Identifying meaningful feature interactions is a central challenge in building accurate and interpretable models for tabular data. Generalized additive models (GAMs) have shown great success at modeling tabular data, but often rely on heuristic procedures to select interactions, potentially missing higher-order or context-dependent effects. To meet this challenge, we propose TabDistill, a method that leverages tabular foundation models and post-hoc distillation methods. Our key intuition is that tabular foundation models implicitly learn rich, adaptive feature dependencies through large-scale representation learning. Given a dataset, TabDistill first fits a tabular foundation model to the dataset, and then applies a post-hoc interaction attribution method to extract salient feature interactions from it. We evaluate these interactions by then using them as terms in a GAM. Across tasks, we find that interactions identified by TabDistill lead to consistent improvements in downstream GAMs' predictive performance. Our results suggest that tabular foundation models can serve as effective, data-driven guides for interaction discovery, bridging high-capacity models and interpretable additive frameworks.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: TabDistill utilizes the adaptive feature dependency structure learned from TFM. The distilled model is then passed through the post-hoc explainer SPEX for interaction feature discovery.
Figure 2: Comparison of TabDistill against baseline methods. When the number of interactions is small, selecting informative interactions is critical. TabDistill remains superior across settings. As more interactions are included, sensitivity to the specific interaction set decreases.
Model
MAE
MSE
R2
EBM (with TabDistill)
2.26
2.37
2.37
PyGAM (with TabDistill)
4.65
4.69
4.69
Linear Regression
4.33
4.19
4.19
Decision Tree
4.78
4.78
4.78
XGBoost
3.30
3.30
3.30
TabPFN
1.63
1.63
1.63
Table 1: Average rank of models across PMLB regression datasets (lower is better). EBM and PyGAM are implemented with 4 interactions selected from TabDistill. Compared to other interpretable models (top section), EBM achieves superior performance, helping to close the gap between interpretable and black-box models (bottom section).
Method
MAE
F1
Mean
Variance
Mean
Variance
TabDistill
3.52
0.60
3.05
0.07
FAST
4.64
0.20
3.81
0.08
RuleFit
5.16
0.63
4.31
0.08
BII
4.28
1.57
3.05
0.16
Fourier
4.61
1.88
3.41
0.07
Table 2: Performance summary for GAMs with different interaction selection methods. We aggregate the ranks of all methods across datasets and interaction budgets Nint . TabDistill with FBII index (first line) shows a strong overall performance across tasks for interaction selection.
Figure 3: Comparison of TabDistill on TabICL and TabPFN against baseline methods. Left: performance evaluated by average rank across datasets using the F1 score metric. Right: performance evaluated by average rank across datasets using the accuracy metric.
Method
Sample size for interaction selection
100
200
300
400
500
TabDistill
0.60
0.82
0.88
0.75
1.00
FAST
0.58
0.55
0.59
0.60
1.00
RuleFit
0.38
0.50
0.54
0.51
1.00
BII
0.55
0.77
0.93
0.85
1.00
Fourier
0.70
0.88
0.89
0.90
1.00
Table 3: Stability of interaction selection across sample sizes. Each entry reports the proportion of the 8 selected interactions that overlap with the reference set obtained by the same method using 500 samples. Higher is better.
Figure 4: Performance comparison of TabPFN against baseline methods on Fourier-sparse functions. (a) Low-data regime; (b) Noise robustness; (c) Extreme sparsity.
Figure 5: We simulate tree-structured data with n=10,000 samples and p=15 features, varying the decision tree depth from 1 to 10. As the decision boundary becomes increasingly complex and non-smooth, TabPFN more faithfully approximates data generated from tree-structured decision rules. All results are averaged over 20 random seeds.
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Table 9
Figure A1: Additional benchmark results in regression tasks.
Figure A2: Additional benchmark results in classification tasks.
Metric
Nint
TabDistill
FAST
RuleFit
BII
Fourier
FSII
Mobius
SII
STII
MAE
1
1.82
3.56
6.71
1.91
1.61
1.76
1.56
1.79
1.62
2
3.00
4.68
5.94
2.79
3.09
3.00
2.91
2.74
3.00
3
3.26
4.79
5.47
4.29
4.28
3.12
3.18
3.76
3.47
4
3.62
4.18
5.21
5.24
4.97
3.62
3.65
4.91
3.44
5
3.27
5.00
5.41
5.06
5.00
3.76
3.71
4.88
3.88
6
3.27
4.68
5.15
6.10
5.07
3.55
4.27
5.44
3.48
Appendix
Table A3: Rank comparison across different numbers of interactions for different TabDistill index methods in regression tasks. Ranks are computed over the full set of models, including FAST and RuleFit. Lower is better.
Metric
Nint
TabDistill
FAST
RuleFit
BII
Fourier
FSII
Mobius
SII
STII
Accuracy
1
2.45
3.89
4.64
2.02
2.52
2.64
2.66
2.34
2.27
2
2.77
3.82
4.64
2.77
2.77
2.50
2.50
2.11
2.55
3
2.61
4.55
4.68
3.09
2.88
2.75
2.64
2.61
2.75
4
3.00
4.48
5.09
2.52
2.91
3.18
2.39
2.91
2.41
5
2.70
4.32
4.70
2.98
3.60
2.68
2.61
2.75
2.45
6
2.59
4.14
4.82
2.95
3.17
2.80
2.57
3.02
2.50
Appendix
Table A4: Rank comparison across different numbers of interactions for different TabDistill index methods in classification tasks. Ranks are computed over the full set of models, including FAST and RuleFit. Lower is better.
