Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 6 minor 27 references

TabSOM: A tabular-to-image encoding method based on self-organizing maps

T0 review · 6 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read TabSOM converts tabular data into a stable, multi-scale image whose layout is fixed by a self-organizing map, and the paper reports top rankings against twelve prior encodings.

desk verdict A genuinely new tabular-to-image encoding idea is undermined by a headline ranking claim that its own Table 3 contradicts; the method deserves a serious look but the manuscript needs major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13513 v1 pith:QICVE6GE submitted 2026-08-13 cs.CV cs.LG

David Chushig-Muzo , María Ángeles Rodríguez de Cara , Eva Milara , Francisco J. Lara-Abelenda , Luis Zhinin-Vera , Diego H. Peluffo-Ordóñez This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.LG
keywords self-organizingmapstabular-to-imageencodingcomponentplanesfeatureplacementrelationshipgraphinterpretabilityconvolutionalneuralnetworksHungarianassignment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes TabSOM, a tabular-to-image encoding that gives every column a fixed, meaningful position on an image canvas before a CNN ever sees the data. Existing encodings place features by embedding them with t-SNE, PCA, or UMAP, then render only each feature's marginal value, so pairwise relationships are lost. TabSOM trains a self-organizing map on the normalized table, reads each feature's component plane to choose an anchor, resolves collisions with the Hungarian algorithm, and renders two value channels plus one channel that draws active feature-pair links. The paper reports that TabSOM ranks first or second on every dataset among thirteen encodings and shows the lowest variance, and that its SOM-derived importance score and partial-dependence curves agree with established interpretability baselines on the top features. If these results hold, tabular data can use convolutional architectures without sacrificing a readable, inspectable representation.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the SOM component plane $\Phi_j$, the $j$-th coordinate of every node's prototype viewed as a spatial field over the SOM grid. It does three jobs at once: it fixes a preferred canvas position for feature $j$ (via centroid or mode anchor), it defines the pairwise relationship graph (correlation or cosine similarity between flattened planes), and it supplies the interpretability quantities (class-weighted plane averages and prototype-based dependence curves). A Hungarian linear-assignment step turns the anchors into a collision-free placement, so the final image is a fixed, sample-independent layout plus a sample-dependent value and edge rendering.

What would settle it

Re-run the comparison on the same four datasets with per-method tuning of image size, channel count, and training schedule; if TabSOM no longer sits at the top of the ranking or its variance is no longer lowest, the fixed-architecture premise is the load-bearing part of the claim. As a minimal check, recompute the ranks from the mean AUCROC values printed in Table 3 to verify the 'first or second on every dataset' and 'lowest variance' wording.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

TabSOM's central claim is that a self-organizing map, not a dimensionality-reduction embedding, should determine where features sit on an image canvas. After training an $H\times W$ SOM on normalized tabular data, each feature $j$ is represented by its component plane $\Phi_j$, a smooth field over the grid. The plane yields an anchor (intensity centroid or peak), and the Hungarian algorithm assigns all anchors to distinct grid cells at minimal total displacement. The rendered image has three channels: two node channels place Gaussian bumps of width $\sigma=0.05$ and $\sigma=0.08$ at each feature's cell, scaled by the feature's value; the third channel draws line segments between correlated features, with intensity equal to the product of the two active feature values weighted by their relation. Because the layout is fixed once the SOM is trained, the encoding is stable across folds and seeds, and the same component planes support class-separation importance and prototype-based partial dependence plots.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark claim rests on one fixed CNN architecture and hyperparameters being equally fair for all thirteen encodings; if some encodings need different image sizes, channel counts, or training schedules, the ranking could reflect tuning mismatch rather than encoding quality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If TabSOM's benchmark results hold, CNN pipelines for tabular data no longer need per-dataset tuning of an embedding method; one SOM-derived layout is fixed and stable across folds.
  • Because feature positions are derived from the training distribution and then frozen, the same layout can be reused for every row, making the encoding's channel decomposition inspectable as a feature map, a value map, and an interaction map.
  • The class-separation importance score ranks features without training a downstream model, so it can be used as a model-free screening tool for binary tables.
  • The prototype-based partial dependence plot gives per-feature effect curves that respect the data's populated regions, complementing conventional PDPs that average over synthetic grids.
  • A three-channel image (sharp node, mid node, edge) is the default configuration; the design allows more scales or a static graph channel, so the method can be adapted to other image resolutions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • TabSOM's fixed-layout property suggests a direct ablation test the paper does not run: removing the edge channel should isolate how much of the gain comes from pairwise interactions versus from the stable SOM placement itself.
  • The class-separation importance score is computed from training labels and BMU hits; comparing it with permutation importance on held-out data would test whether it tracks generalization rather than just training-set separation.
  • The relational edge channel's interaction term $\sqrt{\max(x_i,0)\max(x_j,0)}$ is specific to non-negative, binary-target scenarios; extending it to multiclass or regression would require a signed or class-conditional interaction term, which the paper leaves for future work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

