做表格数据建模的团队会发现，盲目集成TFM可能得不偿失——计算成本飙升但收益微乎其微，甚至可能破坏模型校准。建议点开看看，避免踩坑。
一项新研究评估了六种现代表格基础模型（TFM）在153个OpenML分类任务上的集成效果。结果显示，这些模型高度冗余，平均成对Q统计量达0.961，接近1，导致任何凸组合的性能提升有限。最佳集成策略（两级级联堆叠）仅比最强单模型提升0.18%准确率，但计算成本增加253倍。统计检验表明，三种集成策略与最佳单模型处于同一等价组，而其他三种集成甚至显著更差。逻辑回归元学习器虽然提升了准确率和ROC-AUC，但严重破坏了校准，导致对数损失最差。研究建议实际应用中优先使用贪心选择策略。
Ensembling Tabular Foundation Models - A Diversity Ceiling And A Calibration Trap
Tabular foundation models (TFMs) now match or beat tuned gradient-boosted trees on a growing fraction of tabular tasks, but no single TFM wins on every dataset. Ensembling is the go to fix here, and it works less well than expected. Six modern TFMs form a near-redundant pool: their mean pairwise Q-statistic is $0.961$, close enough to $1$ that any convex combination is bounded above. We benchmark six ensemble strategies over six TFMs on 153 OpenML classification tasks. The best ensemble, two-level cascade stacking, buys $+0.18\%$ accuracy over the strongest single TFM at $253\times$ the compute. A Friedman and Nemenyi analysis places three ensembles and the best base TFM in a single equivalence group; three other ensembles are significantly \emph{worse} than the best base. Stacking with a logistic-regression meta-learner is the most striking case: competitive accuracy and ROC-AUC, the worst log-loss rank among the ensembles. The meta-learner improves accuracy by sharpening class boundaries, which destroys calibration. We recommend greedy selection as the practical default.