# The Role of Feature Interactions in Graph-based Tabular Deep Learning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.04543 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.04543/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 44 of its 69 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 6 Oct 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 44)

- [Attention Is All You Need](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03762/) (2017)
- [BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.04805/) (2018)
- [XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1603.02754/) (2016)
- [RoFormer: Enhanced Transformer with Rotary Position Embedding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.09864/) (2021)
- [Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1703.01365/) (2017)
- [Optuna: A Next-generation Hyperparameter Optimization Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1907.10902/) (2019)
- [Graph Neural Networks: A Review of Methods and Applications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1812.08434/) (2018)
- [Relational inductive biases, deep learning, and graph networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.01261/) (2018)
- [Geometric Deep Learning: Grids, Groups, Graphs, Geodesics, and Gauges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.13478/) (2021)
- [Wide & Deep Learning for Recommender Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.07792/) (2016)
- [Revisiting Deep Learning Models for Tabular Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.11959/) (2021)
- [DeepFM: A Factorization-Machine based Neural Network for CTR Prediction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1703.04247/) (2017)
- [TabNet: Attentive Interpretable Tabular Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.07442/) (2019)
- [Interaction Networks for Learning about Objects, Relations and Physics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1612.00222/) (2016)
- [TabTransformer: Tabular Data Modeling Using Contextual Embeddings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.06678/) (2020)
- [Deep & Cross Network for Ad Click Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1708.05123/) (2017)
- [DCN V2: Improved Deep & Cross Network and Practical Lessons for Web-scale Learning to Rank Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2008.13535/) (2020)
- [AutoInt: Automatic Feature Interaction Learning via Self-Attentive Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.11921/) (2018)
- [SAINT: Improved Neural Networks for Tabular Data via Row Attention and Contrastive Pre-Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.01342/) (2021)
- [A Multiscale Visualization of Attention in the Transformer Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.05714/) (2019)
- [TabICL: A Tabular Foundation Model for In-Context Learning on Large Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.05564/) (2025)
- [xDeepFM: Combining Explicit and Implicit Feature Interactions for Recommender Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.05170/) (2018)
- [Inductive Biases for Deep Learning of Higher-Level Cognition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.15091/) (2020)
- [When Do Neural Nets Outperform Boosted Trees on Tabular Data?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.02997/) (2023)
- [Why do tree-based models still outperform deep learning on tabular data?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.08815/) (2022)
- [Auto-Sklearn 2.0: Hands-free AutoML via Meta-Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.04074/) (2020)
- [Self-Attention Between Datapoints: Going Beyond Individual Input-Output Pairs in Deep Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.02584/) (2021)
- [RelBench: A Benchmark for Deep Learning on Relational Databases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.20060/) (2024)
- [LimiX: Unleashing Structured-Data Modeling Capability for Generalist Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.03505/) (2025)
- [Tabular Transformers for Modeling Multivariate Time Series](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.01843/) (2020)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Accurate predictions on tabular data rely on capturing complex, dataset-specific feature interactions. Attention-based methods and graph neural networks, referred to as graph-based tabular deep learning (GTDL), aim to improve predictions by modeling these interactions as a graph. In this work, we analyze how these methods model the feature interactions. Current GTDL approaches primarily focus on optimizing predictive accuracy, often neglecting the accurate modeling of the underlying graph structure. Using synthetic datasets with known ground-truth graph structures, we find that current GTDL methods fail to recover meaningful feature interactions, as their edge recovery is close to random. This suggests that the attention mechanism and message-passing schemes used in GTDL do not effectively capture feature interactions. Furthermore, when we impose the true interaction structure, we find that the predictive accuracy improves. This highlights the need for GTDL methods to prioritize accurate modeling of the graph structure, as it leads to better predictions.