Feature engineering remains a critical yet challenging bottleneck in machine learning, particularly for tabular data, as identifying optimal features from an exponentially large feature space traditionally demands substantial domain expertise. To address this challenge, we introduce FAMOSE (Feature AugMentation and Optimal Selection agEnt), a novel framework that leverages the ReAct paradigm to autonomously explore, generate, and refine features while integrating feature selection and evaluation tools within an agent architecture. To our knowledge, FAMOSE represents the first application of an agentic ReAct framework to automated feature engineering, especially for both regression and classification tasks. Extensive experiments demonstrate that FAMOSE is at or near the state-of-the-art on classification tasks (especially tasks with more than 10K instances, where ROC-AUC increases 0.23% on average), and achieves the state-of-the-art for regression tasks by reducing RMSE by 2.0% on average, while remaining more robust to errors than other algorithms. We hypothesize that FAMOSE's strong performance is because ReAct allows the LLM context window to record (via iterative feature discovery and evaluation steps) what features did or did not work. This is similar to a few-shot prompt and guides the LLM to invent better, more innovative features. Our work offers evidence that AI agents are remarkably effective in solving problems that require highly inventive solutions, such as feature engineering.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Types of AutoML. In traditional AutoML, feature engineering would include feature discovery, such as within OpenFE ( Zhang et al., 2023 ) , or iterative feature modification, such as the method of Piramuthu et al. ( Piramuthu & Sikora, 2009 ) . Although LLM methods, such as CAAFE, often excel at feature generation, iterative feature modification has not been explored as often before now. FAMOSE offers a way to learn through trial-and-error which features work and which ones do not until a better feature is developed.
Figure 2: An illustration of FAMOSE applied to the balance-scale task ( Siegler, 1976 ) . FAMOSE first invents features and observes their performance, in this case using the difference in arm weights to see whether a scale is balanced, tilting right, or tilting left. If performance is insufficient, FAMOSE then thinks about how to create better features, ultimately discovering the feature, moment, that exactly predicts whether a scale is balanced. Because the performance cannot be improved further in this task, the feature discovery step eventually stops. The feature selection step then selects this feature using mRMR ( Ding & Peng, 2005 ) and removes the four extraneous features in the task dataset: W1 , W2 , L1 , and L2 , thus instead of an error-prone model with four features, we discover a perfect predictor with only one feature.
Task
Baseline
OpenFE
AutoFeat
FAMOSE
bike
40.3 ± 1.03
92.09 ± 6.35
41.47 ± 1.01
40.05 ± 0.99
crab
2.32 ± 0.13
2.26 ± 0.15
–
2.34 ± 0.08
cybersecurity_attacks
0.82 ± 0.0
–
–
0.82 ± 0.0
housing
409.58 ± 10.54
432.87 ± 10.22
403.96 ± 9.61
408.56 ± 26.34
insurance
192.89 ± 13.91
190.23 ± 11.18
187.6 ± 12.48
191.64 ± 11.16
forest-fires
92.7 ± 5.34
88.52 ± 5.91
93.49 ± 5.42
79.49 ± 5.87
Table 1: RMSE comparison of FAMOSE to SOTA feature engineering algorithms across 5 folds: OpenFE ( Zhang et al., 2023 ) and AutoFeat ( Horn et al., 2019 ) . The “% Reduction” is the mean percent reduction of RMSE across all folds and tasks. This is calculated by replacing any algorithms that could not run with the baseline performance. Bold indicates best model.
