Synthetic tabular data generation has attracted growing attention due to its importance for data augmentation, foundation models, and privacy. However, real-world tabular datasets increasingly contain free-form text fields (e.g., reviews or clinical notes) alongside structured numerical and categorical attributes. Generating such heterogeneous tables with joint modeling of different modalities remains challenging. Existing approaches broadly fall into two categories: diffusion-based methods and LLM-based methods. Diffusion models can capture complex dependencies over numerical and categorical features in continuous or discrete spaces, but extending them to open-ended text is nontrivial and often leads to degraded text quality. In contrast, LLM-based generators naturally produce fluent text, yet their discrete tokenization can distort precise or wide-range numerical values, hindering accurate modeling of both numbers and language. In this work, we propose TabDLM, a unified framework for free-form tabular data generation via a joint numerical-language diffusion model built on masked diffusion language models (MDLMs). TabDLM models textual and categorical features through masked diffusion, while modeling numerical features with a continuous diffusion process through learned specialized numeric tokens embedding; bidirectional attention then captures cross-modality interactions within a single model. Extensive experiments on diverse benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of TabDLM compared to strong diffusion- and LLM-based baselines.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of TabDLM . During training, given an input tabular sample, TabDLM applies masked language diffusion to categorical and free-form textual features, and continuous diffusion to numerical features. Noisy inputs are mapped to token embeddings via a textual embedding layer and a numerical encoder. An MDLM then denoises these embeddings to reconstruct the original sample. Training updates only the projector in the numerical encoder and decoder, as well as the LoRA modules within each MDLM layer.
Method
MathExpr
ProfileBio
Shape ↓
Trend ↓
Op-MR ↑
Exp-MR ↑
Shape ↓
Trend ↓
Bio-MR ↑
Qwen2.5-7B ICL
39.04
56.65
53.93
53.92
41.29
64.52
7.97
Qwen2.5-14B ICL
25.61
36.07
76.01
75.12
43.97
65.00
13.00
Qwen2.5-7B SFT
5.07
50.81
99.68
99.34
10.51
36.26
98.51
LLaDA-8B SFT
5.41
42.54
98.36
97.90
5.81
44.14
97.63
TabDLM
3.69
6.07
99.99
99.80
4.84
7.81
98.60
Table 1: Evaluation results on the MathExpr and ProfileBio datasets (%).
Method
Amazon
Arxiv
Shape (%) ↓
Trend (%) ↓
MLE∗↑
MLE ↑
Shape (%) ↓
Trend (%) ↓
MLE∗↑
MLE ↑
Real
0.0
0.0
.905
.906
0.0
0.0
.968
.968
Qwen2.5-7B ICL
37.93
68.27
.636
.629
68.04
42.34
.521
.516
Qwen2.5-14B ICL
39.19
78.22
.684
.679
40.79
34.35
.556
.527
Qwen2.5-7B SFT
11.41
46.31
.824
.834
11.19
10.02
.701
.727
LLaDA-8B SFT
7.76
37.13
.891
.892
14.10
43.81
.931
.930
Table 2: Results on the Amazon and Arxiv datasets. ( ∗ indicates (w/o nums) )
Method
Adult
Default
Shoppers
Magic
Beijing
Average
CTGAN
16.84 / 20.23
16.83 / 26.95
21.15 / 13.08
9.81 / 7.00
21.39 / 22.95
17.20 / 18.04
TVAE
14.22 / 14.15
10.17 / 19.50
24.51 / 18.67
8.25 / 5.82
19.16 / 18.01
15.26 / 15.23
GOGGLE
16.97 / 45.29
17.02 / 21.94
22.33 / 23.90
1.90 / 9.47
16.93 / 45.94
15.03 / 29.31
STaSy
11.29 / 14.51
5.77 / 5.96
9.37 / 8.49
6.29 / 6.61
6.71 / 8.00
7.89 / 8.71
CoDi
21.38 / 22.49
15.77 / 68.41
31.84 / 17.78
11.56 / 6.53
16.94 / 7.07
19.50 / 24.46
TabDDPM
1.75 / 3.01
1.57 / 4.89
2.72 / 6.61
1.01 / 1.70
1.30 / 2.71
1.67 / 3.78
Table 3: Performance comparison on the error rates (%) of Shape ↓ / Trend ↓ . Each cell reports Shape / Trend. Full per-metric results are provided in Appendix C.1 . ( B : best overall; B : best in language-based model)
Method
Shape ↓
Trend ↓
MLE ↑
C2ST ↑
α -Precision ↑
TabDLM - noFloatAE
2.15
4.34
.870
0.9256
98.50
TabDLM - onlyContDiff
4.19
7.28
.850
0.8399
91.70
TabDLM - onlyMDLM
5.75
22.96
.852
0.7892
88.58
TabDLM
1.56
2.49
.874
.9571
98.56
Table 4: Ablation study on the average performance across Adult, Default, and Shoppers
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Column
Example Value
x1
2.75
x2
6.40
operation_x1
sin
operation_x2
log
operation_between
mul
latex_expression
\sin(2.75) \times \log(6.40)
Appendix
Table 5: An example sample from the MathExpr dataset.
