Tabular foundation models enable in-context learning by predicting unseen observations from a labeled support table without task-specific parameter updates. Despite recent advances, most existing approaches rely on dense architectures that apply the same transformations across features and datasets. We introduce OrionMoE-Small-v1.0, a compact tabular foundation model that combines distribution-aware representations with dataset-conditioned sparse mixture-of-experts computation. Built on a dual-axis transformer architecture, OrionMoE-Small selectively activates experts with routing decisions informed by both individual cell representations and the broader dataset context. This design enables adaptive allocation of computation across heterogeneous tabular problems while retaining a shared computational pathway across tasks. The model is pretrained entirely on synthetic classification tasks generated from a structured causal prior and performs downstream prediction without gradient-based adaptation. Experiments across multiple tabular benchmarks demonstrate competitive performance against substantially larger foundation models, with particularly strong results on small-context and high-dimensional datasets. Further analysis reveals favorable relative performance under class imbalance and highlights the importance of feature composition.
Figures & tables
Model
Params (M)
TabArena
BeyondArena
OpenML-CC18
TALENT
Small models ( <50 M)
OrionMoE-Small-v1.0
37.7
1320
1149
1118
1024
Causilo
36.1
1530
1268
1170
1125
TabICLv2
27.6
1277
1089
1121
1054
Kumo-Tabular-Small
28
1558
–
1241
1150
Medium models ( 50 – 150 M)
Table 1: Model capacity and predictive performance of recent tabular foundation models. Models are grouped into three capacity regimes: small ( <50 M parameters), medium ( 50 – 150 M), and large ( >150 M). We report Elo ratings on TabArena ( N=38 ), BeyondArena ( N=98 ), OpenML-CC18 ( N=48 ), and TALENT ( N=148 ). Higher Elo indicates better predictive performance. Ratings are computed independently within each benchmark and are not directly comparable across benchmarks. A dash indicates unavailable results.
Figure 1: Elo against total runtime per 1K samples on 38 TabArena classification tasks. Total time is the fit time per 1,000 training rows plus the prediction time per 1,000 test rows, median over the 38 classification datasets.
Overall
By Task
By Dataset Size
By Target
Model
Elo
Binary
Multiclass
Small
Medium
Balanced
Imbalanced
Extreme
( N=38 )
( N=30 )
( N=8 )
( N=28 )
( N=10 )
( N=10 )
( N=16 )
( N=12 )
Kumo-Tabular
1795
1777
1946
1776
2030
1743
1848
1905
LimiX-2
1769
1761
1862
1764
1945
1794
1855
1747
Kumo-Tabular-Medium
1726
1719
1814
1731
1867
1699
1827
1729
TabPFN-3.5
1677
1692
1672
1637
2009
1674
1750
1685
Table 2: TabArena Elo scores across task and dataset regimes. Elo is recomputed independently within each subset. Higher is better. The number of datasets used to compute each score is shown in parentheses.
Figure 2: Pareto frontier of Elo rating versus total runtime per 1K samples on BeyondArena classification tasks. Higher Elo indicates stronger predictive performance and lower runtime indicates greater efficiency. The frontier summarizes the trade-off between predictive quality and computational cost under more challenging IID, grouped, temporal, large-scale, and high-dimensional evaluation settings.
Figure 3: Elo ratings on BeyondArena across evaluation regime, dataset scale, and dimensionality. Results are reported separately for IID, grouped, and temporal splits, as well as for different dataset-size and feature-dimensionality regimes. The decomposition highlights how the relative ranking of tabular models changes across distribution shifts and dataset characteristics.
Overall
By Task
By Regime
By Dataset Size
By Dimensionality
Model
Elo
Binary
Multiclass
IID
Grouped
Temporal
Small
Medium
Large
Narrow
Medium
Wide
( N=98 )
( N=73 )
( N=25 )
( N=77 )
( N=11 )
( N=10 )
( N=38 )
( N=47 )
( N=13 )
( N=13 )
( N=58 )
( N=27 )
TabPFN-3.5
1348
1350
1349
1444
1095
1319
1326
1482
1294
1304
1404
1303
TabPFN-3.5-Fast
1287
1272
1343
1354
1083
1285
1275
1396
1219
1274
1333
1240
Causilo
1268
1275
1255
1342
1126
1123
1304
1356
1106
1241
1300
1248
TabFM
1222
1202
1295
1318
1076
924
1258
1412
727
1286
1302
1088
Table 3: BeyondArena Elo scores across task, split-regime, dataset-size, and dimensionality regimes. Elo is recomputed independently within each subset using datasets evaluated by all participating methods. Higher is better. N is the number of datasets used to compute each score. T+E means Tuned + Ensemble.
Figure 4: Elo ratings on BeyondArena after restricting the analysis to datasets with fewer than 100K samples. Results are decomposed by IID, grouped, and temporal evaluation regimes and by feature dimensionality. Removing large-scale datasets isolates the effect of distribution shift and dimensionality from the additional difficulty introduced by dataset scale.
Figure 5: Elo ratings on the subset of OpenML-CC18 tasks completed by all compared models. Restricting the evaluation to common tasks ensures that pairwise comparisons and model rankings are computed over the same benchmark instances.
