Large Language Models for Automated Cross-Domain Machine Learning Task Type Identification: A Benchmark Dataset and Evaluation

Large language models (LLMs) have become the default tool for a remarkable range of tasks, yet they have had conspicuously little success at one of the most common machine learning workloads: predictive analytics over tabular data. This gap is the founding premise of the fast-growing field of tabular foundation models, but the question of why generic LLMs fail has remained open. We study a frontier LLM in its purest inference regime - a single generation pass over a prompt containing the full training and test data, with no tools, no agentic scaffolding, and no fine-tuning - and systematically evaluate five hypotheses for the failure: (a) an inability to handle noisy or non-linearly-separable data; (b) the linearised CSV format obscuring column structure; (c) the tokenisation of numeric values; (d) the number of test points classified per query; and (e) the dimensionality of the input. Controlled experiments falsify (a)-(d). Dimensionality, in contrast, is decisive: sweeping random linear projections of thirty-one benchmark datasets, the LLM is the only method among nine whose accuracy decreases as dimensionality grows, while every classical baseline stays flat or improves. A behavioural comparison against 252 configured classical models finds that in two dimensions the LLM predicts like a local, distance-based method (up to 91.6% grid agreement), but in higher dimensions no classical model - even when augmented with tuned, dimension-dependent noise - reproduces its predictions. We do not claim to have identified the internal mechanism; our results show, more modestly, that the LLM's capability dissolves with dimension in a way no noise-corrupted classical learner mimics - which explains why LLMs, so capable elsewhere, keep losing to fifty-year-old baselines on tables, while leaving the mechanism of the prediction as an open question.

Large language models (LLMs) perform table-centric prediction through in-context learning, making demonstration selection critical to performance. Existing retrieval methods prioritize similarity to the query, but similar demonstrations often reinforce the model's likely prediction rather than reveal the distinctions needed for difficult decisions. We propose EdgeLM, a retrieval framework that instead selects edge evidence, demonstrations that are both relevant to the query and informative about the decision boundary. EdgeLM retrieves two complementary forms of edge evidence by selecting data edges, nearby examples with different ground-truth labels, and model edges, similar examples previously misclassified by the deployed model. EdgeLM requires neither model retraining nor task-specific engineering. Across five data wrangling tasks, fifteen datasets, and five open-weight and proprietary LLMs, EdgeLM consistently achieves the best or near-best performance in every setting, while ablations show that the two forms of edge evidence provide complementary benefits. Our code and datasets are publicly available at https://github.com/soroushomidvar/EdgeLM.

Supervised classification on tabular data remains a central machine learning task, but its dependence on large labeled datasets limits its applicability in data-scarce settings. Few-shot methods such as TabPFN achieve strong performance through large-scale synthetic pretraining, yet still require labeled context examples. Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a more flexible alternative through zero- and few-shot in-context learning from task descriptions, but their behavior on tabular data remains inconsistent. We introduce LLMTabBench, a benchmark for evaluating LLMs on tabular classification under low-data conditions. The benchmark studies how LLM prior knowledge interacts with task descriptions and few-shot examples, and how performance changes with increasing data complexity across real-world and controlled synthetic datasets. We find that LLMs can be highly competitive in zero-shot settings, sometimes outperforming models given few-shot examples. However, additional examples may conflict with prior knowledge, thereby degrading performance. We also observe a complexity threshold at which LLM performance declines and few-shot examples become less useful. These results clarify key limits of in-context learning for tabular data and inform the deployment of LLMs in low-data regimes.