Mihaela van der Schaar , booktitle=

  39. [47]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.08459 , year=

    Rethinking nearest neighbors for visual classification , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.08459 , year=

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    NeurIPS , year=

    Well-tuned Simple Nets Excel on Tabular Datasets , author=. NeurIPS , year=

  41. [49]

    Delving Deep into Rectifiers: Surpassing Human-Level Performance on ImageNet Classification , author=

  42. [50]

    ICML , year =

    Not All Samples Are Created Equal: Deep Learning with Importance Sampling , author =. ICML , year =

  43. [51]

    Ke, Guolin and Meng, Qi and Finley, Thomas and Wang, Taifeng and Chen, Wei and Ma, Weidong and Ye, Qiwei and Liu, Tie-Yan , journal=. Light

  44. [52]

    ICLR , year=

    Generalization through Memorization: Nearest Neighbor Language Models , author=. ICLR , year=

  45. [53]

    ICLR , year=

    Attentive Neural Processes , author=. ICLR , year=

  46. [54]

    ICML , year=

    The Lipschitz Constant of Self-Attention , author=. ICML , year=

  47. [55]

    arXiv , year=

    Myung Jun Kim and Léo Grinsztajn and Ga. arXiv , year=

  48. [56]

    NIPS , year=

    Self-Normalizing Neural Networks , author=. NIPS , year=

  49. [57]

    NeurIPS , year=

    Self-Attention Between Datapoints: Going Beyond Individual Input-Output Pairs in Deep Learning , author=. NeurIPS , year=

  50. [58]

    NeurIPS , year=

    Learning Enhanced Representation for Tabular Data via Neighborhood Propagation , author=. NeurIPS , year=

  51. [59]

    NeurIPS , year =

    Balaji Lakshminarayanan and Alexander Pritzel and Charles Blundell , title =. NeurIPS , year =

  52. [60]

    Packed Ensembles for efficient uncertainty estimation , author =

  53. [61]

    Crandall and Dhruv Batra , title =

    Stefan Lee and Senthil Purushwalkam and Michael Cogswell and David J. Crandall and Dhruv Batra , title =. arXiv , volume =

  54. [62]

    Patrick S. H. Lewis and Ethan Perez and Aleksandra Piktus and Fabio Petroni and Vladimir Karpukhin and Naman Goyal and Heinrich K. Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive. NeurIPS , year=

  55. [63]

    NeurIPS , year=

    Pay Attention to MLPs , author=. NeurIPS , year=

  56. [64]

    A ConvNet for the 2020s , author=

  57. [65]

    CVPR , year=

    Retrieval Augmented Classification for Long-Tail Visual Recognition , author=. CVPR , year=

  58. [66]

    ICLR , year=

    Decoupled Weight Decay Regularization , author=. ICLR , year=

  59. [67]

    Proceedings of the 28th Annual

    Gesture unit segmentation using support vector machines: segmenting gestures from rest positions , author=. Proceedings of the 28th Annual

  60. [68]

    ArXiv , year=

    Shifts: A Dataset of Real Distributional Shift Across Multiple Large-Scale Tasks , author=. ArXiv , year=

  61. [69]

    Sascha Marton and Stefan Lüdtke and Christian Bartelt and Heiner Stuckenschmidt , booktitle =

  62. [70]

    ICML , year=

    DNNR: Differential Nearest Neighbors Regression , author=. ICML , year=

  63. [71]

    Statistics & Probability Letters , volume=

    Sparse spatial autoregressions , author=. Statistics & Probability Letters , volume=

  64. [72]

    Adam Paszke and Sam Gross and Francisco Massa and Adam Lerer and James Bradbury and Gregory Chanan and Trevor Killeen and Zeming Lin and Natalia Gimelshein and Luca Antiga and Alban Desmaison and Andreas K. Py. NeurIPS , year=

  65. [73]

    and Varoquaux, G

    Pedregosa, F. and Varoquaux, G. and Gramfort, A. and Michel, V. and Thirion, B. and Grisel, O. and Blondel, M. and Prettenhofer, P. and Weiss, R. and Dubourg, V. and Vanderplas, J. and Passos, A. and Cournapeau, D. and Brucher, M. and Perrot, M. and Duchesnay, E. , journal=. S...