6 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes TabSOM, a tabular-to-image encoding method that trains a self-organizing map (SOM), derives per-feature anchors from the SOM component planes, resolves anchor collisions with Hungarian assignment, constructs a relational graph from component-plane correlations, and renders a multi-channel image containing two Gaussian node channels and one edge-interaction channel. It also introduces two SOM-based interpretability tools: a class-separation importance score and a prototype-based partial dependence plot. The method is benchmarked against twelve existing tabular-to-image encodings on public binary-classification datasets, and the authors claim that TabSOM ranks first or second on every dataset, achieves the lowest variance among all evaluated methods, and provides interpretability consistent with Random Forest, XGBoost, and SHAP.

Significance. If the performance claims were accurate, TabSOM would be a meaningful contribution to tabular deep learning, since it combines a topology-preserving feature placement with an explicit pairwise-interaction channel and model-agnostic interpretability tools in a single SOM-based framework. The conceptual design is interesting: using component planes both for placement and for graph construction is a natural extension of existing tabular-to-image methods, and the comparison against Random Forest, XGBoost, and SHAP is a useful interpretability check. However, the headline empirical claims are contradicted by the paper's own reported numbers, and the experimental reporting contains inconsistencies. The significance of the contribution as stated cannot be accepted without substantial correction.

major comments (6)
  1. [Abstract, Section 4.3, Table 3] The statement that TabSOM "ranks first or second on every dataset" is directly contradicted by Table 3 of the manuscript. On Parkinsons, TabSOM (0.8852) ranks third behind Combination (0.9179) and DistanceMatrix (0.8993); on QSAR, TabSOM (0.9098) ranks third behind Combination (0.9179) and DistanceMatrix (0.9140). The same false claim appears in the Discussion and Conclusions sections. This is a load-bearing error because the abstract's central performance claim is falsified by the paper's own evidence.
  2. [Abstract, Section 4.3, Table 3] The variance claim that TabSOM "achieves the lowest variance of any method evaluated" is also contradicted by Table 3. On Parkinsons, BarGraph (0.0297) and Combination (0.0312) have lower standard deviations than TabSOM (0.0390); on WDBC, BarGraph (0.0055), Combination (0.0046), and several other methods have lower or comparable standard deviations than TabSOM (0.0082); on QSAR, DistanceMatrix (0.0136), BarGraph (0.0162), and Combination (0.0163) all have lower standard deviations than TabSOM (0.0180). Only on Pima is TabSOM's standard deviation the smallest among the reported methods.
  3. [Section 4.3] Section 4.3 states that the comparison is performed "across six binary datasets," but Section 4.1 and Table 2 define only four datasets (PID, PAR, QSA, WBC) and Table 3 reports results for only four datasets. The two missing datasets are never identified, so the reported benchmark does not support the stated experimental scope. Either the experiments must be extended to six datasets or the text must be corrected.
  4. [Sections 3.1.1 and 4.2] Several SOM hyperparameters are left unspecified: the initial and final learning rates (η0, η1), the initial and final neighborhood radii (σ0, σ1), the number of training steps or epochs, the initialization scheme, and the stopping criterion. Because the component planes, anchors, and relational graph all depend on the trained SOM, the method is not reproducible without these values, and the comparison against other encodings is under-specified.
  5. [Section 4.2] The evaluation protocol is internally inconsistent: it first says each dataset is split into an 80% training subset and a 20% test subset, but then says all methods are evaluated under 5-fold stratified cross-validation. The text also reports "mean and standard deviation across five random seeds" without clarifying whether the five seeds refer to CNN initialization, SOM initialization, fold construction, or some combination. The exact protocol must be stated precisely.
