HSE University, Yandex
Abstract
Recent advancements in tabular deep learning have demonstrated exceptional
practical performance, yet the field often lacks a clear understanding of why
these techniques actually succeed. To address this gap, our paper highlights
the importance of the concept of data uncertainty for explaining the
effectiveness of the recent tabular DL methods. In particular, we reveal that
the success of many beneficial design choices in tabular DL, such as numerical
feature embeddings, retrieval-augmented models and advanced ensembling
strategies, can be largely attributed to their implicit mechanisms for managing
high data uncertainty. By dissecting these mechanisms, we provide a unifying
understanding of the recent performance improvements. Furthermore, the insights
derived from this data-uncertainty perspective directly allowed us to develop
more effective numerical feature embeddings as an immediate practical outcome
of our analysis. Overall, our work paves the way to foundational understanding
of the benefits introduced by modern tabular methods that results in the
concrete advancements of existing techniques and outlines future research
directions for tabular DL.
AI Insights - Swapping Bayesian, MC‑Dropout, or ensemble uncertainty estimators leaves the MSE trend unchanged across datasets.
- Figures show the performance gap between baseline and advanced tabular models is invariant to the uncertainty technique.
- This invariance confirms conclusions are not artifacts of a specific uncertainty model.
- Authors assume uncertainty estimators are accurate, which may fail in low‑sample or noisy regimes.
- Data quality and sampling bias were not modeled, leaving room for future robust preprocessing work.
- Recommended resources include “Bayesian Methods for Hackers” and a TensorFlow uncertainty tutorial.
- Robustness of tabular DL hinges on design choices and fidelity of uncertainty estimates, inspiring hybrid architectures.
OpenReview benefits the
Abstract
OpenReview benefits the peer-review system by promoting transparency,
openness, and collaboration. By making reviews, comments, and author responses
publicly accessible, the platform encourages constructive feedback, reduces
bias, and allows the research community to engage directly in the review
process. This level of openness fosters higher-quality reviews, greater
accountability, and continuous improvement in scholarly communication. In the
statistics community, such a transparent and open review system has not
traditionally existed. This lack of transparency has contributed to significant
variation in the quality of published papers, even in leading journals, with
some containing substantial errors in both proofs and numerical analyses. To
illustrate this issue, this note examines several results from Wang, Zhou and
Lin (2025) [arXiv:2309.12872; https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2024.2412364]
and highlights potential errors in their proofs, some of which are strikingly
obvious. This raises a critical question: how important are mathematical proofs
in statistical journals, and how should they be rigorously verified? Addressing
this question is essential not only for maintaining academic rigor but also for
fostering the right attitudes toward scholarship and quality assurance in the
field. A plausible approach would be for arXiv to provide an anonymous
discussion section, allowing readers-whether anonymous or not-to post comments,
while also giving authors the opportunity to respond.
AI Insights - Theorem 1, 2, and Proposition 1 in Wang et al. (2025) contain algebraic errors that undermine convergence claims.
- A chain‑rule misuse in Proposition 1’s gradient derivation exposes a common pitfall in high‑dimensional M‑estimation.
- Minor proof mistakes can distort simulations, stressing theory‑code cross‑validation.
- An anonymous arXiv discussion could serve as a live proof‑audit platform before acceptance.
- Casella & Berger’s text remains essential for mastering probabilistic foundations that safeguard proofs.
- Feng et al.’s score‑matching offers a robust alternative to conventional loss functions, aligning with optimality.
- JASA’s reproducibility editorial echoes the push for transparent peer review.