Can Tabular Foundation Models Amortize Statistical Inference?
Authors: Kai Ye, Shijin Gong, Hongyi Zhou, Valentina Zangirolami, Chengchun Shi
Organizations: Department of Statistics, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK · School of Management, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China · School of Statistics and Data Science, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, Shanghai, China · Department of Economics, Management and Statistics, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
For decades, statistical inference has largely been developed one problem at a time. Given a scientific target, such as a treatment effect or a regression function, statisticians design a problem-specific estimator together with a procedure for quantifying its uncertainty. This paper proposes a different paradigm. We focus on a classical problem in statistical inference, confidence interval construction, and develop TabCon, an amortized inference system built on a tabular foundation model that produces confidence intervals for new datasets through a simple forward pass. The key methodological ingredients of TabCon are a sparse mixture-of-experts architecture and reinforcement-learning-based post-training that calibrate the resulting confidence intervals to a desired coverage level. Across a wide range of benchmark datasets, TabCon attains near-nominal coverage while producing short confidence intervals. At inference time, it also offers considerably greater computational efficiency, running 50 times faster than the classical bootstrap procedure, even when the latter uses only 50 bootstrap samples.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: An overview of TabCon . Panel (a) illustrates the model architecture, which consists of (i) a frozen regression head that produces point estimates of the regression function, (ii) three trainable residual heads that model the estimation error distribution, including a global head and two specialists , and (iii) a trainable router that determines how the residual heads are combined. Panels (b) illustrate the training and inference pipeline, which follows the pretraining and post-training paradigm of modern foundation models. At inference time (bottom), the router weights combine the outputs of the residual heads to construct the CI according to Equation 2 .
Method
Standard (ID)
Standard (OOD)
Stress-test
CC18
CP
IL
CP
IL
CP
IL
CP
IL
Linear
0.8653
8.5699
0.6814
2.5411
0.7673
6.9267
0.5377
78.0342
RFF
0.8511
4.0549
0.8029
2.5039
0.7381
2.6404
0.6238
0.7514
PI
0.9792
4.0261
0.9695
2.1793
0.9902
3.2091
0.9953
2.6531
Bootstrap
0.5935
0.9200
0.6820
0.8107
0.6970
0.6651
0.7328
0.4084
AMP
0.9369
3.9612
0.9351
2.0706
0.9729
3.2663
0.9818
2.4117
Table 1: Coverage probability (CP) and interval length (IL) at the 95% nominal coverage level. From left to right, results are reported for the standard in-distribution (ID), standard out-of-distribution (OOD), stress-test, and CC18 settings. For CP, the value closest to the nominal level of 0.95 is shown in bold , and the second closest is underlined . For IL, among methods satisfying CP≥0.95 , the shortest interval is shown in bold , and the second shortest is underlined .
Figure 2: Radar plots of CP (left) and IL (right) across ten stress-test DGPs at the 95% nominal coverage level. In the left panel, the radial levels represent coverage from 60% to 100%, increasing from the center outward. The dashed red polygon marks the nominal 95% coverage level, with curves closer to this reference indicate better coverage. In the right panel, the radial levels correspond to IL values from 0.01 to 10 on a logarithmic scale. Curves closer to the center indicate shorter intervals.
C
Q
Linear
RFF
PI
Global
Bootstrap
AMP
TabCon
64
64
0.0024
0.0025
0.2089
0.1978
10.5411
0.2579
0.2036
256
0.0024
0.0025
0.2108
0.1990
10.6450
0.2742
0.2072
1024
0.0026
0.0028
0.2185
0.2109
10.9722
0.4773
0.2297
128
64
0.0025
0.0028
0.2103
0.1986
10.5650
0.2595
0.2054
256
0.0025
0.0029
0.2119
0.1999
10.6264
0.2758
0.2082
1024
0.0026
0.0033
0.2214
0.2139
11.0762
0.4803
0.2320
Table 2: Median runtime in seconds, over 30 repetitions. C and Q denote the numbers of context and query points.
