LeJOT-AutoML: LLM-Driven Feature Engineering for Job Execution Time Prediction in Databricks Cost Optimization
Organizations: University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China · Lenovo, Beijing, China
Abstract
Databricks job orchestration systems (e.g., LeJOT) reduce cloud costs by selecting low-priced compute configurations while meeting latency and dependency constraints. Accurate execution-time prediction under heterogeneous instance types and non-stationary runtime conditions is therefore critical. Existing pipelines rely on static, manually engineered features that under-capture runtime effects (e.g., partition pruning, data skew, and shuffle amplification), and predictive signals are scattered across logs, metadata, and job scripts-lengthening update cycles and increasing engineering overhead. We present LeJOT-AutoML, an agent-driven AutoML framework that embeds large language model agents throughout the ML lifecycle. LeJOT-AutoML combines retrieval-augmented generation over a domain knowledge base with a Model Context Protocol toolchain (log parsers, metadata queries, and a read-only SQL sandbox) to analyze job artifacts, synthesize and validate feature-extraction code via safety gates, and train/select predictors. This design materializes runtime-derived features that are difficult to obtain through static analysis alone. On enterprise Databricks workloads, LeJOT-AutoML generates over 200 features and reduces the feature-engineering and evaluation loop from weeks to 20-30 minutes, while maintaining competitive prediction accuracy. Integrated into the LeJOT pipeline, it enables automated continuous model updates and achieves 19.01% cost savings in our deployment setting through improved orchestration.
Figures & tables
| AutoML | Manual | |
| Number of Features | 200+ | 40+ |
| Feature Types | - Log Profiling Features - Historical Time Series Data - Driver Node Historical Data | - Node Configuration Historical Data - Log Profiling Features |
| Feature Name | AutoML (%) | Manual (%) |
|---|---|---|
| duration_seconds_lag_1 | 28.8 | – |
| vcpu_lag_1 | 24.6 | – |
| duration_seconds_shifted_avg_last_3_runs | 8.0 | – |
| DBU_lag_1 | 7.8 | – |
| Memory_lag_1 | 3.6 | – |
| vcpu_ratio | – | 16.2 |
| Metrics | AutoML | Manual |
|---|---|---|
| R 2 | 0.81 | 0.91 |
| MAPE | 20.13 | 19.49 |
| MAE | 123.29 | 78.94 |
| Time | 20 30 min (3 iterations) | 1 Month |
| Compute Machine | AutoML (s) | Manual (s) |
|---|---|---|
| Standard_F4s | 167 | 206 |
| Standard_F16s | 154 | 82 |
| Standard_E16_v4 | 162 | 78 |
| Standard_F16_v4_Photon | 147 | 52 |
| Agent | Run 1 | Run 2 | Run 3 | Run 4 | Run 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feature Analyzer | 260.60 | 233.27 | 263.29 | 223.47 | 298.12 |
| Feature Extractor | 107.80 | 92.71 | 105.25 | 115.79 | 137.87 |
| Code Completion Checker | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
| Data Leakage Checker | 199.89 | 172.21 | 209.45 | 210.34 | 325.60 |
| Evaluation Agent | 33.39 | 38.85 | 43.62 | 49.66 | 38.80 |
| Model Selector | 27.12 | 20.87 | 34.56 | 24.93 | 32.43 |
| Metric | First Iteration | Second Iteration | Third Iteration |
|---|---|---|---|
| MAE | 247.95 | 172.09 | 145.64 |
| MAPE (%) | 36.28 | 25.18 | 21.31 |
| R 2 | 0.61 | 0.80 | 0.81 |
| Solution | Throughput (k/s) | Initial Cost ($k) | Final Cost ($k) | Cost Saving Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AutoML | 0.08 | 52.6 | 42.6 | 19.01% |
| Manual ML | 0.12 | 52.6 | 37.9 | 27.94% |
Automated Feature Engineering
Automated Feature Engineering creates, transforms, and selects predictive inputs with less manual design across data types and applications.
See all 54 papers