  66. [74]

    ICLR , year=

    Neural Oblivious Decision Ensembles for Deep Learning on Tabular Data , author=. ICLR , year=

  67. [75]

    Liudmila Prokhorenkova and Gleb Gusev and Aleksandr Vorobev and Anna Veronika Dorogush and Andrey Gulin , booktitle=. Cat

  68. [76]

    Introducing

    Tao Qin and Tie. Introducing. arXiv , volume=

  69. [77]

    SIGIR , year=

    Jiarui Qin and Weinan Zhang and Xin Wu and Jiarui Jin and Yuchen Fang and Yong Yu , title=. SIGIR , year=

  70. [78]

    Retrieval

    Jiarui Qin and Weinan Zhang and Rong Su and Zhirong Liu and Weiwen Liu and Ruiming Tang and Xiuqiang He and Yong Yu , booktitle=. Retrieval

  71. [79]

    Hopfield Networks is All You Need , author=

  72. [80]

    NeurIPS , year =

    On Variance Reduction in Stochastic Gradient Descent and it Asynchronous Variants , author =. NeurIPS , year =

  73. [81]

    Hopular: Modern Hopfield Networks for Tabular Data , journal=

    Bernhard Sch. Hopular: Modern Hopfield Networks for Tabular Data , journal=

  74. [82]

    ICDM , year=

    Factorization Machines , author=. ICDM , year=

  75. [83]

    ICLR , year=

    Rapid Task-Solving in Novel Environments , author=. ICLR , year=

  76. [84]

    arXiv , volume=

    Ivan Rubachev and Artem Alekberov and Yury Gorishniy and Artem Babenko , title=. arXiv , volume=

  77. [85]

    arXiv , volume=

    Tabular Data: Deep Learning is Not All You Need , author=. arXiv , volume=

  78. [86]

    IEEE UKSim-AMSS 17th International Conference on Computer Modelling and Simulation, UKSim , year=

    Comment Volume Prediction Using Neural Networks and Decision Trees , author=. IEEE UKSim-AMSS 17th International Conference on Computer Modelling and Simulation, UKSim , year=

  79. [87]

    Bayan Bruss and Tom Goldstein , journal=

    Gowthami Somepalli and Micah Goldblum and Avi Schwarzschild and C. Bayan Bruss and Tom Goldstein , journal=

  80. [88]

    CIKM , year=

    AutoInt: Automatic Feature Interaction Learning via Self-Attentive Neural Networks , author=. CIKM , year=

  81. [89]

    Journal of Machine Learning Research , volume=

    Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting , author=. Journal of Machine Learning Research , volume=

  82. [90]

    NeurIPS , year=

    MLP-Mixer: An all-MLP Architecture for Vision , author=. NeurIPS , year=

  83. [91]

    ResMLP: Feedforward Networks for Image Classification With Data-Efficient Training , author=

  84. [92]

    NeurIPS 2024 Datasets and Benchmarks , year=

    A Data-Centric Perspective on Evaluating Machine Learning Models for Tabular Data , author=. NeurIPS 2024 Datasets and Benchmarks , year=

    2024

  85. [93]

    NeurIPS 2022 , year =

    FiLM-Ensemble: Probabilistic Deep Learning via Feature-wise Linear Modulation , author =. NeurIPS 2022 , year =

    2022

  86. [94]

    arXiv , volume=

    Bayesian Optimization is Superior to Random Search for Machine Learning Hyperparameter Tuning: Analysis of the Black-Box Optimization Challenge 2020 , author=. arXiv , volume=

    2020

  87. [95]

    arXiv , volume=

    OpenML: networked science in machine learning , author=. arXiv , volume=

  88. [96]

    NIPS , year=

    Attention is All you Need , author=. NIPS , year=

  89. [97]

    ACL , year=

    Learning Deep Transformer Models for Machine Translation , author=. ACL , year=

  90. [98]

    arXiv , volume=

    DCN V2: Improved Deep & Cross Network and Practical Lessons for Web-scale Learning to Rank Systems , author=. arXiv , volume=

  91. [99]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.08773 , year=

    Training data is more valuable than you think: A simple and effective method by retrieving from training data , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.08773 , year=

    arXiv

  92. [100]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.09502 , year=

    Retrieval-augmented convolutional neural networks for improved robustness against adversarial examples , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.09502 , year=

    arXiv

  93. [101]

    TMLR , year=

    A Flexible Nadaraya-Watson Head Can Offer Explainable and Calibrated Classification , author=. TMLR , year=

  94. [102]

    BatchEnsemble: an Alternative Approach to Efficient Ensemble and Lifelong Learning , author =