Figure A3: Stability of interaction selection with respect to the SPEX query sample size. We vary the query sample size used by SPEX from 100 to 500 and evaluate downstream predictive performance on TabArena regression datasets, reported as average rank across datasets. Across all indices, rank variations remain within approximately 0.5.
Method
MSE
RMSE
MAE
R2
TabDistill
509888
714.1
536.1
0.8595
FAST
540500
735.2
540.0
0.8511
RuleFit
523756
724.7
545.9
0.8557
Appendix
Table A5: Performance comparison for the Fiat 500 price prediction task.
TabDistill
FAST
RuleFit
1
(vehicle model, vehicle age)
(vehicle model, vehicle age)
(vehicle age, mileage)
2
(vehicle model, vehicle age, mileage)
(vehicle model, latitude)
(vehicle age, mileage, longitude)
3
(vehicle age, mileage)
(vehicle model, longitude)
(mileage, longitude)
4
(vehicle age, latitude)
(engine power, latitude)
(vehicle age, latitude)
5
(vehicle model, vehicle age, latitude, longitude)
(vehicle age, mileage)
(vehicle age, mileage, latitude)
6
(vehicle model, vehicle age, latitude)
(vehicle age, latitude)
(vehicle model, vehicle age, mileage)
Appendix
Table A6: Comparison of selected feature interactions on the used car pricing task.
Figure A4: A higher-order interaction identified by TabDistill between seller location and model type. The spatial pattern differs across model types. This indicates a non-additive interaction between longitude, latitude, and model type.
Model type
Location cell
Sport
Non-sport
South-West
5.90
9.40
South-East
5.80
9.30
North-West
5.70
9.39
North-East
5.50
9.80
Appendix
Table A7: Median selling price (in k)bymodeltypeacross2\times 2$ location cells. The four location cells are defined by splitting longitude and latitude at their median values.
Inherently interpretable classifiers for tabular data typically rely on sparse features, rules, or patterns that users can inspect directly. The marginal feature-screening step common to these methods can discard variables whose predictive value emerges only through joint configurations with other variables. We present Interaction Aware Interpretable Machine Learning (IAIML), a framework that addresses this limitation through three coordinated mechanisms: adaptive per-feature discretization, finite-grid pairwise interaction scoring, and a partitioned explanation budget. Detected interactions are routed through one of two strategies: relaxing the screening filter so that interaction-supported variables enter the pattern search, or constructing explicit pair terms for a sparse downstream classifier. On a 40-dataset panel comprising 24 real-world tabular benchmarks and 16 synthetic interaction stress tests, evaluated under nested cross-validation, IAIML achieves mean AUC within 1.4 points of tuned gradient-boosted ensembles while requiring roughly 14--28 times fewer fitted explanation components. On datasets with strong pairwise interaction structure and low marginal signal, IAIML outperforms all baselines. Among compact interpretable methods, IAIML is comparable to RuleFit in AUC and component count and is less expensive to tune. EBM obtains a small but significant AUC advantage across the full panel, with a substantially larger lookup-table footprint. Performance degrades on datasets requiring higher-order interactions beyond the pairwise scope. Component-isolated ablations confirm that adaptive discretization and interaction-aware admission each contribute incrementally. These results support IAIML as a compact, interaction-aware framework appropriate for settings where bounded explanation size and controlled treatment of feature interactions are design requirements.
Srikumar Krishnamoorthy
Information Systems Area, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, India
Deep neural networks (DNNs) exhibit attractive performance in various fields but often suffer from low interpretability. The neural additive model (NAM) and its variant called the neural basis model (NBM) use neural networks (NNs) as nonlinear shape functions in generalized additive models (GAMs). Both models are highly interpretable and exhibit good performance and flexibility for NN training. NAM and NBM can provide and visualize the contribution of each feature to the prediction owing to GAM-based architectures. However, when using two-input NNs to consider feature interactions or when applying them to high-dimensional datasets, training NAM and NBM becomes intractable due to the increase in the computational resources required. This paper proposes incorporating the feature selection mechanism into NAM and NBM to resolve computational bottlenecks. We introduce the feature selection layer in both models and update the selection weights during training. Our method is simple and can reduce computational costs and model sizes compared to vanilla NAM and NBM. In addition, it enables us to use two-input NNs even in high-dimensional datasets and capture feature interactions. We demonstrate that the proposed models are computationally efficient compared to vanilla NAM and NBM, and they exhibit better or comparable performance with state-of-the-art GAMs.
Yasutoshi Kishimoto, Kota Yamanishi, Takuya Matsuda +1
Generalized additive models (GAMs) offer interpretability through independent univariate feature effects but underfit when interactions are present in data. GA2Ms add selected pairwise interactions which improves accuracy, but sacrifices interpretability and limits model auditing. We propose Conditionally Additive Local Models (CALMs), a new model class, that balances the interpretability of GAMs with the accuracy of GA2Ms. CALMs allow multiple univariate shape functions per feature, each active in different regions of the input space. These regions are defined independently for each feature as simple logical conditions (thresholds) on the features it interacts with. As a result, effects remain locally additive while varying across subregions to capture interactions. We further propose a principled distillation-based training pipeline that identifies homogeneous regions with limited interactions and fits interpretable shape functions via region-aware backfitting. Experiments on diverse classification and regression tasks show that CALMs consistently outperform GAMs and achieve accuracy comparable with GA2Ms. Overall, CALMs offer a compelling trade-off between predictive accuracy and interpretability.