  6. [Section 4.2] The fixed CNN architecture and hyperparameter set used for every encoding method are asserted but not justified. If the fixed image size, number of channels, or training schedule happens to favor the layouts produced by some encodings over others, the reported ranking may reflect tuning mismatch rather than intrinsic encoding quality. A sensitivity analysis or per-method hyperparameter selection under a fixed validation protocol is needed to support the ranking conclusions.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 3] The label "T abSOM" contains a spurious space and should read "TabSOM."
  2. [Sections 4.2 and 4.3] The manuscript uses both "AUROC" and "AUCROC" for the same metric; please unify the abbreviation.
  3. [Section 3.1.5] The phrase "two first node channels" is awkward; since the primary configuration uses S=2 node channels plus one edge channel, the text should say "two node channels."
  4. [Section 5] The Discussion contains two consecutive sentences beginning "Future work will explore..."; these should be merged or the duplication removed.
  5. [References] The reference list appears to include both a journal version and an arXiv preprint for the same work (Tab2Visual, refs [2] and [22]); if they are the same work, only the published version should be cited.
  6. [Figure 1 caption] The caption refers to the composite RGB image as a "fourth channel," but it is a display of the three actual channels rather than a separate image channel.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: TabSOM's encoding, graph, and interpretability are constructed from the SOM and benchmarked against external methods; the overstated ranking claim is an internal-consistency issue, not circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. TabSOM trains a SOM on normalized features (Section 3.1.1), computes component planes, derives anchors via centroid/mode from those planes (Section 3.1.2), solves a Hungarian assignment for collision-free placement (Section 3.1.3), forms a relational graph by thresholding correlations/cosines of the same flattened component planes (Section 3.1.4), and renders multi-channel images (Section 3.1.5). No target quantity is defined in terms of the output it is supposed to predict: classification AUROC comes from a fixed CNN applied to the rendered images, with training/test separation. The relational graph is presented as a construction from the SOM geometry, not as an independently validated prediction; Section 3.1.4 explicitly notes the graph comes from the same prototype geometry used for placement, so its spatial coherence is a by-construction property rather than a claimed empirical discovery. The interpretability tools are compared against Random Forest, XGBoost, and SHAP (Section 4.5), which are external baselines; the class-separation importance uses training labels and SOM geometry but does not use the CNN's predictions, so there is no circular validation. Self-citations (refs [7], [9], [15], [26]) appear in application/related-work contexts and are not load-bearing for the method's derivation. The abstract, Section 5, and Section 6 state that TabSOM 'ranks first or second on every dataset' and shows 'the lowest variance of any method evaluated,' but Table 3 shows TabSOM third on Parkinsons (0.8852 vs Combination 0.9179 and DistanceMatrix 0.8993) and third on QSAR (0.9098 vs Combination 0.9179 and DistanceMatrix 0.9140), with BarGraph having lower std on WDBC and QSAR. This is an internal-consistency/overclaiming issue, not circularity: the ranking is not manufactured by construction, it is simply misreported. Therefore the circularity burden is essentially zero.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a set of domain assumptions about SOM topology preservation, the meaningfulness of component-plane correlations, and the fairness of a fixed CNN for all encodings. Several hyperparameters are left unspecified or chosen by heuristic, and the class-separation importance is a new metric validated only qualitatively on one dataset.

