arXiv Machine Learning

Tabular Foundation Models for Credit Risk Prediction: A Dedicated Review and Empirical Comparison

arXiv Machine Learning
Jul 16

Foundation Models for Credit Risk Prediction: A Game Changer?

arXiv:2605. 18147v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Predictive models play a pivotal role in credit risk management, guiding critical decisions through accurate estimation of default probabilities and losses.

By Bart Baesens, Andreas Goethals, Stefan Lessmann, Simon De Vos, Cristi\'an Bravo, David Martens, Victor Medina-Olivares, Christophe Mues, Maria Oskarsd\'ottir, Seppe vanden Broucke, Tony Van Gestel, Tim Verdonck, Wouter Verbeke
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 7

Mitra-v2 Technical Report

Mitra‑v2 is a tabular foundation model that achieves state‑of‑the‑art performance on a wide range of real‑world classification and regression tasks, including credit‑risk scoring, clinical prediction, equipment‑failure detection, and house‑price estimation. Trained solely on synthetic data with a larger and more diverse pretraining distribution than its predecessor, it uses a compact 2D Transformer backbone and improved optimization to handle longer contexts and larger feature spaces. On the TabArena and TALENT benchmarks, Mitra‑v2 outperforms leading models such as TabPFN‑3 and TabICLv2, matching the performance of a 1.6B‑parameter TabFM with only 77M parameters, and ranks first on multi‑class classification tasks with more than ten classes.

By Yefan Tao (Bernie), Xiyuan Zhang (Bernie), Xinyi Liu (Bernie), Boran Han (Bernie), Danielle Maddix (Bernie), Haoyang Fang (Bernie), Zhen Han (Bernie), Jiading Gai (Bernie), Xuanqing Liu (Bernie), Michael Bohlke-Schneider (Bernie), Yuyang (Bernie), Wang, Gerald Friedland, Kevan Mah, Chris Lee, Chris Kong
arXiv AI
Sep 4

Xiaomi-TabLDM: A Tabular Foundation Model Technical Report

Xiaomi-TabLDM is a tabular foundation model that performs classification and regression via in-context learning without task‑specific fine‑tuning. It is pretrained solely on synthetic data from structural causal models, achieving top‑ranked regression results on multiple benchmarks while reducing training and prediction time compared to leading models. The architecture incorporates a three‑stage training strategy, dual‑stream feature grouping, lightweight attention residuals, and sparse mixture‑of‑experts, and it can further improve accuracy through test‑time compute scaling.

By TabLDM Team, Penghui Wang, Wei Liu, Hong Wang, Chengyue Huang, Yuxi Sun, Zirui Wang, Hongming Huang, Quan Wang, Chunxiao Liu, Erli Meng, Bin Wang
arXiv AI
Jun 30

Beyond IID: How General Are Tabular Foundation Models, Really?

arXiv:2606. 30410v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Foundation models for predictive machine learning on tabular data have recently gained significant traction in academia and industry.

By Lennart Purucker, Andrej Tschalzev, Nick Erickson, Gioia Blayer, David Holzm\"uller, Alan Arazi, Alexander Pfefferle, Mustafa Tajjar, Ga\"el Varoquaux, Frank Hutter
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 30

TabFM: A Zero-Shot Foundation Model for Tabular Data

arXiv:2609.37959v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Tabular machine learning typically relies on per-dataset workflows, fitting tree ensembles or running AutoML searches from scratch for every task. We p...

By Weihao Kong, Erez Louidor Ilan, Shuxin Nie, Taman Narayan, Rajat Sen, Yichen Zhou, Deqing Fu, Samet Oymak, Abhimanyu Das
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 14

TabH2O: A Unified Foundation Model for Tabular Prediction

arXiv:2605. 18383v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: We present TabH2O, a foundation model for tabular data that performs classification and regression in a single forward pass via in-context learning.

By Pascal Pfeiffer, Dmitry Gordeev, Mathias M\"uller, Laura Fink, Joan Salv\`a Soler, Mark Landry, Branden Murray, Marcos V. Conde, Sri Satish Ambati
arXiv Machine Learning
Oct 12

Is TabPFN the Silver Bullet for Insurance Pricing?

The paper evaluates TabPFN, a tabular foundation model, for motor insurance pricing by comparing it to generalized linear models (GLMs) and XGBoost on two motor third‑party liability datasets. Results show that TabPFN does not consistently outperform GLMs: it lags on claim frequency, especially when the in‑context training set is small, but performs competitively on claim severity where data are limited. Additionally, TabPFN’s inference times are substantially longer than those of the baseline methods.

By Bruno Deprez, Wouter Verbeke, Tim Verdonck