  95. [103]

    Biometrics Bulletin , volume=

    Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods , author=. Biometrics Bulletin , volume=

  96. [104]

    AISTATS , year=

    Deep Kernel Learning , author=. AISTATS , year=

  97. [105]

    arXiv , volume=

    Modern Neighborhood Components Analysis: A Deep Tabular Baseline Two Decades Later , author=. arXiv , volume=

  98. [106]

    WACV , year=

    Nearest Neighbors Meet Deep Neural Networks for Point Cloud Analysis , author=. WACV , year=

  99. [107]

    arXiv , volume=

    Parameter is Not All You Need: Starting from Non-Parametric Networks for 3D Point Cloud Analysis , author=. arXiv , volume=

  100. [108]

    KDD , year=

    Scaling Up the Accuracy of Naive-Bayes Classifiers: a Decision-Tree Hybrid , author=. KDD , year=

  101. [109]

    A data-driven approach to predict the success of bank telemarketing , author=. Decis. Support Syst. , volume=

  102. [110]

    arXiv , volume=

    GLU Variants Improve Transformer , author=. arXiv , volume=

  103. [111]

    Chen and Jian Wu , title =

    Jiahuan Yan and Jintai Chen and Yixuan Wu and Danny Z. Chen and Jian Wu , title =

  104. [112]

    International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pages=

    Tabllm: Few-shot classification of tabular data with large language models , author=. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pages=. 2023 , organization=

    2023

  105. [113]

    Shaofeng Zhang and Meng Liu and Junchi Yan , title =

  106. [114]

    The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

    TabReD: Analyzing Pitfalls and Filling the Gaps in Tabular Deep Learning Benchmarks , author=. The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

  107. [115]

    Jeremy Bernstein and Yu. sign

  108. [116]

    Nick Erickson and Lennart Purucker and Andrej Tschalzev and David Holzmüller and Prateek Mutalik Desai and David Salinas and Frank Hutter , title =

  109. [117]

    2024 , url =

    Keller Jordan and Yuchen Jin and Vlado Boza and Jiacheng You and Franz Cesista and Laker Newhouse and Jeremy Bernstein , title =. 2024 , url =

    2024

  110. [118]

    Ensemble selection from libraries of models , booktitle =

    Rich Caruana and Alexandru Niculescu. Ensemble selection from libraries of models , booktitle =

  111. [119]

    Accurate predictions on small data with a tabular foundation model , journal =

    Noah Hollmann and Samuel M. Accurate predictions on small data with a tabular foundation model , journal =

  112. [120]

    Jingang Qu and David Holzm. TabICL:

  113. [121]

    TabICLv2: A better, faster, scalable, and open tabular foundation mode , booktitle =

    Jingang Qu and David Holzm. TabICLv2: A better, faster, scalable, and open tabular foundation mode , booktitle =

  114. [122]

    Florian Wenzel and Jasper Snoek and Dustin Tran and Rodolphe Jenatton , title =

  115. [123]

    Xueying Ding and Lingxiao Zhao and Leman Akoglu , title =

  116. [124]

    Matthias Feurer and Katharina Eggensperger and Stefan Falkner and Marius Lindauer and Frank Hutter , title =

  117. [125]

    Smola , title =

    Nick Erickson and Jonas Mueller and Alexander Shirkov and Hang Zhang and Pedro Larroy and Mu Li and Alexander J. Smola , title =

  118. [126]

    Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python , journal =

    Fabian Pedregosa and Ga. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python , journal =

  119. [127]

    Sheheryar Zaidi and Arber Zela and Thomas Elsken and Chris Holmes and Frank Hutter and Yee Whye Teh , title =

  120. [128]

    Optuna: A next-generation hyperparameter optimization framework

    Akiba, T., Sano, S., Yanase, T., Ohta, T., and Koyama, M. Optuna: A next-generation hyperparameter optimization framework. In KDD, 2019

    2019

  121. [129]

    and Li, Y

    Allen-Zhu, Z. and Li, Y. Towards understanding ensemble, knowledge distillation and self-distillation in deep learning. In ICLR, 2023

    2023

  122. [130]

    L., Kiros, J

    Ba, J. L., Kiros, J. R., and Hinton, G. E. Layer normalization. arXiv, 1607.06450v1, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  123. [131]

    Ensemble selection from libraries of models

    Caruana, R., Niculescu - Mizil, A., Crew, G., and Ksikes, A. Ensemble selection from libraries of models. In ICML , 2004

