Generative modeling for tabular data has advanced to the point where models can synthesize realistic records, recover missing values, and generate samples conditioned on class labels or observed attributes. Despite recent advances, existing approaches either require table-specific training or restrict in-context learning to single-cell prediction. In this work, we formulate these tabular generative tasks as a single problem: modeling the joint conditional distribution of an arbitrary set of target cells given the observed cells of an unseen table. To this end, we turn to diffusion, whose denoising objective is defined jointly over all target cells rather than one cell at a time. Under the pretraining distribution, this objective is minimized by the posterior predictive distribution over the target set. Building on this, we propose TabMosaic, a unified in-context diffusion model for generating mixed-type target cells in unseen, potentially incomplete tables without table-specific training. We further show that its pretraining objective bounds the conditional negative log-likelihood and the divergence from the posterior predictive for arbitrary target sets, extending the Bayesian account of in-context learning from a single-value prediction to joint multi-cell generation. Across 48 real-world tables, TabMosaic ranks first on all evaluated generative tasks against 20 baseline approaches
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of our proposed framework. (a) A unified formulation expresses generation, imputation and class-conditional generation as the same conditional query, only differing in the target set S . (b) A shared-time diffusion objective jointly models mixed numerical and categorical targets. (c) Our TabMosaic applies directly to unseen tables without table-specific training.
Figure 2: Elo with 95% bootstrap intervals for generation and imputation on the 48 tables and class-conditional generation on the 36 classification tables. Bar color marks default and tuned entries, name color the model family, and hatching ( † ) a method that did not complete every table, whose missing tables are scored as described in Appendix G . Full results are in Appendix L .
Figure 3: NLL of held-out cells against the context size n , for a small model pretrained with Eq. 6 on priors with a closed-form posterior predictive ( x : numerical, c : categorical cell; Appendix I ). Solid black: exact posterior predictive; dashed: M exact samples under the same KDE as the model, i.e., the floor for a sampler. Shaded: beyond the context sizes seen in pretraining.
Figure 4: Time to generate one synthetic table against the number of rows and of columns (median of three runs). × : over the one-hour limit. Reds: per-table diffusion; oranges: per-table autoregressive; blues: in-context predictors sampled column by column.
Figure 5: Distance to the exact posterior predictive as the target set S grows on the Dirichlet prior. (Appendix I ).
Figure 6
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Stage 1
Stage 2
Rows T
1,024
logU(400,10,240)
Features F
logU(1,100)
logU(4,min(200,B/T)) , B=250,000
Context fraction
U(0.3,0.9)
0.8
Context missingness
—
ρ∼U(0,ρmax) , ρmax : 0→0.2 over 2,500 steps
Corruptions K per table
1
4
Steps / tables seen
125 k / 32 M
10 k / 2.56 M
Appendix
Table 2: Pretraining configuration. Both stages use 8 GPUs.
Task
S
xobs
tstart
Sampler (num.) / N
M ; output
Generation
all query cells
—
1
deterministic / 128
1 ; one row per trajectory
Class-cond. gen.
feature cells
label cell
1
deterministic / 128
1 ; one row per trajectory
Imputation
missing cells
observed cells
0.5
ancestral / 16
8 ; mean (num.), vote (cat.)
Appendix
Table 3: Settings per task. tstart is the time at which the reverse process starts, N the number of steps, and M the number of trajectories per query row; the context is encoded once per query batch.
Mechanism
Methods
Where the conditional comes from
Pretrained conditional
TabMosaic
label cell observed; the conditional is a training term
Trained conditional, per table
TabNAT
masked training over random orders on the table
Class input at training
TabDDPM
the label is an input of the denoiser; not generated
One model per class
ForestDiffusion
a separate model is trained for each class
Discrete-column condition
CTGAN
condition vector plus a cross-entropy penalty (soft)
Prompt
GReaT
the label appears in the prompt; permutation training
Appendix
Table 4: How each method conditions on the class in class-conditional generation.
