We present TabuLM, the first language model pre-trained on Kinyarwanda tabular data. Kinyarwanda is a morphologically rich Bantu language spoken by over 12 million people in Rwanda, yet lacks any dedicated tabular representation learning resource. TabuLM extends KinyaBERT-large, a two-tier morphological transformer, with additive row, column, and cell-type embeddings and a learned table-structure attention bias that sharpens same-row and same-column attention. Pre-training uses two new objectives: Masked Cell Recovery (MCR), which masks entire cells and forces reconstruction from row and column context, and Column Type Prediction (CTP), which predicts column semantic types from observed cell values. We pre-train on 172 Rwandan government tables (~35,000 cells) from NISR, RAB, REB, and MoH open-data portals, and introduce TabQA-kin, the first native Kinyarwanda table question-answering benchmark comprising 526 QA pairs across 31 tables and four question types. TabuLM achieves 62.0% exact match on TabQA-kin, outperforming KinyaBERT-large by 5.7 EM points and all multilingual baselines (mBERT 49.3%, XLM-R 50.0%) by 11.7-12.7 points. Analysis shows that structural table embeddings are most decisive for comparison and lookup questions, while morphological awareness provides complementary gains. Our code, data, and pre-trained checkpoint are publicly available.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Table serialization. A two-row Kinyarwanda agricultural table (a) is linearised into a flat token sequence (b). Red [CLS]/[TAB] open the table; orange [ROW] separates rows; green [CEL] precedes each cell. Grid coordinates (r,c) are attached to every token and feed the row, column, and cell-type embedding matrices as well as the MCR and CTP objectives.
Figure 2: TabuLM architecture. Orange components are new relative to KinyaBERT. Three inputs converge at Add & Concatenate : the morphological summary mw (from Tier 1), the stem embedding sw , and the tabular embeddings. The table-structure bias is injected inside the Sequence Transformer at every layer.
Figure 3: TabuLM pre-training objectives. (a) Masked Cell Recovery (MCR): entire cells are masked (gray); the model reconstructs cell content using same-row context (row identity) and same-column context (distributional signal) via the tabular embeddings and attention bias. (b) Column Type Prediction (CTP): a column header is masked; the model predicts the column’s semantic type ( Numeric , Text , Categorical , or Date ) from the observed cell values.
Figure 4: TabuLM data-collection and training pipeline. Starting from Rwandan government open-data portals, tables are extracted, serialized with structural tokens, and used to pre-train TabuLM on the MCR and CTP objectives. The resulting checkpoint is fine-tuned on TabQA-kin to produce the final results.
Resource
Count
Source
Pre-training tables
172
NISR, RAB, REB, MoH
Pre-training cells
∼ 35,000
Pre-training sequences
∼ 170/loop
TabQA-kin total QA pairs
526
Template generation
lookup
186
comparison
123
Table 1: Dataset statistics for TabuLM pre-training corpus and TabQA-kin benchmark.
Hyperparameter
Pre-training
Fine-tuning
Optimizer
LAMB
AdamW
Peak LR
4×10−4
2×10−5
LR schedule
Linear warmup + decay
Constant
Warmup steps
500 (5%)
Weight decay
0.01
0.01
Effective batch
64
16
Table 2: TabuLM hyperparameters for pre-training and fine-tuning.
Model
Dev EM
GPT-4o (zero-shot)
64.0
GPT-4o-mini (zero-shot)
64.0
mBERT
49.3
XLM-R
50.0
KinyaBERT-large
56.3
TabuLM (full)
62.0
Table 3: TabQA-kin dev set overall EM. GPT-4o and GPT-4o-mini both score 64.0%, showing the LLM ceiling is not scale-dependent. TabuLM outperforms all fine-tuned baselines by 5.7–12.7 EM points; all fine-tuned models substantially outperform both LLMs on aggregation (see Table 4 ).
Model
Look.
Comp.
Agg.