Figure 6: Elo ratings on the common-task subsets of TALENT and BCCO. (a) TALENT and (b) BCCO. For each benchmark, only tasks completed by all compared models are retained, ensuring that the reported Elo rankings are based on a consistent set of evaluation tasks.
Figure 7: Elo ratings for models that completed the full benchmark suite. (a) OpenML-CC18 and (b) TALENT. By restricting the comparison to models with complete benchmark coverage, the resulting rankings avoid differences caused by missing evaluations or partial task completion.
Figure 8: Elo ratings on BCCO for models that completed the full benchmark suite (106 datasets). Restricting the comparison to fully evaluated models provides a direct ranking without relying on partially observed benchmark results.
Model
Params (M)
TabArena
BeyondArena
OpenML-CC18
TALENT
Causilo
36.1
1530
1268
1170
1125
OrionMoE-Small-v1.0
37.7
1320
1149
1118
1024
TabICLv2
27.6
1277
1089
1121
1054
TabICLv1
25
1072
–
768
753
Limix-16M
16
1056
–
859
872
EXAONE-Tabular
20.8
1515
1176
1066
1040
Table 4: Comparison of small tabular foundation models ( <50 M parameters) across four classification benchmarks. Elo ratings are computed independently for each benchmark; higher is better. The strongest result within each benchmark is highlighted in bold.
Model
Params (M)
TabArena
BeyondArena
OpenML-CC18
TALENT
OrionMoE-Small-v1.0
37.7
1320
1149
1118
1024
Medium models ( 50 – 150 M)
TabPFN-3
53
1351
1166
1015
1021
TabDPT-1.3
63
1215
1041
1061
974
TabDPT-Turbo
63
1090
–
952
–
Mitra-v1
63
1019
–
638
616
Table 5: Comparison of OrionMoE-Small with medium-sized ( 50 – 150 M parameters) and large ( >150 M parameters) tabular foundation models. Elo ratings are reported on TabArena ( N=38 ), BeyondArena ( N=98 ), OpenML-CC18 ( N=48 ), and TALENT ( N=148 ). Higher is better. Ratings are computed independently within each benchmark and are not directly comparable across benchmarks. A dash indicates unavailable results.
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 9: Complementary performance analysis on TabArena classifiCation tasks. (a) Improvability as a function of total runtime per 1K samples, illustrating the trade-off between remaining performance headroom and computational cost. (b) Pairwise win-rate matrix showing how frequently each method outperforms the others across the evaluated tasks.
Model
Elo
#Wins
Avg. Rank ↓
Improvability ↓
Train / 1K [s] ↓
Inference / 1K [s] ↓
Win Rate [%]
Kumo-Tabular-Large
1795
7
4.95
3.58
2.79
0.27
18.4
LimiX-2
1769
10
5.47
2.38
36.96
10.08
26.3
Kumo-Tabular-Medium
1726
2
6.42
5.43
1.41
0.15
5.3
TabPFN-3.5
1677
3
7.68
7.21
1.85
0.52
7.9
TabFM
1583
6
10.58
5.76
18.45
6.81
15.8
Kumo-Tabular-Small
1558
0
11.45
8.99
0.83
0.09
0.0
Appendix
Table 6: TabArena classifiCation results. Higher is better for Elo, number of wins, and win rate; lower is better for average rank, improvability, and runtime. Training and inference times are normalized per 1,000 samples.
Model
Elo
#Wins
Avg. Rank ↓
Improvability [%] ↓
Train / 1K [s] ↓
Inference / 1K [s] ↓
Win Rate [%]
TabPFN-3.5
1348
19
6.23
8.66
5.31
1.31
19.4
TabPFN-3.5-Fast
1287
6
7.93
9.66
2.49
0.49
6.1
Causilo
1268
4
8.52
10.27
3.20
0.24
4.1
TabFM
1222
22.5
10.09
8.64
41.89
9.50
23.0
LimiX-2
1188
18.5
11.35
8.75
62.33
18.46
18.9
EXAONE-Tabular
1176
2
11.79
12.81
4.14
0.72
2.0
Appendix
Table 7: BeyondArena classifiCation results over 98 datasets shared by all evaluated methods. Higher is better for Elo, number of wins, and win rate; lower is better for average rank, improvability, and runtime. Training and inference times are normalized per 1,000 samples.
Figure 10: Complementary performance analysis on BeyondArena classifiCation tasks. (a) Improvability versus total runtime per 1K samples, capturing the trade-off between additional attainable performance and computational cost. (b) Pairwise win-rate matrix summarizing how consistently each method outperforms competing models across BeyondArena tasks and split regimes.
Figure 11: Mean accuracy on the common-task subset of OpenML-CC18. Each bar reports the average accuracy of a model across the shared set of tasks, with the corresponding overall rank shown inside the bar.
Figure 12: Mean accuracy on the common-task subsets of TALENT and BCCO. (a) TALENT and (b) BCCO. Bars report the average accuracy over the shared task set, with the corresponding model rank shown inside each bar.