Method
n
Elo
Utility ↑
α -prec. ↑
β -rec. ↑
Auth. ↑
W 1 ↓
TV ↓
∣Δρ∣↓
Time (s)
TabMosaic
48
1099 [1063, 1126]
0.914
0.790
0.408
0.569
0.054
0.038
0.038
25
TabNAT
48
1093 [1057, 1121]
0.899
0.805
0.421
0.559
0.046
0.023
0.030
1696
TabSyn
48
1060 [1030, 1079]
0.864
0.738
0.385
0.590
0.059
0.055
0.037
369
TabDiff (t)
48
1059 [1031, 1086]
0.886
0.730
0.380
0.591
0.060
0.022
0.042
2119
TabPFN-3 (chained)
48
1055 [1027, 1088]
0.891
0.662
0.353
0.632
0.079
0.081
0.059
571
ForestDiffusion †
42
1051 [1023, 1081]
0.886
0.770
0.409
0.568
0.059
0.061
0.030
1181
Appendix
Table 5: Generation on the 48 tables: Elo with 95% bootstrap intervals and per-metric means over the tables each method completed ( n ). Utility is relative to training on real rows; α -precision, β -recall, and authenticity follow Alaa et al. (2022) ; W 1 (median over tables) and TV are column-level distances and ∣Δρ∣ the mean absolute difference of pairwise correlations. Time is the median wall-clock per table in seconds (training plus sampling for per-table models; inference for the others), measured on one GPU. The Elo tasks are table × {utility, α -precision, β -recall, authenticity}. (t) = run with the hyperparameters tuned in the original paper, which provides no default. † : not completed on every table; missing tables are filled with column resampling in the Elo.
Method
n
Elo
Elo (common)
Error ↓
Rank ↓
RMSE ↓ (num.)
Error rate ↓ (cat.)
Downstream ↑
TabMosaic
48
1458 [1389, 1521]
1458 [1382, 1539]
0.129
1.88
0.108 (44)
0.314 (33)
0.962
TabICLv2 (per cell)
48
1201 [1168, 1238]
1213 [1167, 1258]
0.146
4.38
0.126 (44)
0.375 (33)
0.839
ReMasker (t)
48
1108 [1071, 1145]
1113 [1075, 1159]
0.157
3.58
0.121 (44)
0.467 (33)
0.829
HyperImpute
48
1073 [1040, 1100]
1071 [1043, 1103]
0.163
5.19
0.129 (44)
0.473 (33)
0.828
ReMasker
48
1066 [1034, 1099]
1072 [1033, 1114]
0.167
4.90
0.133 (44)
0.483 (33)
0.827
DiffPuter
48
1063 [1019, 1104]
1086 [1045, 1125]
0.204 (3 excl.)
7.31
0.170 (44)
0.466 (33)
0.907
Appendix
Table 6: Imputation on the 48 tables ( 30% of the feature cells hidden completely at random; 3 mask seeds). The Elo tasks are table × {RMSE on numerical cells, error rate on categorical cells, downstream utility} (125 tasks); the second Elo uses only the 41 tables every method completed (107 tasks). Error is the primary score of a table (min-max–scaled RMSE where the table has numerical cells, misclassification rate otherwise), averaged over the tables each method completed ( n ); rank is the mean rank over tables. RMSE and error rate are also reported separately over the tables with numerical and with categorical cells (counts in parentheses); cells with RMSE above 5 (out-of-range outputs) are excluded from the means and counted. Downstream is the utility of a predictor trained on the imputed table relative to one trained on the complete table. (t) = tuned. † : not completed on every table; missing tables are filled with the mean/mode imputer in the first Elo.
Method
n
Elo
Utility ↑
α -prec. ↑
β -rec. ↑
Consist. (rel.)
Consist. (macro)
Agreement
TV ↓
W 1 ↓
TabMosaic
36
1163 [1135, 1191]
0.926
0.624
0.349
0.983
0.675
1.00
0.064
0.096
TabPFN-3 (chained)
36
1144 [1116, 1170]
0.917
0.591
0.349
0.986
0.676
1.00
0.086
0.103
TabNAT
36
1122 [1091, 1157]
0.881
0.675
0.381
0.972
0.671
1.00
0.048
0.117
ForestDiffusion †
32
1076 [1040, 1109]
0.908
0.638
0.386
1.016
0.738
1.00
0.081
0.093
TabEBM †
32
1053 [1015, 1089]
0.922
0.526
0.363
1.008
0.723
1.00
0.078
0.073
TabICLv2 (chained)
36
1019 [991, 1048]
0.911
0.449
0.267
0.941
0.665
1.00
0.084
0.367
Appendix
Table 7: Class-conditional generation on the 36 classification tables: Elo with 95% bootstrap intervals and means over the tables each method completed ( n ). The Elo tasks are table × {utility, class-macro α -precision, class-macro β -recall, label-consistency gap}, where the gap is the absolute difference between the label consistency of the synthetic rows and that of held-out real rows. Label consistency is the fraction of synthetic rows assigned to the requested class by the scoring predictors trained on real rows, divided by the same fraction on held-out real rows ( 1 = as separable as real data; above 1 = classes separated more than in the real data); macro is the unnormalized macro-average over classes; agreement is the fraction of rows whose emitted label equals the requested class. TV and W 1 (median) are per-class distances, macro-averaged. (t) = the generation model with the hyperparameters tuned in its original paper. † : not completed on every table; a missing table is scored just below the worst method on that table in the Elo.