Figure 3: Ablation study on six selected DGPs in terms of coverage probability (CP). Dashed lines indicate the nominal coverage level of 95% .
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
Linear
RFF
PI
Bootstrap
AMP
TabCon
CP / IL
CP / IL
CP / IL
CP / IL
CP / IL
CP / IL
MiceProtein
0.6978 / 1.0202
0.6438 / 0.9617
0.9864 / 2.6205
0.6025 / 0.3484
0.9781 / 2.6365
0.9269 / 1.0352
analcatdata-dmft
0.8121 / 0.5280
0.8822 / 1.0762
0.9992 / 2.3870
0.8497 / 0.6667
0.9891 / 2.0333
0.9857 / 0.8547
bank-marketing
0.5060 / 0.1667
0.4452 / 0.2022
0.9974 / 4.0046
0.7074 / 0.4495
0.9799 / 3.2497
0.9942 / 2.1687
blood-transfusion
0.3367 / 0.1761
0.6833 / 0.4412
0.9964 / 1.1264
0.8120 / 0.2576
0.9746 / 1.0751
0.9777 / 0.2611
breast-w
0.4179 / 0.5153
0.7670 / 1.5191
0.9943 / 3.0226
0.7420 / 0.6842
0.9628 / 2.5238
0.9728 / 1.6167
Appendix
Table 3: Per-Dataset coverage probability (CP) and interval length (IL) on the CC18 real-covariate semi-synthetic benchmark at the 95% nominal level. From left to right, results are reported for Linear, RFF, PI, Bootstrap, AMP and TabCon . For CP, the value closest to the nominal level of 0.95 is shown in bold , and the second closest is underlined . For IL, among methods satisfying CP≥0.95 , the shortest IL is shown in bold , and the second shortest is underlined .
DGP
Linear
RFF
PI
Bootstrap
AMP
TabCon
CP / IL
CP / IL
CP / IL
CP / IL
CP / IL
CP / IL
Regular control
0.7584 / 3.6781
0.7127 / 2.0034
0.9898 / 1.8534
0.7115 / 0.4684
0.9772 / 1.8968
0.9482 / 1.2188
Near-constant
0.7470 / 0.0359
0.7252 / 0.0207
0.9937 / 0.0199
0.7167 / 0.0043
0.9821 / 0.0196
0.9556 / 0.0110
Bounded
0.7436 / 3.2461
0.7182 / 1.5454
0.9937 / 1.7427
0.7159 / 0.4241
0.9822 / 1.7923
0.9555 / 1.1160
Quantized
0.7266 / 3.4248
0.7111 / 2.0273
0.9929 / 1.8310
0.6772 / 0.4548
0.9798 / 1.8953
0.9400 / 1.2283
Discontinuous
0.7430 / 6.0256
0.7375 / 2.3454
0.9939 / 2.5439
0.7048 / 0.6711
0.9808 / 2.7435
0.9842 / 2.1095
Appendix
Table 4: Per-DGP stress-test coverage probability (CP) and interval length (IL) at the 95% nominal level. From left to right, results are reported for Linear, RFF, PI, Bootstrap, AMP and TabCon . For CP, the value closest to the nominal level of 0.95 is shown in bold , and the second closest is underlined . For IL, among methods satisfying CP≥0.95 , the shortest IL is shown in bold , and the second shortest is underlined .