free parameters (6)
  • SOM grid size rule = H=W=max(8, ceil(sqrt(1.3F)))
    Chosen by heuristic, not derived; affects cell count and placement capacity. Stated in Section 4.2.
  • Anchor sharpening exponent gamma = 2
    Default value from Section 3.1.2; affects centroid anchor positions and thus the rendered layout.
  • Relational graph correlation threshold tau = 0.5
    Default threshold from Section 3.1.4; determines which edges appear in the relational channel.
  • Gaussian node bandwidths sigma = 0.05, 0.08
    Chosen defaults from Section 3.1.5; multi-scale channel rendering depends on these values.
  • SOM learning rate and neighborhood decay parameters = eta0, eta1, sigma0, sigma1 unspecified
    Section 3.1.1 defines exponential decay but reports no numeric values; the trained SOM and downstream image depend on them.
  • Edge channel bandwidth sigma_e = not specified
    Section 3.1.5 says it is fixed but gives no value; the edge channel rendering depends on it.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption SOM training preserves the topology of the input feature distribution.
    Section 3.1.2 relies on this to justify deriving anchors and relationships from component planes.
  • ad hoc to paper Pearson or cosine similarity of flattened component planes captures pairwise feature relationships.
    Section 3.1.4 uses this to build the relational channel; there is no external validation that this graph approximates true feature interactions.
  • domain assumption Fixed canvas positions derived from a SOM trained on training data remain valid for test samples.
    Section 3.1.5 uses one placement for all samples; the paper provides no stability analysis across folds.
  • domain assumption A single CNN architecture with fixed hyperparameters is appropriate for all encodings compared.
    Section 4.2 states this; if false, the benchmark ranking is confounded by tuning mismatch.
  • ad hoc to paper Class-separation importance from BMU densities is a meaningful feature importance measure.
    Section 3.2.1 defines it; it is only visually compared against RF, XGBoost, and SHAP on one dataset.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TabSOM: A tabular-to-image encoding method based on self-organizing maps." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QICVE6GE

@misc{pith2026260813513,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TabSOM: A tabular-to-image encoding method based on self-organizing maps},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QICVE6GE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13513}
}
read the original abstract

Tabular-to-image methods have emerged as novel approaches to leverage the high predictive performance of convolutional neural networks and vision transformers. They convert tabular data into image representations, mapping each feature at a fixed pixel location derived from a dimensionality-reduction method (e.g., t-SNE, UMAP, PCA). However, they encode only the marginal value of each feature and discard information about feature relationships. We propose TabSOM, a tabular-to-image encoding built on the Self-Organizing Map (SOM), which provides: (i) a spatial layout in which every input feature occupies a fixed canvas position derived from its component plane via collision-free Hungarian assignment; and (ii) a graph that captures pairwise feature relationships derived from the SOM component planes. The resulting image stacks two multi-scale node channels: one encodes feature values at fixed scales, while the other encodes pairwise feature interactions as spatial connections between related features. Two SOM-derived interpretability approaches are introduced: a prototype-inspired partial dependence plot and a class--separation importance score. Benchmarked against twelve existing tabular-to-image methods across public binary-classification datasets, TabSOM ranks first or second on every dataset and achieves the lowest variance of any method evaluated. Interpretability obtained with TabSOM was validated against Random Forest, XGBoost, and SHAP, the class-separation score shows reasonable agreement with established baselines on the top-ranked features while capturing complementary structural information from input data. These results demonstrate that TabSOM provides an effective and interpretable approach for applying deep learning architectures to tabular data, bridging the performance--interpretability gap in this domain.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.13513 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Channel decomposition of the TabSOM encoding for four Pima Indians Diabetes samples. Three first columns show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Feature importance for the PID considering: Random Forest impurity importance, XGBoost gain importance, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Prototype-based partial dependence for all features of the PID. Each panel plots the SOM prototype grid’s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [18]

    Topological Activation Maps for Visual Representation Learning from Tabular Data

    Achutha M, Das B. Topological Activation Maps for Visual Representation Learning from Tabular Data. In: International Conference on Multi-disciplinary Trends in Artificial Intelligence. Springer; 2025. p. 1-12

    work page 2025

  2. [1]

    Representation learning for tabular data: A comprehensive survey

    Jiang JP , Liu SY, Cai HR, Zhou QL, Ye HJ. Representation learning for tabular data: A comprehensive survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence. 2026

    work page 2026

  3. [2]

    Tab2Visual: Deep Learning for Limited Tabular Data via Visual Representations and Augmentation