TabMosaic
TabNAT
ForestDiff.
DiffPuter
GAIN
MICE
TabPFN-3
TabICLv2
LimiX
MCAR rate
10%
0.622
0.777
1.000
0.901
1.001
1.157
0.912
0.729
0.872
30%
0.675
0.860
1.082
0.966
1.028
1.233
1.098
0.812
0.916
50%
0.770
0.932
1.113
0.955
1.141
1.237
1.212
0.921
0.966
70%
0.843
0.993
1.182
1.005
1.290
1.296
1.328
0.974
1.016
30%
MAR
0.628
0.887
1.065
0.887
1.064
1.212
1.019
0.807
0.931
MNAR
0.704
0.871
1.012
0.866
1.063
1.143
1.068
0.824
0.910
Appendix
Table 8: Per-cell error on held-out rows relative to a mean/mode imputer (median over tables; below 1 = better than mean/mode), as the target set varies: the MCAR rate, the mechanism at 30% , and the number ∣S∣ of whole hidden columns. 24 tables on which every method completed (the 15 smallest and 9 medium-sized ones; 23 for ∣S∣=4 ). Best per row in bold.
Tabular data generation aims to synthesize realistic samples from limited observations while faithfully capturing the underlying data distribution. Tabular foundation models (TFMs), pretrained on diverse tabular tasks and adapted through in-context learning, have demonstrated strong predictive capabilities, suggesting the potential of extending this paradigm to tabular data generation. However, the strong predictive performance of TFMs often relies on sufficiently large context sets, whereas tabular generation is typically needed precisely when target data are scarce. Extending the foundation-model paradigm to generation therefore requires reliable distribution inference from only a limited context. To this end, we propose TabGift, a context-efficient tabular foundation model enabling both efficient distribution modeling and effective generation from only a few context samples. TabGift maps heterogeneous tables into a shared latent space with a pretrained tabular encoder, where an in-context diffusion model learns to denoise latent samples conditioned on a small set of clean examples. This design transfers generative priors across datasets and enables distribution inference from limited context, while a lightweight dataset-specific MLP decoder maps generated representations back to the original data space. Experiments on 7 classification and 11 regression datasets show that TabGift consistently outperforms representative baselines in synthetic data quality, with particularly strong gains under limited-context settings, while achieving substantially faster adaptation and generation.
Yu-Sheng Li, Jun-Peng Jiang, Han-Jia Ye
School of Artificial Intelligence, Nanjing University, China · National Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University, China
Synthetic tabular data generation has attracted growing attention due to its importance for data augmentation, foundation models, and privacy. However, real-world tabular datasets increasingly contain free-form text fields (e.g., reviews or clinical notes) alongside structured numerical and categorical attributes. Generating such heterogeneous tables with joint modeling of different modalities remains challenging. Existing approaches broadly fall into two categories: diffusion-based methods and LLM-based methods. Diffusion models can capture complex dependencies over numerical and categorical features in continuous or discrete spaces, but extending them to open-ended text is nontrivial and often leads to degraded text quality. In contrast, LLM-based generators naturally produce fluent text, yet their discrete tokenization can distort precise or wide-range numerical values, hindering accurate modeling of both numbers and language. In this work, we propose TabDLM, a unified framework for free-form tabular data generation via a joint numerical-language diffusion model built on masked diffusion language models (MDLMs). TabDLM models textual and categorical features through masked diffusion, while modeling numerical features with a continuous diffusion process through learned specialized numeric tokens embedding; bidirectional attention then captures cross-modality interactions within a single model. Extensive experiments on diverse benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of TabDLM compared to strong diffusion- and LLM-based baselines.
Donghong Cai, Jiarui Feng, Yanbo Wang +3
Washington University in St. Louis · Peking University · Ant Group
This paper proposes MIND, a marginal-invariant neural dependency diffusion model for mixed-type tabular data. MIND does not directly learn the joint distribution in the original heterogeneous feature space. Instead, it first maps different variable types into a unified latent dependency space via column-wise marginal transport. A conditional diffusion model then learns cross-column relationships. Copula-tangent denoising separates known marginal components from learnable dependency residuals. Rank projection during the sampling phase further mitigates marginal shift in reverse diffusion. Experiments across nine diverse tabular benchmarks show that MIND consistently improves marginal fidelity and dependency preservation over existing unified approaches. By explicitly isolating marginal modelling from dependency learning, MIND achieves a strong and stable balance among marginal fidelity, joint dependency preservation, and downstream prediction utility. This work supports separating marginal and dependency modelling as a principled and highly effective paradigm for complex mixed-type tabular generation.
Pengfei Li, Mohammad Khalil
Centre for the Science of Learning & Technology (SLATE), University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway