Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates whether tabular foundation models (TFMs) possess an understanding of physics by evaluating their performance on datasets derived from 316 physical equations. The authors compare four TFMs against six baselines, revealing that TFMs outperform traditional models both in their raw form and after tuning. However, the findings indicate that while TFMs excel at interpolating data, they fail to accurately represent noiseless mechanisms and physical units, limiting their capability as true physical models.
TFMs may excel at table-filling tasks, but they fundamentally misunderstand the underlying physics, lacking the ability to represent essential concepts like physical units.
Tabular foundation models (TFMs) learn to fill in tables the way language models fill in text, and tables are arguably the format in which most physical measurement arrives. Did they learn any physics in the process? They are Bayesian by construction, so the question is what their prior contains. We probe it directly, evaluating four of them (TabPFN-3, TabICLv2, TabDPT and Real-TabPFN-2.5) against six baselines on datasets sampled from 316 physical equations, in and out of domain. TFMs dominate, out of the box and after tuning. But we show that their prior can represent neither a noiseless mechanism nor physical units, which is why they interpolate physics without yet being able to act as physical models.
