Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper benchmarks the uncertainty quantification of recent Tabular Foundation Models (TFMs) against Gradient-Boosted Decision Trees (GBDTs) and classical baselines on 112 datasets from the TALENT benchmark. The study finds that while TFMs achieve superior predictive performance (AUC), they exhibit significantly lower conditional coverage (SSCS) under conformal prediction compared to GBDTs, indicating poorer uncertainty calibration. Further experiments on synthetic data identify conditions that exacerbate this performance-uncertainty trade-off.
Tabular Foundation Models may be winning on raw prediction accuracy, but they're losing when it comes to reliable uncertainty estimates, raising serious questions about their trustworthiness.
Recent Tabular Foundation Models (TFMs) have demonstrated state-of-the-art predictive performance, often surpassing Gradient-Boosted Decision Trees (GBDTs). However, the trustworthiness of these models, particularly their uncertainty quantification, has been largely overlooked. We investigate this gap through an extensive study comparing TFMs, GBDTs, and classical baselines on the 112 datasets of the TALENT benchmark. Our results reveal a performance-uncertainty trade-off: although TFMs achieve the highest predictive performance, measured by AUC, they exhibit lower conditional coverage under conformal prediction, measured by SSCS, compared to GBDTs. Complementary experiments on synthetic datasets further characterize the regimes in which this effect intensifies. We conclude that while TFMs advance predictive frontiers, achieving well-calibrated uncertainty remains a major open challenge for their reliable adoption. Code is available at: https://github.com/jose-melo/high-performance-low-reliability