Task
Baseline
OpenFE
AutoFeat
FeatLLM
CAAFE
FAMOSE
balance-scale
0.914 ± 0.01
0.999 ± 0.001
0.977 ± 0.025
1.0 ± 0.0
0.965 ± 0.022
1.0 ± 0.0
blood
0.698 ± 0.03
0.681 ± 0.048
0.677 ± 0.033
0.426 ± 0.063
0.697 ± 0.03
0.704 ± 0.027
breast-w
0.989 ± 0.007
0.993 ± 0.004
0.993 ± 0.006
0.994 ± 0.004
0.99 ± 0.01
0.989 ± 0.008
car
0.999 ± 0.0
1.0 ± 0.0
1.0 ± 0.0
0.86 ± 0.019
0.999 ± 0.0
0.997 ± 0.003
cmc
0.704 ± 0.019
0.693 ± 0.013
0.683 ± 0.019
0.709 ± 0.031
0.7 ± 0.02
0.696 ± 0.023
communities
0.866 ± 0.008
–
–
0.808 ± 0.011
0.864 ± 0.007
0.861 ± 0.007
Table 2: ROC-AUC comparison of FAMOSE to SOTA feature engineering algorithms across 5 folds: AutoFeat ( Horn et al., 2019 ) , OpenFE ( Zhang et al., 2023 ) , FeatLLM ( Han et al., 2024 ) , and CAAFE ( Hollmann et al., 2023 ) . Algorithms that could not run due to errors are indicated by “–”. The “% Improvement” is the mean percent increase in ROC-AUC across folds and tasks. This is calculated by replacing any algorithms that could not run with the baseline performance. Bold indicates best model.
Appendix figures & tables14 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Task
# Datapoints
# Features
Imbalance
Target Variance
adult
48842
15
0.24
–
arrhythmia
452
280
0.0
–
balance-scale
625
5
0.08
–
bank_fraud_base
1000000
32
0.01
–
bank_marketing
45211
17
0.12
–
blood
748
5
0.24
–
Appendix
Table S1 : Data statistics: number of datapoints, number of features, data imbalance (if a classification task) or target variance (if a regression task).
Task Type
Task
Prediction Task
Classification
adult ( Becker & Kohavi, 1996 )
Earn more than $50,000 per year (yes/no)
arrhythmia ( Guvenir et al., 1997 )
Presence of cardiac arrhythmia (16 classes)
balance-scale ( Siegler, 1976 )
Balance direction: left, right, or balanced
breast-w ( Wolberg, 1990 )
Breast mass malignant (M) or benign (B)
blood ( Yeh, 2008 )
Blood donation occurred (yes/no)
car ( Bohanec, 1988 )
Car acceptability rating (4 classes)
Appendix
Table S2 : Tasks used to evaluate FAMOSE.
age
“the age of an individual”
workclass
“a general term to represent the employment status of an individual”
fnlwgt
“the number of units in the target population that the responding unit represents”
education
“the highest level of education achieved by an individual”
educational-num
“the highest level of education achieved in numerical form”
marital-status
“marital status of an individual”
occupation
“the general type of occupation of an individual”
Appendix
Table S3 : Example feature descriptions for the adult task.
Table S4 : Example feature descriptions for the bank-marketing task.
Figure S1 : Number of functions used in CAAFE and FAMOSE code across all task folds (5 × number of tasks).
Figure S2 : Frequency each function used in CAAFE code across all task folds (5 × number of tasks).
Figure S3 : Frequency each function used in FAMOSE code across all task folds (5 × number of tasks).
Figure S4 : Percentage of task folds (5 × number of tasks) where FAMOSE or CAAFE features were added.
Baseline
FAMOSE (Claude)
FAMOSE (Deepseek)
adult
0.929 ± 0.002
0.929 ± 0.002
0.929 ± 0.002
balance-scale
0.914 ± 0.01
1.0 ± 0.0
1.0 ± 0.0
bank_fraud_base
0.886 ± 0.004
0.886 ± 0.003
0.885 ± 0.004
bank_marketing
0.934 ± 0.005
0.928 ± 0.013
0.933 ± 0.004
blood
0.698 ± 0.03
0.704 ± 0.027
0.687 ± 0.009
breast-w
0.989 ± 0.007
0.989 ± 0.008
0.986 ± 0.008
Appendix
Table S5 : FAMOSE classifier performance (ROC-AUC) for Claude and Deepseek. We notice that the algorithm works well for both closed-source (Claude 3.5 Sonnet V2) and open-source (Deepseek-R1) LLMs.
