# Explaining Tabular Foundation Model Differences Through Meta-Features

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.28418 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.28418/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 18 of its 33 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 27 May 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 18 of 18)

- [XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1603.02754/) (2016)
- [TabPFN: A Transformer That Solves Small Tabular Classification Problems in a Second](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.01848/) (2022)
- [AutoGluon-Tabular: Robust and Accurate AutoML for Structured Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2003.06505/) (2020)
- [TabICL: A Tabular Foundation Model for In-Context Learning on Large Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.05564/) (2025)
- [When Do Neural Nets Outperform Boosted Trees on Tabular Data?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.02997/) (2023)
- [TabArena: A Living Benchmark for Machine Learning on Tabular Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.16791/) (2025)
- [TabICLv2: A better, faster, scalable, and open tabular foundation model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.11139/) (2026)
- [TabPFN-2.5: Advancing the State of the Art in Tabular Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.08667/) (2025)
- [TabDPT: Scaling Tabular Foundation Models on Real Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.18164/) (2024)
- [TabM: Advancing Tabular Deep Learning with Parameter-Efficient Ensembling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.24210/) (2024)
- [Better by Default: Strong Pre-Tuned MLPs and Boosted Trees on Tabular Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.04491/) (2024)
- [A Closer Look at Deep Learning Methods on Tabular Datasets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.00956/) (2024)
- [Real-TabPFN: Improving Tabular Foundation Models via Continued Pre-training With Real-World Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.03971/) (2025)
- [TabSTAR: A Tabular Foundation Model for Tabular Data with Text Fields](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.18125/) (2025)
- [A Data-Centric Perspective on Evaluating Machine Learning Models for Tabular Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.02112/) (2024)
- [A Comprehensive Benchmark of Machine and Deep Learning Across Diverse Tabular Datasets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.14817/) (2024)
- [Unreflected Use of Tabular Data Repositories Can Undermine Research Quality](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.09159/) (2025)
- [PMLBmini: A Tabular Classification Benchmark Suite for Data-Scarce Applications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.01635/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [TabMF: Learning Dataset Representations with Tabular Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.13818/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

With the rise of tabular foundation models alongside traditional models still performing well on many tasks, choosing the right model for a tabular dataset remains difficult. We investigate whether dataset meta-features can explain performance gaps between model families on tabular prediction tasks. Using the TabArena benchmark results, we analyze dataset-level performance gaps and relate them to model-agnostic meta-features. After strict statistical tests with false discovery control, we find that (1) for neural network vs. tree gaps, no meta-feature survives false discovery control, (2) for non-foundation vs. foundation model gaps, one association is robust but does not generalize when tested in leave-one-dataset-out prediction, and (3) for TabICLv2 vs. TabPFN-2.6, one robust association also improves held-out prediction. Furthermore, we conduct a leave-one-dataset-out analysis and find that meta-feature predictors fail to improve meaningfully over a simple baseline. Overall, our results show the heterogeneity of tabular datasets and that global meta-feature approaches are not robust enough to offer explanations on the 51 TabArena datasets.