8 Comments
User's avatar
Želimir Kurtanjek's avatar

Hi Chris,

Do you know a toy example for which a tree model beats TabPFN

Regards

Christoph Molnar's avatar

You can hover over the dots in https://huggingface.co/spaces/Neuralk-AI/tabbench and see for which tree-based models outpeform TFMs

Piotr's avatar

thank you! i would love to see win cluster but with additional feature engineering like from https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.02384

Christoph Molnar's avatar

this is still on my to read list. I would also be curious to see the impact of more automated feature engineering in these benchmarks

Jose Andres's avatar

Thanks for the post! I have a question: are TFMs adequate for very small datasets with p >> n without having to apply dimensionality reduction?

Christoph Molnar's avatar

There is TabPFNWide, which is specifically pre-trained for such settings. Otherwise, I haven’t tried TFMs yet for such settings

Mark Herrmann's avatar

Thanks for bringing this to my/our attention!

I believe I left a similar comment somewhere in your series about PFNs but the question still bugs me (and might be worth a chapter in your TFM book ;-)?)...

TFMs are trained mostly on synthetic data generated using causal graphs under the hood. Understanding whether this allows deriving a feature causality ranking rather than a feature importance ranking w/o having to create a causal graph for your features/data is super interesting in my mind. The TabBench folks seem to rely mostly on classical prediction KPIs though and no causality KPIs.

Here's a recent paper that takes a more causality driven point of view: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2605.08786

Wouldn't a similar benchmark using something like the "Recall@k" from the above paper be crazy interesting?

Christoph Molnar's avatar

There are attempts to apply PFNs for causal settings. I haven’t seen anything yet for feature causality ranking. I feel like we’ll see more applications of PFNs in the causality space.