Method
Standard (ID)
Standard (OOD)
Stress-test
CC18
CP
IL
CP
IL
CP
IL
CP
IL
Linear
0.8293
7.1921
0.6215
2.1325
0.7247
5.8131
0.4926
65.4884
RFF
0.7921
3.4030
0.7322
2.1013
0.6763
2.2159
0.5720
0.6306
PI
0.9508
3.2849
0.9427
1.7829
0.9747
2.4356
0.9874
2.0622
Bootstrap
0.5280
0.7770
0.6240
0.6906
0.6371
0.5657
0.6807
0.3532
AMP
0.9015
2.9459
0.9013
1.5370
0.9556
2.2527
0.9685
1.5867
Appendix
Table 5: Coverage probability (CP) and interval length (IL) at the 90% nominal coverage level. From left to right, results are reported for the standard in-distribution (ID), standard out-of-distribution (OOD), stress-test, and CC18 settings. For CP, the value closest to the nominal level of 0.90 is shown in bold , and the second closest is underlined . For IL, among methods satisfying CP≥0.90 , the shortest interval is shown in bold , and the second shortest is underlined .
Dataset
Linear
RFF
PI
Bootstrap
AMP
TabCon
CP / IL
CP / IL
CP / IL
CP / IL
CP / IL
CP / IL
MiceProtein
0.6469 / 0.8562
0.5719 / 0.8071
0.9735 / 2.1530
0.5549 / 0.2942
0.9580 / 1.9963
0.8630 / 0.7511
analcatdata-dmft
0.7561 / 0.4431
0.8236 / 0.9032
0.9987 / 1.9072
0.7903 / 0.5841
0.9802 / 1.0162
0.9673 / 0.5092
bank-marketing
0.4716 / 0.1399
0.4098 / 0.1697
0.9924 / 2.7990
0.6609 / 0.3886
0.9657 / 2.1364
0.9822 / 1.5906
blood-transfusion
0.3011 / 0.1478
0.6152 / 0.3703
0.9800 / 0.7509
0.7648 / 0.2263
0.9549 / 0.5553
0.9416 / 0.1882
breast-w
0.3659 / 0.4324
0.7165 / 1.2749
0.9871 / 2.4586
0.6976 / 0.5889
0.9437 / 1.7064
0.9433 / 1.2013
Appendix
Table 6: Per-Dataset coverage probability (CP) and interval length (IL) on the CC18 real-covariate semi-synthetic benchmark at the 90% nominal level. From left to right, results are reported for Linear, RFF, PI, Bootstrap, AMP and TabCon . For CP, the value closest to the nominal level of 0.90 is shown in bold , and the second closest is underlined . For IL, among methods satisfying CP≥0.90 , the shortest IL is shown in bold , and the second shortest is underlined .
DGP
Linear
RFF
PI
Bootstrap
AMP
TabCon
CP / IL
CP / IL
CP / IL
CP / IL
CP / IL
CP / IL
Regular control
0.7152 / 3.0867
0.6526 / 1.6813
0.9791 / 1.5268
0.6526 / 0.3954
0.9643 / 1.3716
0.9013 / 0.9402
Near-constant
0.7043 / 0.0301
0.6598 / 0.0174
0.9842 / 0.0165
0.6567 / 0.0036
0.9707 / 0.0146
0.9131 / 0.0083
Bounded
0.7009 / 2.7242
0.6534 / 1.2970
0.9840 / 1.4486
0.6561 / 0.3574
0.9703 / 1.3062
0.9131 / 0.8636
Quantized
0.6851 / 2.8742
0.6468 / 1.7014
0.9839 / 1.5165
0.6163 / 0.3861
0.9666 / 1.3686
0.8886 / 0.9486
Discontinuous
0.7023 / 5.0568
0.6840 / 1.9683
0.9879 / 2.0999
0.6526 / 0.5763
0.9711 / 1.9304
0.9679 / 1.6318
Appendix
Table 7: Per-DGP stress-test coverage probability (CP) and interval length (IL) at the 90% nominal level. From left to right, results are reported for Linear, RFF, PI, Bootstrap, AMP and TabCon . For CP, the value closest to the nominal level of 0.90 is shown in bold , and the second closest is underlined . For IL, among methods satisfying CP≥0.90 , the shortest IL is shown in bold , and the second shortest is underlined .
