MoMaTune: Model, Match, Then Tune Language Models for Numerical Records
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Despite remarkable progress in language understanding and generation, decoder language models continue to exhibit striking failures on numerical data. Numerical examples are typically serialized as text by concatenating feature names with their values (e.g., fat:3.4), while conventional task adaptation applies loss only to the downstream prediction target. This leaves two structures weakly supervised: within-value sensitivity, where digit position determines numerical magnitude, because token cross-entropy contains no explicit numerical metric; and across-field structure, where measurements in the same record are statistically dependent, because target-only tuning provides no direct loss on the measurements or their dependencies. We introduce MoMaTune (Model, Match, then Tune), a two-stage post-training strategy organized around these supervision gaps. Stage 1 applies Model, ordinary next-token prediction densely over label-free serialized records, and optionally adds Match, a same-record consistency objective that aligns representations of different partial views of the same example. Stage 2 applies Tune, supervised fine-tuning for downstream target prediction. We evaluate MoMaTune on 169,285 records from eight public datasets, with 339 of 340 input fields numerical. At 1.5B parameters, Model raises the eight-dataset masked-value imputation aggregate from 0.106 to 0.401, while the three-dataset correct-context gain rises from 0.058 to 0.167. On diagnostics, Model also increases sensitivity to numerically consequential digit changes, while Match improves robustness to informative partial views. Adding Tune yields higher target-supervised embedding aggregates for each tested Stage-1 parent, and the two-stage recipes obtain higher aggregate scores than Tune alone. The same pattern is observed at 4B, 9.6B, and 27B parameters when model embeddings are used for downstream prediction.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 18 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Oct 2026.
Builds on
18 of 18 references.
References · 18
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,820
- 2023Qwen Technical Reportcited by 3,344
- 2014OpenML: networked science in machine learningcited by 526
- 2024NV-Embed: Improved Techniques for Training LLMs as Generalist Embedding Modelscited by 472
- 2024LLM2Vec: Large Language Models Are Secretly Powerful Text Encoderscited by 404
- 2023Improving Text Embeddings with Large Language Modelscited by 303
- 2022Language Models are Realistic Tabular Data Generatorscited by 294
- 2022TabLLM: Few-shot Classification of Tabular Data with Large Language Modelscited by 277
- 2024Generative Representational Instruction Tuningcited by 233
- 2019Do NLP Models Know Numbers? Probing Numeracy in Embeddingscited by 159
- 2021SubTab: Subsetting Features of Tabular Data for Self-Supervised Representation Learningcited by 104
- 2022Rank-N-Contrast: Learning Continuous Representations for Regressioncited by 76
6 more
- 2024Making Pre-trained Language Models Great on Tabular Predictioncited by 57
- 2023xVal: A Continuous Numerical Tokenization for Scientific Language Modelscited by 27
- 2023From Supervised to Generative: A Novel Paradigm for Tabular Deep Learning with Large Language Modelscited by 24
- 2025TabGemma: Text-Based Tabular ICL via LLM using Continued Pretraining and Retrievalcited by 6
- 2024Language Models as Zero-shot Lossless Gradient Compressors: Towards General Neural Parameter Prior Modelscited by 5
- 2025Revealing the Numeracy Gap: An Empirical Investigation of Text Embedding Modelscited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.