Exploring Differences Between Tabular Enterprise Data and Public Benchmarks

Myung Jun Kim, Maximilian Schambach, Frank Essenberger, Andre Sres, Johannes Höhne
6/29/2026
cs.LG

No confident code implementation found for this paper. 2 possible matches can be shown below.

Abstract

Tabular data dominate the landscape of data science, increasingly attracting innovative machine learning models and tailored benchmarks. Yet, little is known for enterprise data, where tables constitute the backbone of business operations. To broaden the benchmarking landscape for business applications, this work aims to actualize the characteristics of enterprise data by providing an analysis of data statistics and performance measurements of tabular models such as TabPFN, TabICL and ConTextTab. Through our analysis, we find enterprise data markedly differ from tabular benchmarks and we demonstrate that a tabular model that performs well on typical tabular benchmarks may perform poorly on real world enterprise data -- and vice versa. This lack of generalization underlines the need for additional benchmarks with enterprise-grade characteristics.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. 2 weaker matches are hidden by default — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{kim2026exploring,
  title  = {Exploring Differences Between Tabular Enterprise Data and Public Benchmarks},
  author = {Myung Jun Kim and Maximilian Schambach and Frank Essenberger and Andre Sres and Johannes Höhne},
  year   = {2026},
  eprint = {2606.30452},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.30452v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2606.30452.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2606.30452)

Discussion