Revisiting Chebyshev Polynomial and Anisotropic RBF Models for Tabular Regression
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Smooth-basis models such as Chebyshev polynomial regressors and radial basis function (RBF) networks are well established in numerical analysis. Their continuously differentiable prediction surfaces suit surrogate optimisation, sensitivity analysis, and other settings where the response varies gradually with inputs. Despite these properties, smooth models seldom appear in tabular regression, where tree ensembles dominate. We ask whether they can compete, benchmarking models across 55 regression datasets organised by application domain. We develop an anisotropic RBF network with data-driven centre placement and gradient-based width optimisation, a ridge-regularised Chebyshev polynomial regressor, and a smooth-tree hybrid (Chebyshev model tree); all three are released as scikit-learn-compatible packages. We benchmark these against tree ensembles, a pre-trained transformer, and standard baselines, evaluating accuracy alongside generalisation behaviour. The transformer ranks first on accuracy across a majority of datasets, but its GPU dependence, inference latency, and dataset-size limits constrain deployment in the CPU-based settings common across applied science and industry. Among CPU-viable models, smooth models and tree ensembles are statistically tied on accuracy, but the former tend to exhibit tighter generalisation gaps. We recommend routinely including smooth-basis models in the candidate pool, particularly when downstream use benefits from tighter generalisation and gradually varying predictions.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 52 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Feb 2026.
Builds on
15 of 52 references.
References · 15
- 2016XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting Systemcited by 5,120
- 2019Optuna: A Next-generation Hyperparameter Optimization Frameworkcited by 2,455
- 2017MoleculeNet: A Benchmark for Molecular Machine Learningcited by 1,037
- 2018Reconciling modern machine learning practice and the bias-variance trade-offcited by 919
- 2021Revisiting Deep Learning Models for Tabular Datacited by 725
- 2019TabNet: Attentive Interpretable Tabular Learningcited by 640
- 2024KAN: Kolmogorov-Arnold Networkscited by 634
- 2021Tabular Data: Deep Learning is Not All You Needcited by 530
- 2014OpenML: networked science in machine learningcited by 523
- 2020Neural Additive Models: Interpretable Machine Learning with Neural Netscited by 318
- 2025TabICL: A Tabular Foundation Model for In-Context Learning on Large Datacited by 267
- 2019InterpretML: A Unified Framework for Machine Learning Interpretabilitycited by 243
Built on by
Not cited yet.