Evolving LLM-Generated Features for Interpretable Classification

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 $3\times$ 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.

Interpretable text representations should expose coordinates that are not only predictive, but also meaningful enough for independent auditors to apply. Existing discriminative representations often use anonymous embedding directions, while concept-bottleneck and LLM-assisted methods attach natural-language names to features without ensuring that those definitions are reproducible or distinct from the target label. We propose an operational criterion for interpretable discriminative text representations: each coordinate should satisfy conceptual clarity, measured by chance-adjusted agreement between independent annotators applying the feature definition, and label disentanglement, meaning the feature should not merely paraphrase the prediction target. We instantiate this criterion in LLM-assisted Feature Discovery (LFD), an iterative method that proposes lexical and semantic features from contrastive outcome-opposed text pairs, screens candidates using cross-LLM Cohen's $κ$, and selects features by residual held-out predictive gain. A stylized analysis connects the $κ$ screen to a per-feature annotation-noise bound, formalizing agreement as a reliability check. Across ten text-classification tasks spanning seven corpora, LFD matches the predictive performance of a strong text bottleneck baseline while producing substantially clearer and less label-entangled features. Human audits with 232 raters show that LFD features achieve higher human--human and human--LLM agreement than baseline concepts, and raters consistently judge them as less label-leaking. These results suggest that agreement-tested, label-disentangled coordinates provide a practical auditability standard for interpretable text classification.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in translating model-based explanations into human-readable narratives. This study evaluates whether LLMs can serve as post-hoc explainability interfaces for credit risk models, focusing on their ability to preserve feature-importance rankings and generate autonomous explanations. Using a LendingClub dataset, we compare LLM outputs with SHAP and coefficient-based attributions on three major LLMs, including GPT-4-turbo, Claude-Sonnet-4.5, and Gemini-2.5-Flash. Results indicate that LLMs reliably reproduce reference rankings under controlled prompts but show limited alignment when generating explanations autonomously. These findings suggest that LLMs are best deployed as narrative interfaces rather than substitutes for formal attribution methods in credit risk governance.