mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

STRABLE: Benchmarking Tabular Machine Learning with Strings

arXiv 2605.12292 ↗First posted 12 May 2026cs.LGcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Benchmarking tabular learning has revealed the benefit of dedicated architectures, pushing the state of the art. But real-world tables often contain string entries, beyond numbers, and these settings have been understudied due to a lack of a solid benchmarking suite. They lead to new research questions: Are dedicated learners needed, with end-to-end modeling of strings and numbers? Or does it suffice to encode strings as numbers, as with a categorical encoding? And if so, do the resulting tables resemble numerical tabular data, calling for the same learners? To enable these studies, we contribute STRABLE, a benchmarking corpus of 108 tables, all real-world learning problems with strings and numbers across diverse application fields. We run the first large-scale empirical study of tabular learning with strings, evaluating 445 pipelines. These pipelines span end-to-end architectures and modular pipelines, where strings are first encoded, then post-processed, and finally passed to a tabular learner. We find that, because most tables in the wild are categorical-dominant, advanced tabular learners paired with simple string embeddings achieve good predictions at low computational cost. On free-text-dominant tables, large LLM encoders become competitive. Their performance also appears sensitive to post-processing, with differences across LLM families. Finally, we show that STRABLE is a good set of tables to study "string tabular" learning as it leads to generalizable pipeline rankings that are close to the oracle rankings. We thus establish STRABLE as a foundation for research on tabular learning with strings, an important yet understudied area.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 68 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 May 2026.

Builds on

18 of 68 references.

References · 18

  1. 2025Qwen3 Embedding: Advancing Text Embedding and Reranking Through Foundation Modelscited by 1,261
  2. 2022Text Embeddings by Weakly-Supervised Contrastive Pre-trainingcited by 1,253
  3. 2019How Contextual are Contextualized Word Representations? Comparing the Geometry of BERT, ELMo, and GPT-2 Embeddingscited by 784
  4. 2021Transformers Can Do Bayesian Inferencecited by 360
  5. 2022Matryoshka Representation Learningcited by 282
  6. 2019Representation Degeneration Problem in Training Natural Language Generation Modelscited by 255
  7. 2026TabICLv2: A better, faster, scalable, and open tabular foundation modelcited by 144
  8. 2025TabPFN-2.5: Advancing the State of the Art in Tabular Foundation Modelscited by 132
  9. 2025MMTEB: Massive Multilingual Text Embedding Benchmarkcited by 125
  10. 2024A Closer Look at Deep Learning Methods on Tabular Datasetscited by 41
  11. 2021Benchmarking Multimodal AutoML for Tabular Data with Text Fieldscited by 26
  12. 2024Mambular: A Sequential Model for Tabular Deep Learningcited by 21
6 more
  1. 2023Vectorizing string entries for data processing on tables: when are larger language models better?cited by 10
  2. 2025Jasper-Token-Compression-600M Technical Reportcited by 7
  3. 2024Tabular Data: Is Deep Learning all you need?cited by 6
  4. 2026Towards Universal Tabular Embeddings: A Benchmark Across Data Taskscited by 6
  5. 2026The Illusion of Generalization in Tabular Language Modelscited by 4
  6. 2025Towards Benchmarking Foundation Models for Tabular Data With Textcited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 4.

4 papers.