Method
Standard (ID)
Standard (OOD)
Stress-test
CC18
CP
IL
CP
IL
CP
IL
CP
IL
Linear
0.9086
11.2627
0.7681
3.3396
0.8189
9.1032
0.5977
102.5543
RFF
0.9228
5.3290
0.8965
3.2906
0.8219
3.4700
0.6911
0.9874
PI
0.9966
5.6779
0.9925
3.1370
0.9977
4.9424
0.9993
3.8716
Bootstrap
0.6705
1.1378
0.7499
0.9902
0.7598
0.8210
0.7890
0.4897
AMP
0.9706
13.1192
0.9645
6.5085
0.9866
10.3262
0.9918
7.5406
Appendix
Table 8: Coverage probability (CP) and interval length (IL) at the 99% nominal coverage level. From left to right, results are reported for the standard in-distribution (ID), standard out-of-distribution (OOD), stress-test, and CC18 settings. For CP, the value closest to the nominal level of 0.99 is shown in bold , and the second closest is underlined . For IL, among methods satisfying CP≥0.99 , the shortest interval is shown in bold , and the second shortest is underlined .
Dataset
Linear
RFF
PI
Bootstrap
AMP
TabCon
CP / IL
CP / IL
CP / IL
CP / IL
CP / IL
CP / IL
MiceProtein
0.7840 / 1.3407
0.7432 / 1.2639
0.9978 / 3.4587
0.6642 / 0.4275
0.9883 / 8.4613
0.9818 / 1.9110
analcatdata-dmft
0.8644 / 0.6939
0.9396 / 1.4144
1.0000 / 3.6858
0.9003 / 0.7824
0.9937 / 5.7086
0.9975 / 1.8055
bank-marketing
0.5471 / 0.2191
0.4903 / 0.2657
0.9998 / 5.6640
0.7550 / 0.5360
0.9913 / 10.7802
0.9995 / 3.6229
blood-transfusion
0.4075 / 0.2314
0.7808 / 0.5799
0.9987 / 2.5471
0.8650 / 0.3091
0.9888 / 2.9099
0.9955 / 0.4864
breast-w
0.4976 / 0.6772
0.8380 / 1.9965
0.9995 / 4.2610
0.8097 / 0.8292
0.9814 / 8.6391
0.9957 / 2.7535
Appendix
Table 9: Per-Dataset coverage probability (CP) and interval length (IL) on the CC18 real-covariate semi-synthetic benchmark at the 99% nominal level. From left to right, results are reported for Linear, RFF, PI, Bootstrap, AMP and TabCon . For CP, the value closest to the nominal level of 0.99 is shown in bold , and the second closest is underlined . For IL, among methods satisfying CP≥0.99 , the shortest IL is shown in bold , and the second shortest is underlined .
DGP
Linear
RFF
PI
Bootstrap
AMP
TabCon
CP / IL
CP / IL
CP / IL
CP / IL
CP / IL
CP / IL
Regular control
0.8099 / 4.8338
0.8032 / 2.6329
0.9973 / 2.5927
0.7749 / 0.6000
0.9875 / 6.1256
0.9882 / 1.9779
Near-constant
0.8005 / 0.0471
0.8102 / 0.0273
0.9985 / 0.0272
0.7774 / 0.0053
0.9905 / 0.0639
0.9894 / 0.0185
Bounded
0.7970 / 4.2661
0.8030 / 2.0310
0.9985 / 2.4072
0.7769 / 0.5372
0.9905 / 5.5994
0.9894 / 1.7959
Quantized
0.7835 / 4.5009
0.8012 / 2.6643
0.9984 / 2.5762
0.7403 / 0.5771
0.9898 / 6.0287
0.9894 / 1.9803
Discontinuous
0.7894 / 7.9189
0.8134 / 3.0824
0.9984 / 3.6697
0.7613 / 0.8062
0.9902 / 9.2598
0.9952 / 3.4469
Appendix
Table 10: Per-DGP stress-test coverage probability (CP) and interval length (IL) at the 99% nominal level. From left to right, results are reported for Linear, RFF, PI, Bootstrap, AMP and TabCon . For CP, the value closest to the nominal level of 0.99 is shown in bold , and the second closest is underlined . For IL, among methods satisfying CP≥0.99 , the shortest IL is shown in bold , and the second shortest is underlined .