All
GPT-4o (0-shot)
82.9
79.2
25.9
64.0
GPT-4o-mini (0-shot)
85.7
70.8
29.6
64.0
mBERT
16.7
50.0
80.8
49.3
XLM-R
19.2
44.4
85.2
50.0
KinyaBERT
26.7
59.1
88.9
56.3
TabuLM
28.6
66.7
79.2
62.0
Table 4: EM per question type on TabQA-kin dev set. All fine-tuned models use question-guided joint row–column filtering for lookup and top-2 question-relevant row restriction for comparison . GPT-4o (zero-shot, 86 evaluable items) leads on lookup and comparison but is substantially outperformed on aggregation by all fine-tuned models. Bold = best per column (GPT-4o lookup/comparison excluded from fine-tuned best).
Configuration
Dev EM
Δ
TabuLM (full)
62.0
− Table-structure bias
64.0
+2.0†
− Row/col/cell-type embeds
58.0
−4.0
− MCR objective
64.0
+2.0†
− CTP objective
64.0
+2.0†
Table 5: Ablation study (TabQA-kin dev set, EM). Δ = difference from full model. † Variants exceeding full model are within noise (50-item dev set; 1 item = 2% EM). Only the tabular embeddings show a robust effect; bias and CTP components provide no detectable benefit at this pre-training scale.
Question (en gloss)
Gold
TabuLM
KinyaBERT
Between Ibishyimbo and Uburo , which has higher 2021 export growth? ( exports_trade_2022 )
Ibishyimbo
✓
× (Ibikorei)
Between Ibigori and Ibirayi , which has more farmland (ha)? ( crop_production_2022 )
Ibigori
✓
× (Amasaka)
Table 6: Comparison questions where TabuLM succeeds and KinyaBERT fails. KinyaBERT ignores the two-entity constraint and selects the global column maximum; TabuLM correctly restricts comparison to the two named rows.
TabuLM
GPT-4o
Parameters
65M
∼ 1.8T
Inference
Local GPU
Proprietary API
Per-query cost
$0 (local)
∼ $0.01
GPU required
RTX 3090 (24 GB)
None (API)
Fine-tunable
Yes
No ∗
Agg. EM
79.2%
25.9%
Table 7: Deployment comparison. ∗ GPT-4o fine-tuning is available via API but was not evaluated here; results are zero-shot.
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Kinyarwanda Template
English Gloss
Lookup
Ni angahe [COL] ya [ENT]?
What is [COL] of [ENT]?
[ENT] yari ifite angahe [COL]?
How much [COL] did [ENT] have?
Comparison
Ni [ENT1] cyangwa [ENT2] ifite [COL] nyinshi?
Does [ENT1] or [ENT2] have more [COL]?
Hagati ya [ENT1] na [ENT2], iyihe ifite [COL] nkeya?
Between [ENT1] and [ENT2], which has less [COL]?
Appendix
Table 8: Kinyarwanda question templates for TabQA-kin. [COL] = column header (e.g., ubuhinzi “cultivated area”), [ENT] = row entity from the first column (e.g., Gasabo ), [TYPE] = entity type label (e.g., akarere “district”), [VAL] = numeric threshold. Count questions are excluded from cell-selection evaluation.
Akarere
Ubuhinzi (ha)
Umusaruro (t)
Sezon
(District)
(Cultivated area)
(Yield, metric tons)
(Season)
Gasabo
1,847
4,203
2022A
Kicukiro
923
2,156
2022A
Nyarugenge
412
847
2022A
Bugesera
12,304
38,145
2022A
Appendix
Table 9: Example pre-training table from the Rwanda Agriculture Board. Kinyarwanda column headers are given with English translations. The MCR objective masks entire cells (e.g., Bugesera’s yield 38,145 t) and requires reconstruction from row and column context; CTP predicts the numeric type for the Umusaruro column.
Hyperparameter
Pre-training
Fine-tuning
Optimizer
LAMB
AdamW
Peak learning rate
4×10−4
2×10−5
LR schedule
Warmup + decay
Constant
Warmup steps
500
50
Effective batch size
64 (8 × GA8)
16
Max sequence length
512
512
Appendix
Table 10: Complete hyperparameters for TabuLM pre-training and fine-tuning. All ablation variants use identical fine-tuning hyperparameters.