    2004

  124. [132]

    and Guestrin, C

    Chen, T. and Guestrin, C. XGB oost: A scalable tree boosting system. In SIGKDD, 2016

    2016

  125. [133]

    Hyperparameter sensitivity in deep outlier detection: Analysis and a scalable hyper-ensemble solution

    Ding, X., Zhao, L., and Akoglu, L. Hyperparameter sensitivity in deep outlier detection: Analysis and a scalable hyper-ensemble solution. In NeurIPS , 2022

    2022

  126. [134]

    Erickson, N., Mueller, J., Shirkov, A., Zhang, H., Larroy, P., Li, M., and Smola, A. J. Autogluon-tabular: Robust and accurate automl for structured data. arXiv , 2003.06505 , 2020

    2003 arXiv

  127. [135]

    M., Salinas, D., and Hutter, F

    Erickson, N., Purucker, L., Tschalzev, A., Holzmüller, D., Desai, P. M., Salinas, D., and Hutter, F. Tabarena: A living benchmark for machine learning on tabular data. In NeurIPS , 2025

    2025

  128. [136]

    Deep ensembles: A loss landscape perspective

    Fort, S., Hu, H., and Lakshminarayanan, B. Deep ensembles: A loss landscape perspective. arXiv, 1912.02757v2, 2020

    1912 arXiv

  129. [137]

    Revisiting deep learning models for tabular data

    Gorishniy, Y., Rubachev, I., Khrulkov, V., and Babenko, A. Revisiting deep learning models for tabular data. In NeurIPS, 2021

    2021

  130. [138]

    On embeddings for numerical features in tabular deep learning

    Gorishniy, Y., Rubachev, I., and Babenko, A. On embeddings for numerical features in tabular deep learning. In NeurIPS, 2022

    2022

  131. [139]

    Tab M : Advancing tabular deep learning with parameter-efficient ensembling

    Gorishniy, Y., Kotelnikov, A., and Babenko, A. Tab M : Advancing tabular deep learning with parameter-efficient ensembling. In ICLR, 2025

    2025

  132. [140]

    Benchmarking optimizers for mlps in tabular deep learning

    Gorishniy, Y., Rubachev, I., Feoktistov, D., and Babenko, A. Benchmarking optimizers for mlps in tabular deep learning. arXiv , 2604.15297v2, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  133. [141]

    B., Bühler, M., Garg, A., Safaric, D., Robertson, J., J ä ger, B., Alessi, S., Hayler, A., Moroshan, V., Purucker, L., Singer, P., Arazi, A., Siems, J., Metzen, J

    Grinsztajn, L., Fl ö ge, K., Key, O., Birkel, F., Jund, P., Roof, B., Manium, M., (Liam)Hoo, S. B., Bühler, M., Garg, A., Safaric, D., Robertson, J., J ä ger, B., Alessi, S., Hayler, A., Moroshan, V., Purucker, L., Singer, P., Arazi, A., Siems, J., Metzen, J. H., Grab, G., Eri...

    2026 arXiv

  134. [142]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., and Sun, J. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In CVPR, 2016

    2016

  135. [143]

    Better by default: Strong pre-tuned mlps and boosted trees on tabular data

    Holzmüller, D., Grinsztajn, L., and Steinwart, I. Better by default: Strong pre-tuned mlps and boosted trees on tabular data. arXiv, 2407.04491v1, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  136. [144]

    and Szegedy, C

    Ioffe, S. and Szegedy, C. Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. In ICML, 2015

    2015

  137. [145]

    TANGOS : Regularizing tabular neural networks through gradient orthogonalization and specialization

    Jeffares, A., Liu, T., Crabbé, J., Imrie, F., and van der Schaar, M. TANGOS : Regularizing tabular neural networks through gradient orthogonalization and specialization. In ICLR, 2023 a

    2023

  138. [146]

    Joint training of deep ensembles fails due to learner collusion

    Jeffares, A., Liu, T., Crabbé, J., and van der Schaar, M. Joint training of deep ensembles fails due to learner collusion. In NeurIPS, 2023 b

    2023

  139. [147]

    Muon: An optimizer for hidden layers in neural networks, 2024

    Jordan, K., Jin, Y., Boza, V., You, J., Cesista, F., Newhouse, L., and Bernstein, J. Muon: An optimizer for hidden layers in neural networks, 2024. URL https://kellerjordan.github.io/posts/muon/