Column
Example Value
age
38
salary
135
sex
female
birth_state
California
college
Harvard University
degree
master
Appendix
Table 6: An example sample from the ProfileBio dataset.
Component
Rule / Template
Age descriptor
[21, 30]: in the early career stage [31, 40]: in the career-building stage [41, 50]: in the established career stage [51, 60]: in the advanced career stage [61, 70]: in the late career stage
Salary descriptor
[75, 100]: a comfortable income [101, 150]: a strong professional income [151, 200]: a high-level income
Biography template
This {sex} individual is {age_desc}. {He/She} was born in {birth_state} and completed higher education at {college}, earning a {degree} degree. {He/She} works as a {occupation}. {He/She} earns {salary_desc}.
Appendix
Table 7: ProfileBio: Age/salary mapping rules and the biography template.
Column
Example Value
price
5.98
review_time
1970 (days since earliest review date)
rating
5.0
verified
true
category
Science Fiction & Fantasy > Fantasy
brand
Visit Amazon’s J. R. R. Tolkien Page
Appendix
Table 8: An example sample from the Amazon dataset.
Column
Example Value
submission_time
1672 (days since earliest review date)
submission_year
2022
title_length
7
abstract_length
90
category
Category_3
title
IRC-safe Graph Autoencoder for unsupervised anomaly detection
Appendix
Table 9: An example record from the Arxiv dataset.
Dataset
#Rows
#Num
#Cat
#Max Cat
#Train
#Validation
#Test
Task
Adult
48,842
6
9
42
28,943
3,618
16,281
Classification
Default
30,000
14
11
11
24,000
3,000
3,000
Classification
Shoppers
12,330
10
8
20
9,864
1,233
1,233
Classification
Magic
19,019
10
1
2
15,215
1,902
1,902
Classification
Beijing
43,824
7
5
31
35,058
4,383
4,383
Regression
Appendix
Table 10: Statistics of real-world tabular datasets. #Num denotes the number of numerical columns, and #Cat denotes the number of categorical columns. #Max Cat is the maximum number of categories among all categorical columns.
Method
Adult
Default
Shoppers
Magic
Beijing
Average
CTGAN
16.84±0.03
16.83±0.04
21.15±0.10
9.81±0.08
21.39±0.05
17.20
TVAE
14.22±0.08
10.17±0.05
24.51±0.06
8.25±0.06
19.16±0.06
15.26
GOGGLE
16.97
17.02
22.33
1.90
16.93
15.03
STaSy
11.29±0.06
5.77±0.06
9.37±0.09
6.29±0.13
6.71±0.03
7.89
CoDi
21.38±0.06
15.77±0.07
31.84±0.05
11.56±0.26
16.94±0.02
19.50
TabDDPM
1.75±0.03
1.57±0.08
2.72±0.13
1.01±0.09
1.30±0.03
1.67
Appendix
Table 11: Performance comparison on the error rates (%) of Shape ↓ . ( B : best overall; B : best in language-based model)
Method
Adult
Default
Shoppers
Magic
Beijing
Average
CTGAN
20.23±1.20
26.95±0.93
13.08±0.16
7.00±0.19
22.95±0.08
18.04
TVAE
14.15±0.88
19.50±0.95
18.67±0.38
5.82±0.49
18.01±0.08
15.23
GOGGLE
45.29
21.94
23.90
9.47
45.94
29.31
STaSy
14.51±0.25
5.96±0.26
8.49±0.15
6.61±0.53
8.00±0.10
8.71
CoDi
22.49±0.08
68.41±0.05
17.78±0.11
6.53±0.25
7.07±0.15
24.46
TabDDPM
3.01±0.25
4.89±0.10
6.61±0.16
1.70±0.22
2.71±0.09
3.78
Appendix
Table 12: Performance comparison on the error rates (%) of Trend ↓ .( B : best overall; B : best in language-based model)
Methods
Adult
Default
Shoppers
Magic
Beijing
Average Gap
AUC ↑
AUC ↑
AUC ↑
AUC ↑
RMSE ↓
%
Real
.927±.000
.770±.005
.926±.001
.946±.001
.423±.003
0.0
CTGAN
.886±.002
.696±.005
.875±.009
.855±.006
.902±.019
28.48
TVAE
.878±.004
.724±.005
.871±.006
.887±.003
.770±.011
21.09
GOGGLE
.778±.012
.584±.005
.658±.052
.654±.024
1.09±.025
51.54
STaSy
.906±.001
.752±.006
.914±.005
.934±.003
.656±.014
12.45
Appendix
Table 13: Evaluation of MLE. AUC is used for classification tasks and RMSE for regression tasks. ( B : best overall; B : best in language-based model)
Method
Adult
Default
Shoppers
Magic
Beijing
Average
CTGAN
77.74±0.15
62.08±0.08
76.97±0.39
86.90±0.22
96.27±0.14
79.99
TVAE
98.17±0.17
85.57±0.34
58.19±0.26
86.19±0.48
97.20±0.10
85.06
GOGGLE
50.68
68.89
86.95
90.88
88.81
77.24
STaSy
82.87±0.26
90.48±0.11
89.65±0.25
86.56±0.19
89.16±0.12
87.74
CoDi
77.58±0.45
82.38±0.15
94.95±0.35
85.01±0.36
98.13±0.38
87.61
TabDDPM
96.36±0.20
97.59±0.36
88.55±0.68
98.59±0.17
97.93±0.30
95.80
Appendix
Table 14: Evaluation on α -Precision scores, ( B : best overall; B : best in language-based model)
Method
Adult
Default
Shoppers
Magic
Beijing
Average
CTGAN
0.5949
0.4875
0.7488
0.6728
0.7531
0.6514
TVAE
0.6315
0.6547
0.2962
0.7706
0.8659
0.6438
GOGGLE
0.1114
0.5163
0.1418
0.9526
0.4779
0.4400
STaSy
0.4054
0.6814
0.5482
0.6939
0.7922
0.6242
CoDi
0.2077
0.4595
0.2784
0.7206
0.7177
0.4768
TabDDPM
0.9755
0.9712
0.8349
0.9998
0.9513
0.9465
Appendix
Table 15: Evaluation on C2ST, ( B : best overall; B : best in language-based model)
Method
Adult
Default
Shoppers
Beijing
Average ↓
STaSy
50.33%±0.19
50.23%±0.09
51.53%±0.16
50.59%±0.29
0.67%
CoDi
49.92%±0.18
51.82%±0.26
51.06%±0.18
50.87%±0.11
0.96%
TabDDPM
51.14%±0.18
52.15%±0.20
63.23%±0.25
80.11%±2.68
11.66%
TabSyn
50.94%±0.17
51.20%±0.18
52.90%±0.22
50.37%±0.13
1.35%
TabDiff
50.10%±0.32
51.11%±0.36
50.24%±0.62
50.50%±0.36
0.39%
TabDLM
50.73%
49.95%
50.87%
50.13%
0.36%
Appendix
Table 16: Evaluation on DCR score, where a score closer to 50% is more preferable. We also report the average absolute deviation of the DCR score from 50% across all datasets, where lower values are better ( B : best overall).