Question (en gloss)
Type
Gold
TabuLM
Failure mode
Which crop has the most farmland in Kigali? ( crop_land_2022 )
Agg
Ibigori
✓
Which district has least health workers?
Agg
Nyarugenge
× (Gasabo)
Wrong column alignment
Between Ibigori and Ibishyimbo, which has higher 2023 yield?
Cmp
Ibigori
✓
What is the enrollment of Nyamata SS?
Lkp
1,240
× (963)
Duplicate values in column
How many students enrolled in Remera?
Lkp
Remera PS
✓
Appendix
Table 11: Additional TabuLM error analysis examples. “Wrong column alignment” occurs when the question’s column cue matches multiple column headers; “Duplicate values” occurs when the same numeric value appears in more than one row, defeating the column-wise disambiguation heuristic.
We present KinyaEmbed, the first dedicated sentence embedding model for Kinyarwanda, a morphologically rich Bantu language spoken by over 12 million people in Rwanda. Existing multilingual embedding models such as LaBSE, mE5-large, and OpenAI text-embedding-3-large perform poorly on Kinyarwanda due to severe under-representation in their pre-training corpora. KinyaEmbed is built on KinyaBERT-large and trained via a four-stage curriculum using MultipleNegativesRankingLoss (MNRL): Stage 1 leverages ~18,000 paraphrase pairs from the Official Gazette of Rwanda with three temperature scales; Stage 2 fine-tunes on 715 NLLB-translated MNLI triplets for entailment structure; Stage 3 aligns representations using English-Kinyarwanda OPUS-100 translation pairs; Stage 4 refines with 2,936 high-quality pairs filtered from KinyaCOMET at quality threshold 0.8. We evaluate on SemRel2024-rw and introduce Wiki-RW-STS, a new contamination-free Kinyarwanda STS benchmark of 300 pairs derived from Kinyarwanda Wikipedia. A seven-checkpoint ensemble (all5+23A*2, with the final stage double-weighted) achieves Spearman \r{ho}=0.7298 on SemRel2024-rw, surpassing mE5-large by 20.9% and OpenAI text-embedding-3-large by 41.0%. KinyaEmbed also achieves the best document clustering silhouette score (0.2146) across all evaluated models. All checkpoints, the KinyaCOMET filtered pairs, and the Wiki-RW-STS benchmark are publicly available.
Ireddi Rakshitha, Devavarapu Yashwanth, Ntakirutimana Pierre
Real-world tables are often heterogeneous, combining numerical features with free-form string columns. Table foundation models (TFMs) excel on numerical tables but require strings to be encoded numerically, while large language models (LLMs) hold semantic knowledge but are not designed for tabular predictions. Most existing bridges use LLMs as plug-in encoders for cell strings, yet how to extract representations effectively for tabular learning remains underexplored. We show that the interface between LLMs and tables matter as much as the LLM itself. Applied cell-wise, larger LLMs do not give better features. With our interface, the same LLMs improve steadily with size. TILE (Table-Interfaced LLM Embeddings) combines four ingredients: row serialization to provide cross-column context, intermediate-layer extraction to avoid layers specialized for next-token prediction, columnar pooling to remove mean pooling's length bias, and by-pass features to route numbers and categories past the LLM. Paired with TFMs, TILE sets a new state of the art for tables with strings. Across 100 datasets, it beats the strongest baseline on 89% of splits, with gains across 7 LLMs and 10 tabular learners, and ranks first on the 108-dataset STRABLE benchmark.
Tabular foundation models aim to learn universal representations of tabular data that transfer across tasks and domains, enabling applications such as table retrieval, semantic search and table-based prediction. Despite the growing number of such models, it remains unclear which approach works best in practice, as existing methods are often evaluated under task-specific settings that make direct comparison difficult. To address this, we introduce TEmBed, the Tabular Embedding Test Bed, a unified benchmark for systematically evaluating tabular embeddings across four representation levels: cell, row, column, and table. Evaluating a diverse set of tabular representation learning models, we show that which model to use depends on the task and representation level. Our results offer practical guidance for selecting tabular embeddings in real-world applications and lay the groundwork for developing more general-purpose tabular representation models.