arXiv:2603.08206v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Tabular foundation models such as TabPFN and TabICL already produce full predictive distributions, yet the benchmarks used to evaluate them (TabArena, TALENT, and others) still rely almost exclusively on point-estimate metrics (RMSE, $R^2$). This mismatch implicitly rewards models that elicit a good conditional mean while ignoring the quality of the predicted distribution. We make two contributions. First, we propose supplementing standard point metrics with proper scoring rules (CRPS, CRLS, and the Interval Score) and provide a head-to-head comparison of realTabPFNv2.5 and TabICLv2 with regards to some proper scoring rules across 20 OpenML regression datasets. Second, we show analytically and empirically that different proper scoring rules induce different model rankings and different inductive biases during training, even though each rule is individually minimized by the true distribution. Fine-tuning realTabPFNv2.5 with scoring rules not seen during pretraining (CRLS, $\beta=1.8$ energy score) yields consistent improvements on the corresponding metrics, confirming that the training loss shapes the model beyond what propriety alone guarantees. Together, these findings argue for (i) reporting distributional metrics in tabular regression benchmarks and (ii) making the training objective of foundation models adaptable (via fine-tuning or task-token conditioning) to the scoring rule relevant to the downstream decision problem.

arXiv:2603.08206v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Prior-Data Fitted Networks (PFNs), such as TabPFN and TabICL, have revolutionized tabular deep learning by leveraging in-context learning for tabular data. These models are meant as foundation models for classification and regression settings and promise to greatly simplify deployment in practical settings because their performance is unprecedented (in terms of mean squared error or $R^2$, when measured on common benchmarks like TabArena or TALENT). However, we see an important weakness of current benchmarks for the regression setting: the current benchmarks focus on evaluating win rates and performance using metrics like (root) mean squared error or $R^2$. Therefore, these leaderboards (implicitly and explicitly) push researchers to optimize for machine learning pipelines which elicit a good mean value estimate. The main problem is that this approach only evaluates a point estimate (namely the mean estimator which is the Bayes estimator associated with the mean squared error loss). In this article we discuss the application of proper scoring rules for evaluating the goodness of probabilistic forecasts in distributional regression. We also propose to enhance common machine learning benchmarks with metrics for probabilistic regression. To improve the status quo and make the machine learning community aware of scoring rules for probabilistic regression, we advocate to use the continuous ranked probability score (CRPS) in benchmarks for probabilistic regression. However, we also illustrate that the choice of the scoring rule changes the inductive bias of the trained model. We, therefore, advocate for finetuning or promptable tabular foundation models.