Cross-Tabular Data Generation (CTDG) seeks to learn a generative model from multiple heterogeneous tables and produce new synthetic tabular datasets. However, existing synthetic tabular data generation methods are largely restricted to single-input-table scenarios and struggle to effectively handle multiple heterogeneous tables with diverse feature sets. To address this limitation, we propose a two-stage framework for cross-tabular data generation. In the first stage, each heterogeneous raw table is transformed into a standardized statistical table with the same set of columns across all tables. Each statistical table captures the marginal distributions of the original columns and the pairwise correlations among them. In the second stage, a diffusion transformer model is trained to capture structural patterns across these homogeneous statistical tables and to generate synthetic statistical tables. Synthetic raw tables are subsequently reconstructed from the generated statistical tables via multivariate Gaussian sampling followed by an inverse probability integral transform. This two-stage CTDG framework enables the learning of a unified generative model from multiple heterogeneous tables and supports the generation of an unlimited number of realistic synthetic heterogeneous tables. Experimental results demonstrate high fidelity in the learned statistical representations and a favorable fidelity-diversity trade-off in the generated synthetic data, validating the effectiveness of the proposed approach.
Hao Yan, Lisa Pilgram, Dan Liu +3
Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ontario, Canada · School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada · Department of Nephrology and Medical Intensive Care, Charité - Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany +2
Deep generative models can help with data scarcity and privacy by producing synthetic training data, but they struggle in low-data, imbalanced tabular settings to fully learn the complex data distribution. We argue that striving for the full joint distribution could be overkill; for greater data efficiency, models should prioritize learning the conditional distribution P(y∣X), as suggested by recent theoretical analysis. Therefore, we overcome this limitation with ReTabSyn, a Reinforced Tabular Synthesis pipeline that provides direct feedback on feature correlation preservation during synthesizer training. This objective encourages the generator to prioritize the most useful predictive signals when training data is limited, thereby strengthening downstream model utility. We empirically fine-tune a language model-based generator using this approach, and across benchmarks with small sample sizes, class imbalance, and distribution shift, ReTabSyn consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines. Moreover, our approach can be readily extended to control various aspects of synthetic tabular data, such as applying expert-specified constraints on generated observations.
Xiaofeng Lin, Seungbae Kim, Zhuoya Li +3
University of California, Los Angeles, USA · University of South Florida, USA · Cisco, USA +1
Generative models for tabular data are typically trained separately for each dataset, limiting knowledge transfer and requiring the storage of many specialized models. In this paper, we introduce CDMD, a tabular diffusion model trained jointly across heterogeneous datasets with different schemas and variable numbers of numerical and categorical features. Unlike existing cross-dataset tabular diffusion models that operate in continuous representation spaces, CDMD defines diffusion directly over the mixed-type feature space and is trained end-to-end. To accommodate heterogeneous categorical domains, we introduce a schema-restricted reverse-process parameterization for masked diffusion models, in which the output space dynamically adapts to each feature's vocabulary. We then compose numerical and categorical feature-level diffusion processes into a schema-dependent row-level process. A shared schema-aware Transformer denoiser captures dependencies between features and parameterizes the reverse process across varying schemas. On seven real-world datasets, a single jointly trained CDMD achieves the highest average generation quality among strong single-dataset and cross-dataset baselines, while using substantially fewer total parameters than the collection of separately trained models. Furthermore, pre-training on a corpus of 337 datasets improves generation on previously unseen datasets under both limited target data and limited adaptation epochs. These results demonstrate the potential of direct mixed-type diffusion for shared and transferable tabular data generation. Our code is available at https://github.com/ketatam/cdmd.
Mohamed Amine Ketata, Maximilian Schambach, Stephan Günnemann
Munich Data Science Institute, Technical University of Munich, Germany · SAP SE, Germany