C
Q
Shared executor
PI
Global
TabCon
Add-on
Core
Add-on
Core
Add-on
Core
64
64
0.1673
0.0024
0.1697
0.0033
0.1705
0.0060
0.1733
256
0.1686
0.0024
0.1711
0.0038
0.1725
0.0074
0.1760
1,024
0.1727
0.0084
0.1811
0.0128
0.1855
0.0257
0.1984
128
64
0.1680
0.0024
0.1705
0.0033
0.1713
0.0060
0.1741
256
0.1691
0.0025
0.1716
0.0038
0.1730
0.0074
0.1766
Appendix
Table 11: Add-on and Core median runtime in seconds, over 30 repetitions. From left to right, results are reported for PI, Global, and TabCon . Shared executor denotes the median runtime of the TabPFN backbone when evaluated using the common execution pipeline. C and Q denote the numbers of context and query points.
Tabular foundation models (TFMs) provide predictive distributions for regression, but their prediction regions can exhibit undercoverage or overcoverage even when point predictions are accurate. We introduce C-USIM (Conditionally-Uniformized Score Integration Method), a lightweight application of highest predictive density split conformal prediction that accommodates multimodal predictions. Given calibration and test outputs, it requires no additional training or model inference. It provides finite-sample marginal validity under our assumptions. We bound conditional-marginal coverage gaps using distribution-estimation error and score discreteness, and examine coverage heterogeneity through percentile rank-score plots. Experiments with TabPFN and TabICL show improved marginal coverage accuracy and lower average conditional and group coverage errors. Under a fixed data budget, allocating more observations to calibration can reduce marginal coverage error despite less accurate point predictions.
Sungwoo Park, Sunghee Park, Won Chang
Department of Statistics Seoul National University Seoul, Republic of Korea
We introduce TabPFN-3.5, our new flagship Tabular Foundation Model. It significantly outperforms its predecessor, TabPFN-3, and all existing baselines across a broad range of tabular problems. TabPFN-3.5 sets a new state of the art on standard tabular prediction in TabArena, and extends it to the data practitioners encounter in practice: non-i.i.d. data with temporal or grouped splits, tables with strings, text and images, high-cardinality categorical features, and wide tables with many features. These gains carry over to our task-specific harnesses: state of the art on relational data and stronger time-series forecasting. For faster inference, our variant TabPFN-3.5-Fast runs up to 3x faster than TabPFN-3 while keeping most of the accuracy gains. In addition, we upgrade TabPFN-3.5-Plus, expanding our multimodal capabilities with advanced text and date handling alongside proprietary inference optimizations. Finally, we release a new version of our Thinking mode, TabPFN-3.5-Thinking, which scales inference-time computation to push the state of the art further. It benefits from our stronger base model and from inference-time improvements that make it up to 12x faster than TabPFN-3-Thinking.
Transformer-based tabular foundation models (TFMs) dominate small to medium tabular predictive benchmark tasks, yet their inference mechanisms remain largely unexplored. We present the first large-scale mechanistic study of layerwise dynamics in 6 state-of-the-art tabular in-context learning models. We explore how predictions emerge across depth, identify distinct stages of inference and reveal latent-space dynamics that differ from those of language models. Our findings indicate substantial depthwise redundancy across multiple models, suggesting iterative refinement with overlapping computations during inference stages. Guided by these insights, we design a proof-of-concept, looped single-layer model that uses only 20% of the original model's parameters while achieving comparable performance. The code is available at https://github.com/amirbalef/is_one_layer_enough.
Amir Rezaei Balef, Mykhailo Koshil, Katharina Eggensperger
TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany · Lamarr Institute for Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence, Dortmund, Germany · University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany