ScoringBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Tabular Foundation Models with Proper Scoring Rules

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.29928v1
• Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2026 16:01:56 GMT
• Title: ScoringBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Tabular Foundation Models with Proper Scoring Rules
• Abstract summary: Tabular foundation models such as TabPFN and TabICL already produce full distributions yet prevailing regression benchmarks evaluate them almost exclusively via point estimate metrics RMSE R2.<n>We introduce ScoringBench an open benchmark that computes a comprehensive suite of proper scoring rules like CRPS CRLS Interval Score Energy Score weighted CRPS and Brier Score alongside standard point metrics.<n>Results confirm that model rankings depend on the chosen scoring rule and that no single pretraining objective is universally optimal.
• Score: 0.7009487789080344
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Tabular foundation models such as TabPFN and TabICL already produce full predictive distributions yet prevailing regression benchmarks evaluate them almost exclusively via point estimate metrics RMSE R2 These aggregate measures often obscure model performance in the tails of the distribution a critical deficit for high stakes decision making in domains like finance and clinical research where asymmetric risk profiles are the norm We introduce ScoringBench an open benchmark that computes a comprehensive suite of proper scoring rules like CRPS CRLS Interval Score Energy Score weighted CRPS and Brier Score alongside standard point metrics providing a richer picture of probabilistic forecast quality We evaluate realTabPFNv2.5 fine tuned with different scoring rule objectives and TabICL relative to untuned realTabPFNv2.5 across a suite of regression benchmarks Our results confirm that model rankings depend on the chosen scoring rule and that no single pretraining objective is universally optimal This demonstrates that for applications sensitive to extreme events the choice of evaluation metric is as much a domain specific requirement as the data itself ScoringBench is available at https://github.com/jonaslandsgesell/ScoringBench A live preview of the current leaderboard is available at https://scoringbench.bolt.host The leaderboard is maintained via git pull requests to ensure transparency traceability agility and reproducibility

Related papers

• The Double Measurement Confound in Agent Benchmarks: De-Scaffolding, Ground-Truth Scoring, and Reliability Beyond the Mean [2.822987192839875]
  Agent benchmarks are increasingly used to compare large language models (LLMs) and guide deployment decisions.<n>We identify a double measurement confound: execution-critical decisions are performed by a fixed scaffold instead of the model, while the scorer evaluates outputs using criteria that may not reflect task correctness.<n>We unify these issues within a measurement-theoretic framework that characterizes when benchmark scores can be interpreted as evidence of model capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-06T21:23:11Z)
• CriterAlign: Criterion-Centric Rationale Alignment for Code Preference Judging [95.02210956333374]
  We propose a criterion-centric framework that adapts rubric-based judging to pairwise preference evaluation.<n>On BigCodeReward, CriterAlign improves a Qwen2.5-VL-32B monolithic judge from 60.4% to 66.3% accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-19T10:59:19Z)
• TFRBench: A Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating Forecasting Systems [52.91956121737963]
  We introduce TFRBench, the first benchmark designed to evaluate the reasoning capabilities of forecasting systems.<n>We propose a systematic multi-agent framework that utilizes an iterative verification loop to synthesize numerically grounded reasoning traces.<n>Our evaluation confirms that this reasoning is causally effective; useful for evaluation; and prompting LLMs with our generated traces significantly improves forecasting accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-07T03:04:45Z)
• Distributional Regression with Tabular Foundation Models: Evaluating Probabilistic Predictions via Proper Scoring Rules [0.7009487789080344]
  We show that proper scoring rules induce different model rankings and different inductive biases during training.<n>Fine-tuning realTabPFNv2.5 with scoring rules not seen during pretraining yields consistent improvements on the corresponding metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-09T10:38:01Z)
• IF-RewardBench: Benchmarking Judge Models for Instruction-Following Evaluation [85.56193980646981]
  We propose IF-RewardBench, a comprehensive meta-evaluation benchmark for instruction-following.<n>For each instruction, we construct a preference graph containing all pairwise preferences among multiple responses.<n>Experiments on IF-RewardBench reveal significant deficiencies in current judge models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-05T02:21:17Z)
• Reference-Free Rating of LLM Responses via Latent Information [53.463883683503106]
  We study the common practice of asking a judge model to assign Likert-scale scores to free-text responses.<n>We then propose and evaluate Latent Judges, which derive scalar ratings from internal model signals.<n>Across a broad suite of pairwise and single-rating benchmarks, latent methods match or surpass standard prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T12:15:52Z)
• PredictaBoard: Benchmarking LLM Score Predictability [50.47497036981544]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) often fail unpredictably.<n>This poses a significant challenge to ensuring their safe deployment.<n>We present PredictaBoard, a novel collaborative benchmarking framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T10:52:38Z)
• Beyond the Numbers: Transparency in Relation Extraction Benchmark Creation and Leaderboards [5.632231145349045]
  This paper investigates the transparency in the creation of benchmarks and the use of leaderboards for measuring progress in NLP. Existing relation extraction benchmarks often suffer from insufficient documentation and lack crucial details. While our discussion centers on the transparency of RE benchmarks and leaderboards, the observations we discuss are broadly applicable to other NLP tasks as well.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-07T22:36:19Z)
• GREAT Score: Global Robustness Evaluation of Adversarial Perturbation using Generative Models [60.48306899271866]
  We present a new framework, called GREAT Score, for global robustness evaluation of adversarial perturbation using generative models. We show high correlation and significantly reduced cost of GREAT Score when compared to the attack-based model ranking on RobustBench. GREAT Score can be used for remote auditing of privacy-sensitive black-box models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-19T14:58:27Z)
• Dynaboard: An Evaluation-As-A-Service Platform for Holistic Next-Generation Benchmarking [41.99715850562528]
  We introduce Dynaboard, an evaluation-as-a-service framework for hosting benchmarks and conducting holistic model comparison. Our platform evaluates NLP models directly instead of relying on self-reported metrics or predictions on a single dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-21T01:17:52Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.