ScoringBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Tabular Foundation Models with Proper Scoring Rules
Organizations: University of Stuttgart (Stuttgart, Germany) · Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (Munich, Germany) · Munich Center for Machine Learning (Munich, Germany)
Abstract
Tabular foundation models such as TabPFN, TabICL, ExaOneTabular, and Nori already produce full predictive distributions, yet prevailing regression benchmarks evaluate them almost exclusively via point-estimate metrics such as RMSE. This overlooks the distributional information these models are designed to provide. We introduce ScoringBench, an open and extensible benchmark that evaluates tabular regression models under a comprehensive suite of proper scoring rules - including (weighted) CRPS, energy scores and interval scores - alongside standard point metrics. ScoringBench covers 101 regression datasets from diverse domains, supports transparent community contributions via a git-based leaderboard, and provides two complementary ranking protocols: an ordinal Demsar/autorank approach and a magnitude-preserving -score ranking approach. Our evaluation of various model types, including (fine-tuned) tabular foundation models, gradient-boosted trees, and MLPs, shows that model rankings shift depending on the chosen scoring rule. Models that perform well on point-estimate metrics can rank lower on probabilistic ones. These findings demonstrate that evaluation metric selection is a core modeling decision and a domain-specific requirement for applications where certain types of errors carry higher consequences.
Figures & tables
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Dataset | Dataset |
|---|---|
| 1000-Cameras-Dataset | 1027_ESL |
| 1028_SWD | 1029_LEV |
| 1030_ERA | 1193_BNG_lowbwt |
| 1199_BNG_echoMonths | 1201_BNG_breastTumor |
| 1203_BNG_pwLinear | 215_2dplanes |
| 218_house_8L | 225_puma8NH |
| Metric | Rank Correlation ( ) |
|---|---|
| cde_loss | 0.9743 |
| crps | 0.9910 |
| dispersion | 0.9680 |
| dpd_beta_0.01 | 0.9880 |
| dpd_beta_0.2 | 0.9720 |
| dpd_beta_0.5 | 0.9716 |
| MR | MED | MAD | CI | Magnitude | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| exaonetabular | 8.723 | 0.378 | 0.362 | [0.073, 1.597] | 0.000 | negligible |
| tabpfn_v3 | 8.733 | 0.373 | 0.356 | [0.092, 1.608] | 0.010 | negligible |
| finetune_tabpfn_realv2_5_crls | 11.084 | 0.377 | 0.363 | [0.091, 1.652] | 0.001 | negligible |
| finetune_tabiclv2 | 11.871 | 0.392 | 0.377 | [0.092, 1.600] | -0.025 | negligible |
| finetune_tabpfn_realv2_5_beta_0.7 | 12.386 | 0.379 | 0.364 | [0.092, 1.651] | -0.002 | negligible |
| finetune_tabpfn_realv2_5_beta_0.5 | 12.569 | 0.379 | 0.365 | [0.092, 1.651] | -0.003 | negligible |
| MR | MED | MAD | CI | Magnitude | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| exaonetabular | 8.604 | 2.963 | 2.816 | [0.663, 12.150] | 0.000 | negligible |
| tabpfn_v3 | 10.327 | 3.007 | 2.811 | [0.690, 12.049] | -0.011 | negligible |
| finetune_tabpfn_realv2_5_crls | 10.678 | 2.968 | 2.833 | [0.688, 12.285] | -0.001 | negligible |
| finetune_tabiclv2 | 11.020 | 3.006 | 2.879 | [0.689, 12.238] | -0.010 | negligible |
| tabiclv2 | 12.584 | 2.997 | 2.852 | [0.685, 12.168] | -0.008 | negligible |
| finetune_tabpfn_realv2_5_beta_0.7 | 13.485 | 3.001 | 2.824 | [0.692, 12.252] | -0.009 | negligible |
| MR | MED | MAD | CI | Magnitude | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| exaonetabular | 8.564 | 0.758 | 0.726 | [0.181, 3.681] | 0.000 | negligible |
| tabpfn_v3 | 9.851 | 0.763 | 0.732 | [0.183, 3.809] | -0.005 | negligible |
| finetune_tabpfn_realv2_5_crls | 12.649 | 0.774 | 0.742 | [0.180, 3.832] | -0.015 | negligible |
| finetune_tabiclv2 | 13.287 | 0.837 | 0.805 | [0.182, 3.768] | -0.070 | negligible |
| finetune_tabpfn_realv2_5_mse | 14.104 | 0.770 | 0.738 | [0.181, 3.791] | -0.012 | negligible |
| finetune_tabpfn_realv2_5_beta_0.5 | 14.282 | 0.770 | 0.738 | [0.181, 3.829] | -0.012 | negligible |
Tabular Regression
Tabular regression predicts continuous outcomes from structured rows of features for tasks such as pricing, forecasting, and scientific measurement.
See all 35 papers