    2024

  140. [148]

    Light GBM : A highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree

    Ke, G., Meng, Q., Finley, T., Wang, T., Chen, W., Ma, W., Ye, Q., and Liu, T.-Y. Light GBM : A highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30: 0 3146--3154, 2017

    2017

  141. [149]

    Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles

    Lakshminarayanan, B., Pritzel, A., and Blundell, C. Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles. In NeurIPS, 2017

    2017

  142. [150]

    Packed ensembles for efficient uncertainty estimation

    Laurent, O., Lafage, A., Tartaglione, E., Daniel, G., Martinez, J., Bursuc, A., and Franchi, G. Packed ensembles for efficient uncertainty estimation. In ICLR , 2023

    2023

  143. [151]

    and Hutter, F

    Loshchilov, I. and Hutter, F. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In ICLR, 2019

    2019

  144. [152]

    GRANDE : Gradient-based decision tree ensembles for tabular data

    Marton, S., Lüdtke, S., Bartelt, C., and Stuckenschmidt, H. GRANDE : Gradient-based decision tree ensembles for tabular data. In ICLR, 2024

    2024

  145. [153]

    Z., DeVito, Z., Raison, M., Tejani, A., Chilamkurthy, S., Steiner, B., Fang, L., Bai, J., and Chintala, S

    Paszke, A., Gross, S., Massa, F., Lerer, A., Bradbury, J., Chanan, G., Killeen, T., Lin, Z., Gimelshein, N., Antiga, L., Desmaison, A., K \" o pf, A., Yang, E. Z., DeVito, Z., Raison, M., Tejani, A., Chilamkurthy, S., Steiner, B., Fang, L., Bai, J., and Chintala, S. Py T orch:...

    2019

  146. [154]

    Scikit-learn: Machine learning in P ython

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M., and Duchesnay, E. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in P ython. Journal of ...

    2011

  147. [155]

    Neural oblivious decision ensembles for deep learning on tabular data

    Popov, S., Morozov, S., and Babenko, A. Neural oblivious decision ensembles for deep learning on tabular data. In ICLR, 2020

    2020

  148. [156]

    V., and Gulin, A

    Prokhorenkova, L., Gusev, G., Vorobev, A., Dorogush, A. V., and Gulin, A. Cat B oost: unbiased boosting with categorical features. In NeurIPS, 2018

    2018

  149. [157]

    Qu, J., Holzm \" u ller, D., Varoquaux, G., and Morvan, M. L. Tabiclv2: A better, faster, scalable, and open tabular foundation mode. In ICML , 2026

    2026

  150. [158]

    Revisiting pretraining objectives for tabular deep learning

    Rubachev, I., Alekberov, A., Gorishniy, Y., and Babenko, A. Revisiting pretraining objectives for tabular deep learning. arXiv, 2207.03208v1, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  151. [159]

    Tabred: Analyzing pitfalls and filling the gaps in tabular deep learning benchmarks

    Rubachev, I., Kartashev, N., Gorishniy, Y., and Babenko, A. Tabred: Analyzing pitfalls and filling the gaps in tabular deep learning benchmarks. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=L14sqcrUC3

    2025

  152. [160]

    O., Becker, A., G \" u nd \" u z, H

    Turkoglu, M. O., Becker, A., G \" u nd \" u z, H. A., Rezaei, M., Bischl, B., Daudt, R. C., D'Aronco, S., Wegner, J. D., and Schindler, K. Film-ensemble: Probabilistic deep learning via feature-wise linear modulation. In NeurIPS 2022, 2022

    2022

  153. [161]

    Batchensemble: an alternative approach to efficient ensemble and lifelong learning

    Wen, Y., Tran, D., and Ba, J. Batchensemble: an alternative approach to efficient ensemble and lifelong learning. In ICLR , 2020

    2020

  154. [162]

    Hyperparameter ensembles for robustness and uncertainty quantification

    Wenzel, F., Snoek, J., Tran, D., and Jenatton, R. Hyperparameter ensembles for robustness and uncertainty quantification. In NeurIPS , 2020

    2020

  155. [163]

    Modern neighborhood components analysis: A deep tabular baseline two decades later

    Ye, H.-J., Yin, H.-H., and Zhan, D.-C. Modern neighborhood components analysis: A deep tabular baseline two decades later. arXiv, 2407.03257v1, 2024

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed July 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.