REVIEW 1 cited by
On Embeddings for Numerical Features in Tabular Deep Learning
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Recently, Transformer-like deep architectures have shown strong performance on tabular data problems. Unlike traditional models, e.g., MLP, these architectures map scalar values of numerical features to high-dimensional embeddings before mixing them in the main backbone. In this work, we argue that embeddings for numerical features are an underexplored degree of freedom in tabular DL, which allows constructing more powerful DL models and competing with GBDT on some traditionally GBDT-friendly benchmarks. We start by describing two conceptually different approaches to building embedding modules: the first one is based on a piecewise linear encoding of scalar values, and the second one utilizes periodic activations. Then, we empirically demonstrate that these two approaches can lead to significant performance boosts compared to the embeddings based on conventional blocks such as linear layers and ReLU activations. Importantly, we also show that embedding numerical features is beneficial for many backbones, not only for Transformers. Specifically, after proper embeddings, simple MLP-like models can perform on par with the attention-based architectures. Overall, we highlight embeddings for numerical features as an important design aspect with good potential for further improvements in tabular DL.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Is the Statistical Advantage Worth the Cost? An Empirical Comparison of KANs and MLPs for Structured Data Classification
Across 12 fixed-hyperparameter tabular benchmarks, KANs beat MLPs on 9/12 datasets in accuracy and 10/12 in F1, yet cost ~16x parameters; the paper's significance tests are internally inconsistent.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.