Figure 13: Mean accuracy on the full BCCO benchmark for models that completed all tasks. Each bar reports the average accuracy over the complete benchmark, with the corresponding model rank shown inside the bar.
Figure 14: Mean accuracy for models that completed the full benchmark suite. (a) OpenML-CC18 and (b) TALENT. Bars report the average accuracy across all benchmark tasks completed by every included model, with the corresponding rank shown inside each bar.
Figure 15: Performance across datasets grouped by class imbalance ratio, after merging OpenML-CC18, TALENT, and BCCO. The top panel reports mean accuracy for each model within three imbalance regimes: near-balanced, moderate imbalance, and severe imbalance ( ≥10× ). The bottom panel reports the accuracy difference between OrionMoE-Small-v1.0 and the strongest competing baseline within each regime, where values closer to zero indiCate stronger relative performance. Overall, OrionMoE-Small-v1.0 remains competitive across all imbalance levels, with the smallest gap observed in the most severely imbalanced regime.
Dataset
Task ID
Context Size
Query Size
# Features
# Classes
kr-vs-kp
3
2876.4
319.6
36
2
balance-scale
11
562.5
62.5
4
3
mfeat-factors
12
1800.0
200.0
216
10
mfeat-fourier
14
1800.0
200.0
76
10
mfeat-karhunen
16
1800.0
200.0
64
10
mfeat-morphological
18
1800.0
200.0
6
10
Appendix
Table 8: OpenML-CC18 datasets used in the common 48-task evaluation. For each dataset, we report the OpenML task ID, context size, query size, number of input features, and number of classes. Context and query sizes are reported as averages across evaluation folds and can therefore be non-integer
Dataset
Context Size
Query Size
# Features
# Classes
Amazon_employee_access
26215
6554
7
2
BLE_RSSI_dataset_for_Indoor_localization
7987
1997
3
3
BNG(breast-w)
31492
7874
9
2
BNG(cmc)
44236
11060
9
3
BNG(tic-tac-toe)
31492
7874
9
2
Bank_Customer_Churn_Dataset
8000
2000
10
2
Appendix
Table 9: TALENT datasets used in the common 148-dataset evaluation. Context size denotes the number of training examples available to the model at inference time, while query size corresponds to the held-out test set size.
Dataset
Context Size
Query Size
# Features
# Classes
BNG(cmc)
44236
11060
9
3
CPMP-2015-runtime-classification
368
159
22
4
CostaMadre1
207
89
37
2
Fitness_Club_c
1200
300
6
2
GAMETES_Epistasis_2-Way_20atts_0.1H_EDM-1_1
1120
480
20
2
Gender_Gap_in_Spanish_WP
3796
950
13
3
Appendix
Table 10: BCCO datasets used in the common 86-dataset evaluation. For each dataset, we report the effective context size, query size, number of input features, and number of classes.
EXAONE Tabular is a compact tabular foundation model family for classification and regression via in-context learning, producing predictions without dataset-specific gradient updates. Pretrained exclusively on a synthetic structural-causal-model (SCM) prior, its central contribution is an architecture-centered redesign of tabular in-context learning. Rather than compressing features into a fixed row embedding before a separate row-level learner, EXAONE Tabular interleaves feature-axis attention within each item with support-conditioned item-axis attention within each feature at every Transformer layer, mediated by item-summary and feature-summary tokens. Across four public benchmarks, EXAONE Tabular combines strong predictive performance with high efficiency. On TabArena, its 20.81M-parameter classification model ranks first overall, surpassing tuned ensembles and 4-hour AutoML pipelines, while regression reaches the performance regime of the 1.64B-parameter TabFM at roughly 1/11 the inference cost. On BCCO and TALENT, EXAONE Tabular ranks second in classification and first in regression. On ScoringBench, it achieves the best mean rank for both point-estimation and predictive-distribution quality, leading the R2, RMSE, and CRPS evaluations. Together, these results establish EXAONE Tabular as a state-of-the-art compact tabular foundation model family, combining strong predictive performance across classification, point regression, and probabilistic regression with an efficient model design.
Tabular foundation models based on in-context learning have recently emerged as strong alternatives to task-specific model fitting. However, the current performance frontier remains dominated by attention-heavy architectures, where attention is used throughout the modeling pipeline. This raises a natural question: is attention necessary at every stage of tabular in-context learning? We introduce SOMTab, a Set-Order Mamba architecture for efficient tabular in-context learning. SOMTab separates representation construction from query-conditioned retrieval. For row and column representations, it maps unordered table tokens into stable latent slots and applies Mamba-based state-space mixing to construct compact representations. For final prediction, it retains attention-based in-context learning to preserve query-conditioned retrieval from labeled context examples. We further introduce DCH-TailMix, a synthetic prior that combines degree-corrected graph heterogeneity with mixed heavy-tailed regimes to diversify synthetic dependency structures. Across tabular benchmarks, SOMTab approaches the performance of strong Transformer-based tabular foundation models while achieving faster inference and lower GPU memory usage, yielding a favorable efficiency--accuracy trade-off.
Hao Wang, Siyu Zhang, Wei Ma
Institute of Statistics and Big Data, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China
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