    Mamdouh A, El-Melegy M, Ali S, Kikinis R. Tab2Visual: Deep Learning for Limited Tabular Data via Visual Representations and Augmentation. Pattern Recognition. 2026:113173

    work page 2026

  4. [3]

    A comprehensive bench- mark of spatial encoding methods for tabular data with deep neural networks

    Liu J, Castillo-Cara M, Garc ´ıa-Castro R. A comprehensive bench- mark of spatial encoding methods for tabular data with deep neural networks. Information Fusion. 2025:104088

    work page 2025

  5. [4]

    DeepInsight: A methodology to transform a non-image data to an image for convolution neural network architecture

    Sharma A, Vans E, Shigemizu D, Boroevich KA, Tsunoda T. DeepInsight: A methodology to transform a non-image data to an image for convolution neural network architecture. Scientific reports. 2019;9(1):11399

    work page 2019

  6. [5]

    TINTO: converting tidy data into image for classifi- cation with 2-dimensional convolutional neural networks

    Castillo-Cara M, Talla-Chumpitaz R, Garc ´ıa-Castro R, Orozco- Barbosa L. TINTO: converting tidy data into image for classifi- cation with 2-dimensional convolutional neural networks. Soft- wareX. 2023;22:101391

    work page 2023

  7. [6]

    Repre- sentation of features as images with neighborhood dependencies for compatibility with convolutional neural networks

    Bazgir O, Zhang R, Dhruba SR, Rahman R, Ghosh S, Pal R. Repre- sentation of features as images with neighborhood dependencies for compatibility with convolutional neural networks. Nature communications. 2020;11(1):4391

    work page 2020

  8. [7]

    Transfer learning for a tabular-to-image approach: A case study for cardiovas- cular disease prediction

    Lara-Abelenda FJ, Chushig-Muzo D, Peiro-Corbacho P , G ´omez- Mart´ınez V , W ¨agner AM, Granja C, et al. Transfer learning for a tabular-to-image approach: A case study for cardiovas- cular disease prediction. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2025;165:104821

    work page 2025

Show all 27 references
  1. [8]

    Enhanced diabetes prediction using pre-trained CNNs, LSTM, and conditional GAN on trans- formed numerical data

    Singh KR, Dash S, Liu H, Wang Z. Enhanced diabetes prediction using pre-trained CNNs, LSTM, and conditional GAN on trans- formed numerical data. Scientific Reports. 2026;16(1):8081

    2026

  2. [9]

    Tabular- to-Image Encoding Methods for Melanoma Detection: A Proof-of- Concept

    G ´omez-Mart´ınez V , Chushig-Muzo D, Soguero-Ruiz C. Tabular- to-Image Encoding Methods for Melanoma Detection: A Proof-of- Concept. Applied Sciences. 2026;16(5):2459

    2026

  3. [10]

    In- terpretable Hybrid Vision Transformer Architectures for MIMO- Based Indoor Localization using Synthetic Spatial Representa- tions

    Liu J, Castillo-Cara M, Garc ´ıa-Castro R, Orozco-Barbosa L. In- terpretable Hybrid Vision Transformer Architectures for MIMO- Based Indoor Localization using Synthetic Spatial Representa- tions. IEEE Internet of Things Journal. 2026

    2026

  4. [11]

    MIMO-Based Indoor Localisation with Hybrid Neural Networks: Leveraging Synthetic Images from Tidy Data for Enhanced Deep Learning

    Castillo-Cara M, Mart ´ınez-G´omez J, Ballesteros-Jerez J, Garc ´ıa- Varea I, Garc´ıa-Castro R, Orozco-Barbosa L. MIMO-Based Indoor Localisation with Hybrid Neural Networks: Leveraging Synthetic Images from Tidy Data for Enhanced Deep Learning. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics ...