Baseline
FAMOSE (Sonnet 3.5 V2)
FAMOSE (Deepseek)
bike
40.3 ± 1.03
40.05 ± 0.99
39.79 ± 0.73
crab
2.32 ± 0.13
2.34 ± 0.08
2.31 ± 0.16
housing
409.58 ± 10.54
408.56 ± 26.34
396.44 ± 19.22
insurance
192.89 ± 13.91
191.64 ± 11.16
190.16 ± 11.96
forest-fires
92.7 ± 5.34
79.49 ± 5.87
79.47 ± 4.6
wine-quality
0.64 ± 0.02
0.64 ± 0.01
0.64 ± 0.02
Appendix
Table S6 : FAMOSE regression performance (RMSE) for Claude and Deepseek. Bold are best-performing models. We notice that the algorithm works well for both closed-source (Claude 3.5 Sonnet V2) and open-source (Deepseek-R1) LLMs, with a slight edge for Deepseek-R1.
Autogluon
Random Forest
Baseline
FAMOSE
Baseline
FAMOSE
adult
0.929 ± 0.003
0.929 ± 0.002
0.903 ± 0.002
0.901 ± 0.005
balance-scale
0.995 ± 0.004
1.0 ± 0.0
0.806 ± 0.009
1.0 ± 0.0
bank_marketing
0.938 ± 0.004
0.937 ± 0.006
0.929 ± 0.004
0.928 ± 0.003
bank_fraud_base
0.877 ± 0.01
0.884 ± 0.006
0.834 ± 0.003
0.835 ± 0.004
blood
0.757 ± 0.035
0.747 ± 0.029
0.686 ± 0.042
0.706 ± 0.03
Appendix
Table S7 : Robustness of classifier performance (ROC-AUC) for FAMOSE XGBoost features applied to different models (Random forest and Autogluon). Bold indicates the best model.
Autogluon
Random Forest
Baseline
FAMOSE
Baseline
FAMOSE
bike
35.37 ± 0.92
35.41 ± 0.96
42.02 ± 1.53
41.97 ± 1.23
crab
2.13 ± 0.11
2.1 ± 0.13
2.19 ± 0.09
2.18 ± 0.09
housing
384.31 ± 15.11
381.08 ± 18.47
418.38 ± 11.23
416.28 ± 14.05
insurance
166.59 ± 13.31
174.56 ± 16.7
178.82 ± 8.87
183.44 ± 11.0
forest-fires
80.89 ± 6.11
79.16 ± 5.59
83.13 ± 5.04
79.22 ± 5.68
Appendix
Table S8 : Robustness of classifier performance (RMSE) for FAMOSE XGBoost features applied to different models (Random forest and Autogluon). Bold indicates the best model.
No goal in prompt
Only feature selection
No feature selection
bike
40.19 ± 0.89
40.3 ± 1.03
40.43 ± 1.54
crab
2.34 ± 0.14
2.34 ± 0.12
2.34 ± 0.09
cybersecurity_attacks
0.82 ± 0.0
0.82 ± 0.0
0.83 ± 0.0
forest-fires
79.87 ± 4.98
79.54 ± 5.89
92.93 ± 5.24
housing
409.03 ± 26.18
409.58 ± 10.54
418.51 ± 38.84
insurance
186.53 ± 12.52
184.43 ± 16.86
193.95 ± 13.82
Appendix
Table S9 : Ablation for regression tasks. We see a slight improvement in the RMSE reduction when we only select features, although the difference is not significant (Wilcoxon signed rank test p-value =0.3 ), but the difference between FAMOSE and no feature selection is significant (Wilcoxon signed rank test p-value =0.007 ). Overall, our results show FAMOSE performs best when we have a goal and feature selection.
No goal in prompt
Only feature selection
No feature selection
adult
0.928 ± 0.002
0.929 ± 0.002
0.929 ± 0.002
balance-scale
1.0 ± 0.0
0.914 ± 0.01
1.0 ± 0.0
bank_fraud_base
0.885 ± 0.004
0.885 ± 0.005
0.881 ± 0.01
bank_marketing
0.928 ± 0.005
0.933 ± 0.004
0.929 ± 0.011
blood
0.678 ± 0.038
0.688 ± 0.024
0.679 ± 0.024
breast-w
0.99 ± 0.008
0.989 ± 0.006
0.985 ± 0.011
Appendix
Table S10 : Ablation for classifier tasks. Due to the small changes in ROC-AUC, the results are not statistically significant, except for only feature selection, which is significantly worse than the baseline and FAMOSE (Wilcoxon signed rank test p-value <0.04 ), which suggests that we need to go beyond feature selection along to achieve high performance. Overall, our results show FAMOSE performs best when we have a goal and feature selection.
