Papers › TabReD: Analyzing Pitfalls and Filling the Gaps in Tabular Deep Learning Benchmarks

TabReD: Analyzing Pitfalls and Filling the Gaps in Tabular Deep Learning Benchmarks

27 Jun 2024arXiv:2406.19380archive 2025-07-28

Ivan Rubachev, Nikolay Kartashev, Yury Gorishniy, Artem Babenko

Advances in machine learning research drive progress in real-world applications. To ensure this progress, it is important to understand the potential pitfalls on the way from a novel method's success on academic benchmarks to its practical deployment. In this work, we analyze existing tabular benchmarks and find two common characteristics of tabular data in typical industrial applications that are underrepresented in the datasets usually used for evaluation in the literature. First, in real-world deployment scenarios, distribution of data often changes over time. To account for this distribution drift, time-based train/test splits should be used in evaluation. However, popular tabular datasets often lack timestamp metadata to enable such evaluation. Second, a considerable portion of datasets in production settings stem from extensive data acquisition and feature engineering pipelines. This can have an impact on the absolute and relative number of predictive, uninformative, and correlated features compared to academic datasets. In this work, we aim to understand how recent research advances in tabular deep learning transfer to these underrepresented conditions. To this end, we introduce TabReD -- a collection of eight industry-grade tabular datasets. We reassess a large number of tabular ML models and techniques on TabReD. We demonstrate that evaluation on time-based data splits leads to different methods ranking, compared to evaluation on random splits, which are common in current benchmarks. Furthermore, simple MLP-like architectures and GBDT show the best results on the TabReD datasets, while other methods are less effective in the new setting.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

13 samples harvested; 8 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 5 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 13 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from yandex-research/tabred. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections