We study how the objective used to train or fine-tune a tabular foundation model affects its distributional predictions. Models such as TabPFN and TabICL provide forecasts of the full conditional distribution, but regression benchmarks including TabArena and TALENT assess them mainly through RMSE and $R^2$. Such assessments reward accurate conditional means while leaving the remaining distributional information unassessed. We therefore examine proper scoring rules as objectives for training and fine-tuning and as criteria for evaluating and ranking these models. Every strictly proper rule favors the true distribution at the population level, however, this shared optimum does not determine how learning proceeds with a finite sample. Our examples illustrate score-dependent preferences between forecasts, and our fine-tuning experiments show differences in predictive performance under different objectives. Experiments that fine-tune TabPFN and TabICL on several datasets reveal that changing the training objective can change performance across evaluation scores, with non-trivial interactions between the two. By connecting established methods from distributional regression, scoring-rule theory, and foundation-model adaptation, we show that selecting the score is part of specifying the model and can measurably alter the distribution it learns.

翻译：暂无翻译