Automated feature generation extracts informative features from raw tabular data without manual intervention and is crucial for accurate, generalizable machine learning. Traditional methods rely on predefined operator libraries and cannot leverage task semantics, limiting their ability to produce diverse, high-value features for complex tasks. Recent Large Language Model (LLM)-based approaches introduce richer semantic signals, but still suffer from a restricted feature space due to fixed generation patterns and from the absence of feedback from the learning objective. To address these challenges, we propose a Memory-Augmented LLM-based Multi-Agent System (MALMAS) for automated feature generation. MALMAS decomposes the generation process into agents with distinct responsibilities, and a Router Agent activates an appropriate subset of agents per iteration, further broadening exploration of the feature space. We further integrate a memory module comprising procedural memory, feedback memory, and conceptual memory, enabling iterative refinement that adaptively guides subsequent feature generation and improves feature quality and diversity. Extensive experiments on multiple public datasets against state-of-the-art baselines demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach. The code is available at https://github.com/fxdong24/MALMAS
Fengxian Dong, Zhi Zheng, Xiao Han +5
University of Science and Technology of China · Zhejiang University of Technology · Meituan
Automated feature engineering (AFE) enables AI systems to autonomously construct high-utility representations from raw tabular data. However, existing AFE methods rely on statistical heuristics, yielding brittle features that fail under distribution shift. We introduce CAFE, a framework that reformulates AFE as a causally-guided sequential decision process, bridging causal discovery with reinforcement learning-driven feature construction. Phase I learns a sparse directed acyclic graph over features and the target to obtain soft causal priors, grouping features as direct, indirect, or other based on their causal influence with respect to the target. Phase II uses a cascading multi-agent deep Q-learning architecture to select causal groups and transformation operators, with hierarchical reward shaping and causal group-level exploration strategies that favor causally plausible transformations while controlling feature complexity. Across 15 public benchmarks (classification with macro-F1; regression with inverse relative absolute error), CAFE achieves up to 7% improvement over strong AFE baselines, reduces episodes-to-convergence, and delivers competitive time-to-target. Under controlled covariate shifts, CAFE reduces performance drop by ~4x relative to a non-causal multi-agent baseline, and produces more compact feature sets with more stable post-hoc attributions. These findings underscore that causal structure, used as a soft inductive prior rather than a rigid constraint, can substantially improve the robustness and efficiency of automated feature engineering.
Automatic feature engineering (AutoFE) for tabular data requires discovering informative transformations from a large program space. Existing approaches suffer from three limitations: classical methods rely on fixed operator libraries with limited expressivity, LLM-based methods generate proposals from static prompts without retaining search experience, and evolutionary methods use fixed migration policies that ignore task-specific cross-family transfer utility. We introduce TOPOFE, a framework that formulates AutoFE as graph-structured multi-island evolutionary program search. The transformation space is partitioned into semantically coherent families, each explored by an island through LLM-guided mutation and crossover. Each island maintains a Prompt Adaptation Memory that accumulates accept/reject feedback to steer proposals toward productive regions without parameter updates. To coordinate global exploration, TOPOFE dynamically learns a directed topology graph whose edge weights encode transfer utility between transformation families. Cross-island transfer is triggered by adaptive saturation detection and performed through LLM-mediated hybrid synthesis, enabling discovery of compositional feature programs that cannot emerge from isolated local search. Experiments on 29 tabular datasets show that TOPOFE consistently outperforms most state-of-the-art AutoFE methods on classification and regression tasks. Beyond predictive performance, TOPOFE produces feature sets with lower redundancy and higher representational coverage, while the learned topology graph acquires meaningful task-specific transfer structure correlated with downstream gains. The discovered feature programs transfer reliably across diverse predictors and LLM backbones, demonstrating that improvements arise from TOPOFE's structured search and adaptive coordination rather than backbone-specific generation capability.
Sha Li, Naren Ramakrishnan
Department of Computer Science Virginia Tech Blacksburg, VA 24060 · Department of Computer Science Virginia Tech Alexandria, VA 22305