Organizations: National Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University · School of Intelligence Science and Technology, Nanjing University · School of Artificial Intelligence, Nanjing University
Tabular data, as a core data format in machine learning, often lacks the discriminative power needed for high-performance modeling due to insufficient feature informativeness. Automated Feature Engineering (AutoFE) overcomes this by automating feature generation and selection, ensuring both model performance and operational efficiency. However, traditional AutoFE often yield features with poor interpretability because they rely on blind mathematical transformations, while large language models (LLM)-based AutoFE faces challenges in requiring costly multi-round iterations to generate high-utility features to effectively enhance model performance, compounded by inherent risks of bias and hallucination. In this paper, we combine symbolic regression with LLMs for feature engineering (SymboLLM-FE) to solve these challenges. We extract mathematically expressive formulas strongly correlated with the target via symbolic regression, which can enhance model performance, then refine them by LLMs with rich prior knowledge to ensure interpretability. Empirical results on six real-world datasets and four Kaggle competitions demonstrate that SymboLLM-FE outperforms existing AutoFE. SymboLLM-FE also addresses the dual challenges of poor interpretability and numerous iterations by employing a statistical prior-grounded LLM refinement mechanism and single-digit LLM calls.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparative analysis of feature generation mechanisms and interpretability paradigms across AutoFE. Traditional AutoFE rely on blind operator stacks, yielding high performance but poor interpretability. LLM-based AutoFE offer semantic clarity but may suffer from performance instability. Our proposed SymboLLM-FE synergizes symbolic regression with LLMs to achieve both high predictive accuracy and human-interpretable transparency.
AutoFE
Generated Features
Score
API Call
AutoFeat
2
79.75
−
OpenFE
1436
79.53
−
CAAFE
30
79.94
10
OcTree
50
79.52
50
FEBP
200
79.36
29
LLM-FE
30
79.59
35
Table 1: Comparative analysis of performance efficiency and computational cost across AutoFE. AutoFeat and OpenFE are traditional AutoFE which don’t rely on LLMs. LLM-RANK does not generate features because it’s a feature selector.
Figure 2: Overview of SymboLLM-FE, including Formula Construction by Symbolic Regression and Feature Generation via LLMs and downstream predictors.
FE Method
Credit-g ↑
Spaceship ↑
Cmc ↑
Academic ↑
Ailerons ↓
Tesla ↓
Baseline
77.03±0.47
80.79±1.27
57.85±0.89
77.33±0.67
5.10±0.48
2.39±0.09
AutoFeat
77.83±1.43
80.76±1.17
57.85±0.32
76.80±0.46
5.04±0.45
2.38±0.00
OpenFE
76.50±3.34
80.30±1.00
57.85±2.35
76.42±0.61
5.26±0.49
2.18±0.06
CAAFE
78.00±0.71
80.99±1.00
57.78±1.28
77.29±0.56
5.03±0.46
2.66±0.09
OcTree
76.50±0.82
80.79±1.15
57.85±1.52
77.33±0.70
5.09±0.47
2.43±0.10
FEBP
77.50±0.41
80.85±1.29
57.93±0.48
77.36±0.35
5.08±0.48
2.41±0.08
Table 2: Comparison of SymboLLM-FE with other AutoFE on real-world datasets. The best result is bold and the second best is underlined . The downstream model for prediction is TabPFN. ’ ↑ ’ means classification on accuracy and ’ ↓ ’ means regression on RMSE.
Figure 3: Score comparison on Kaggle competitions. ’ ↑ ’ means classification and ’ ↓ ’ means regression.
Method
LLM
Accuracy
CatBoost
GPT-4
75.41±0.51
GPT-o1
78.21±0.20
DeepSeek-R1
77.95±0.36
TabPFN
GPT-4
76.83±0.42
GPT-o1
78.58±0.39
DeepSeek-R1
79.49±0.57
Table 3: Performance comparison by SymboLLM-FE using different baselines and LLM backbones.
Dataset
SR Formulas
SR Time
LLM Calls
Tokens per Call
Credit-g
66
4.23 mins
3
2331
Spaceship
36
2.01 mins
4
1201
Cmc
21
0.89 mins
3
1159
Academic
190
25.34 mins
4
3587
Ailerons
171
30.24 mins
5
3250
Tesla
15
2.54 mins
2
1147
Table 4: Running metrics and costs of SymboLLM-FE. SR means symbolic regression model.
Figure 4: Ablation study. SP. means Spearman-value-based feature pre-sorting. ES. means the expanding-sliding window approach. LLM means LLM-based feature generation.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Operator
Arity
Mathematical Form
Protection Strategy
add
2
x+y
None
sub
2
x−y
None
mul
2
x⋅y
None
div
2
x/y
Returns 1 if y=0
sqrt
1
∣x∣
Absolute value input
inv
1
1/x
Returns 0 if x=0
Appendix
Table 5: Symbolic regression operator set. Protected operations ensure numerical stability across the domain.
Parameter
Value
Rationale
Population Size ( P )
20,000
Ensures genetic diversity in high-dimensional spaces.
Generations ( Gmax )
120
Hard upper bound on evolution steps.
Stopping Criteria ( τ )
10−4
Early stopping threshold for MSE.
Tournament Size
100
Moderate-to-high selection pressure.
Crossover Probability ( pcx )
0.9
Promotes recombination of successful sub-expressions.
Random State
42
Ensures reproducibility.
Appendix
Table 6: Hyperparameter configuration for the symbolic regression.
Dataset
Type
Samples
Features
Credit-g
Binary Classification
1,000
20
Spaceship
Binary Classification
2,000
13
Cmc
Multi-class Classification
1,473
9
Academic
Multi-class Classification
4424
36
Ailerons
Regression
12,250
33
Tesla
Regression
6,906
8
Appendix
Table 7: Datasets used in this paper.
Model
Hyperparameter
Values
XGBoost
Learning Rate
{0.01,0.1}
Max. Depth
{1,5,9}
N Estimators
{10,000,20,000,30,000}
Subsample
{0.5,0.8,1.0}
Colsample Bytree
{0.5,0.8,1.0}
Min Child Weight
{1,3,5}
Appendix
Table 8: Hyperparameter grids of downstream baselines.
Metric
τ
Pearson
0.59
SHAP
0.52
Mutual Information
0.48
Spearman
0.65
Appendix
Table 9: Consistency of feature importance rankings (Kendall’s τ )
Downstream Models
FE Methods
Credit-g ↑
Spaceship ↑
Cmc ↑
Academic ↑
Ailerons ↓
Tesla ↓
Baseline
75.83±3.52
80.41±0.26
56.50±2.63
77.02±0.42
5.13±0.56
3.84±0.10
AutoFeat
77.17±2.78
80.16±0.69
56.05±3.04
76.65±0.30
5.12±0.52
3.86±0.10
OpenFE
76.33±2.05
80.37±0.87
55.93±2.20
77.78±0.21
5.15±0.52
3.34±0.09
CAAFE
76.00±1.87
80.60±0.27
56.05±2.08
77.40±0.37
5.13±0.54
3.85±0.03
OcTree
77.33±1.65
80.47±0.36
56.95±3.47
77.02±0.42
5.13±0.55
3.86±0.1
FEBP
75.50±1.87
80.43±0.54
56.84±1.62
77.25±0.54
5.14±0.55
3.88±0.08
Appendix
Table 10: Comparison of SymboLLM-FE with other AutoFE on real-world datasets. The best result is bold and the second best is underlined . Downstream models for prediction are CatBoost, XGBoost, MLP and TabPFN. ’ ↑ ’ means classification on Accuracy and ’ ↓ ’ means regression on RMSE.
Downstream Models
FE Methods
Credit-g ↑
Spaceship ↑
Cmc ↑
Academic ↑
Ailerons ↓
Tesla ↓
CatBoost
Baseline
80.12±3.72
89.03±0.37
74.01±2.58
87.85±0.69
4.09±0.45
3.06±0.08
AutoFeat
80.37±2.83
89.13±0.43
73.85±2.75
87.61±0.68
4.09±0.42
3.08±0.08
OpenFE
78.75±1.85
89.10±0.38
73.38±2.09
87.88±0.57
4.11±0.42
2.66±0.07
CAAFE
79.28±2.77
89.57±0.40
73.98±2.54
87.56±0.67
4.09±0.43
3.07±0.02
OcTree
79.48±2.57
89.13±0.37
74.02±2.80
87.85±0.69
4.09±0.44
3.08±0.06
FEBP
79.57±2.71
89.16±0.35
74.14±2.45
87.72±0.76
4.10±0.44
3.10±0.08
Appendix
Table 11: Comparison of SymboLLM-FE with other AutoFE on real-world datasets. The best result is bold and the second best is underlined . Downstream models for prediction are CatBoost, XGBoost, MLP and TabPFN. ’ ↑ ’ means classification on ROC-AUC and ’ ↓ ’ means regression on MAE.
Downstream Models
FE Methods
Credit-g ↑
Spaceship ↑
Cmc ↑
Academic ↑
Ailerons ↑
Tesla ↑
Baseline
83.81±2.26
80.67±0.16
53.53±3.99
69.79±1.31
85.18±0.70
94.54±0.45
AutoFeat
84.67±1.75
80.32±0.50
53.18±4.49
69.26±1.45
85.23±0.70
94.48±0.41
OpenFE
84.20±1.18
80.64±0.59
52.72±2.66
70.68±0.75
85.03±0.59
95.86±0.23
CAAFE
84.01±1.11
81.09±0.11
53.42±3.50
71.13±2.40
85.18±0.60
95.73±0.02
OcTree
85.10±0.94
80.71±0.30
54.10±4.78
69.79±1.31
85.15±0.71
94.47±0.44
FEBP
83.61±1.28
80.61±0.38
54.06±3.24
70.04±1.49
85.11±0.66
94.42±0.37
Appendix
Table 12: Comparison of SymboLLM-FE with other AutoFE on real-world datasets. The best result is bold and the second best is underlined . Downstream models for prediction are CatBoost, XGBoost, MLP and TabPFN. ’ ↑ ’ means classification on F1-Score and ’ ↑ ’ means regression on R2 .
Variants
Accuracy
Std
95%ConfidenceInterval
p-value(vs.Ours)
Significant?
Baseline
75.81
±0.45
[74.93,76.69]
<0.001
Yes
w/oSP
76.07
±0.51
[75.07,77.07]
<0.001
Yes
w/oES
75.92
±0.58
[74.78,77.06]
<0.001
Yes
w/oLLM
76.84
±0.41
[76.03,77.65]
0.0142
Yes
Ours
77.16
±0.34
[76.49,77.83]
-
-
Appendix
Table 13: Statistical analysis of ablation study results.
Dataset
SymboLLM-FE
Best Baseline
Med. P-Value
95% CI
Significant?
(Mean ± Std)
(Method & Mean)
Credit-g
77.00±1.63
CAAFE ( 78.00 )
0.2248
[−2.65,0.65]
No
Spaceship
81.27±1.31
CAAFE ( 80.99 )
0.0125
[0.08,0.48]
Yes
Cmc
57.97±0.73
FEBP ( 57.93 )
0.0312
[0.01,0.07]
Yes
Academic
77.89±0.23
FEBP ( 77.36 )
0.0001
[0.32,0.74]
Yes
Ailerons
5.02±0.46
CAAFE ( 5.03 )
0.9504
[−0.43,0.41]
No
Appendix
Table 14: Statistical significance analysis of SymboLLM-FE vs. Best Baselines. “Significant?” indicates whether the median p<0.05 . CI represents the 95% Confidence Interval of the mean difference ( SymboLLM-FE−Best Baseline ).
Dataset
Metric
Baseline
Shapley-GP Chen et al. (2017)
LAS-GP Zhang et al. (2025)
SAM-GP Bakurov et al. (2024)
Modular-MTGP Zhang et al. (2023a)
SymboLLM-FE
Credit-g
Acc ↑
77.03
77.28
69.35
77.20
77.15
77.00
Spaceship
Acc ↑
80.79
81.05
81.12
80.95
80.88
81.27
Cmc
Acc ↑
57.85
57.92
57.91
57.08
57.82
57.97
Academic
Acc ↑
77.33
77.65
77.72
77.55
77.12
77.89
Ailerons
RMSE ↓
5.10
5.06
5.04
5.07
5.08
5.02
Tesla
RMSE ↓
2.39
2.30
2.28
2.34
2.36
2.16
Appendix
Table 15: Performance comparison between SymboLLM-FE and various Genetic Programming baselines.
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
In clinical tabular prediction, classical machine learning models with feature engineering often outperform neural methods. LLMs are increasingly used to automate this process, acting as domain experts that propose diverse feature transformations to boost downstream performance. However, the feature generation process of existing LLM-based methods is agnostic to the downstream learner: the LLM receives no signal about which features currently drive predictions or where the model's representational capacity falls short, so proposals are neither targeted to promising regions of the feature space nor tailored to the learner's inductive bias. This shortcoming is amplified in healthcare data, which simultaneously exhibits class imbalance, heterogeneous feature spaces, and strict interpretability requirements. In this paper, we propose MedFeat, the first feature engineering framework inspired by the workflow of machine learning practitioners, leveraging model-awareness and feature importance signals to iteratively guide feature discovery for clinical tabular learning. We evaluate MedFeat on a broad range of challenging real-world clinical tasks and show that it statistically significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines, with an average F1 improvement of more than 10% over the baseline across models with distinct inductive biases.
We introduce an iterative framework that automates the extraction of interpretable, schema-bound categorical features from unstructured text for tabular prediction models. To navigate the feature space, a generator LLM proposes semantic definitions, a separate extractor LLM materializes the features, and a downstream tabular model evaluates their predictive performance. We optimize this search by translating explicit model errors, such as AUC ranking inversions, into natural-language feedback, steering the LLM to resolve specific predictive failures. Evaluated across three public datasets, this error-driven loop accelerates feature discovery by up to 3× compared to unguided search. Empirically, the generated features demonstrate strong multi-view complementarity, strictly outperforming any subset when combined with TF-IDF and dense embeddings. Finally, the framework guarantees instance-level interpretability: the discovered features dominate SHAP importance rankings and provide a fully transparent, semantic audit trail for every prediction.