PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

TABLEYE: SEEING SMALL TABLES THROUGH THE LENS OF IMAGES

Seung-eon Lee, Sang-Chul Lee

self/semi-supervised learningTabular representation learningFew-shot learningTransfer Learning
3.40100
Fused
band ≈ ±15 pct pts (from σ = 0.30)
3.30100
Mimo
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.42)
3.70100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.42)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

TL;DR — Learning prior knowledge from image domain can improve the performance of few-shot tabular leanring.

Abstract

The exploration of few-shot tabular learning becomes imperative. Tabular data is a versatile representation that captures diverse information, yet it is not exempt from limitations, property of data and model size. Labeling extensive tabular data can be challenging, and it may not be feasible to capture every important feature. Few-shot tabular learning, however, remains relatively unexplored, primarily due to scarcity of shared information among independent datasets and the inherent ambiguity in defining boundaries within tabular data. To the best of our knowledge, no meaningful and unrestricted few-shot tabular learning techniques have been developed without imposing constraints on the dataset. In this paper, we propose an innovative framework called TablEye, which aims to overcome the limit of forming prior knowledge for tabular data by adopting domain transformation. It facilitates domain transformation by generating tabular images, which effectively conserve the intrinsic semantics of the original tabular data. This approach harnesses rigorously tested few-shot learning algorithms and embedding functions to acquire and apply prior knowledge. Leveraging shared data domains allows us to utilize this prior knowledge, originally learned from the image domain. Specifically, TablEye demonstrated a superior performance by outstripping the TabLLM in a 4-shot task with a maximum 0.11 AUC and a STUNT in a 1-shot setting, where it led on average by 3.17% accuracy

Author context

Most prolific author: 1 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Battle history — 32 comparisons

Ranked above opponent in 33% of matchups.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 32)