    2025

  5. [12]

    A novel deep learning approach using blurring image techniques for Bluetooth-based indoor localisation

    Talla-Chumpitaz R, Castillo-Cara M, Orozco-Barbosa L, Garc ´ıa- Castro R. A novel deep learning approach using blurring image techniques for Bluetooth-based indoor localisation. Information Fusion. 2023;91:173-86

    2023

  6. [13]

    Image-based vulnerability detection based on a hybrid deep learning model in the Industrial Internet of Things using convolution neural network and transformer architectures

    Babayigit B, Abubaker M. Image-based vulnerability detection based on a hybrid deep learning model in the Industrial Internet of Things using convolution neural network and transformer architectures. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence. 2026;176:114803

    2026

  7. [14]

    Engineering applications of the self-organizing map

    Kohonen T, Oja E, Simula O, Visa A, Kangas J. Engineering applications of the self-organizing map. Proceedings of the IEEE. 1996;84(10):1358-84

    1996

  8. [15]

    Data-driven visual characterization of patient health-status using electronic health records and self-organizing maps

    Chushig-Muzo D, Soguero-Ruiz C, Engelbrecht AP , Bohoyo PDM, Mora-Jim´enez I. Data-driven visual characterization of patient health-status using electronic health records and self-organizing maps. IEEE Access. 2020;8:137019-31

    2020

  9. [16]

    Self-organizing maps applied to ecological sciences

    Chon TS. Self-organizing maps applied to ecological sciences. Ecological informatics. 2011;6(1):50-61

    2011

  10. [17]

    Topology-oriented self-organizing maps: a survey

    Astudillo CA, Oommen BJ. Topology-oriented self-organizing maps: a survey. Pattern analysis and applications. 2014;17(2):223- 48

    2014

  11. [19]

    Classification with 2-D convolutional neural networks for breast cancer diagnosis

    Sharma A, Kumar D. Classification with 2-D convolutional neural networks for breast cancer diagnosis. Scientific Reports. 2022;12(1):21857

    2022

  12. [20]

    Tabular-to-image transformations for the classification of anonymous network traffic using deep residual networks

    Briner N, Cullen D, Halladay J, Miller D, Primeau R, Avila A, et al. Tabular-to-image transformations for the classification of anonymous network traffic using deep residual networks. IEEE Access. 2023;11:113100-13

    2023

  13. [21]

    Supertml: Two-dimensional word embedding for the precognition on struc- tured tabular data

    Sun B, Yang L, Zhang W, Lin M, Dong P , Young C, et al. Supertml: Two-dimensional word embedding for the precognition on struc- tured tabular data. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops; 2019. p. 0-0

    2019

  14. [22]

    Tab2visual: overcom- ing limited data in tabular data classification using deep learning with visual representations

    Mamdouh A, El-Melegy M, Ali S, Kikinis R. Tab2visual: overcom- ing limited data in tabular data classification using deep learning with visual representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:250207181. 2025

    2025

  15. [23]

    Transforming tabular data into images via enhanced spatial relationships for CNN processing

    Alenizy HA, Berri J. Transforming tabular data into images via enhanced spatial relationships for CNN processing. Scientific Reports. 2025;15(1):17004

    2025

  16. [24]

    Towards efficient image-based rep- resentation of tabular data

    Damri A, Last M, Cohen N. Towards efficient image-based rep- resentation of tabular data. Neural Computing and Applications. 2024;36(2):1023-43

    2024

  17. [25]

    Converting tabular data into images for deep learning with convolutional neural networks

    Zhu Y, Brettin T, Xia F, Partin A, Shukla M, Yoo H, et al. Converting tabular data into images for deep learning with convolutional neural networks. Scientific reports. 2021;11(1):11325

    2021

  18. [26]

    LM-IGTD: a 2D image generator for low-dimensional and mixed-type tabular data to leverage the potential of convolutional neural networks

    G ´omez-Mart´ınez V , Lara-Abelenda FJ, Peiro-Corbacho P , Chushig- Muzo D, Granja C, Soguero-Ruiz C. LM-IGTD: a 2D image generator for low-dimensional and mixed-type tabular data to leverage the potential of convolutional neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:240614566. 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Bie: binary image encoding for the classification of tabular data

    Halladay J, Cullen D, Briner N, Miller D, Primeau R, Avila A, et al. Bie: binary image encoding for the classification of tabular data. Journal of Data Science. 2025;23(1):109-29

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.