When Do LLMs Help with Feature Selection? A Systematic Empirical Study

arXiv:2610.28556v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can leverage semantic feature names alongside summary statistics for tabular feature selection, yet it remains unclear when such information improves subset selection relative to established statistical methods. We investigate this question within an 18-dataset framework comprising 10 datasets for Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) training, 2 for checkpoint validation, and 6 held-out evaluation datasets. We compare five classical baselines, frozen Qwen2.5-7B and Llama-3.3-70B selectors, and two GRPO-adapted Qwen2.5-7B models, reporting classification ROC-AUC and regression R^2 separately and using dataset-wise ranks for cross-task comparison. Across five seeded evaluation partitions, classical selectors generally achieve higher predictive performance than the tested 7B LLM/RL selectors, including under a pre-specified ~33% feature budget with strict train-only classical fitting, while the 7B selectors retain compact subsets. A cardinality-matched semantic sensitivity experiment shows that, for Zero-shot Qwen-7B, informative feature names improve regression performance over anonymized and shuffled alternatives (+0.1964 and +0.1606 mean R^2), whereas aggregate classification differences are smaller (+0.0159 and +0.0084 ROC-AUC) and dataset-dependent. These results characterize when semantic information benefits LLM-based feature selection and show that classical selectors remain strong baselines for predictive tabular feature selection.

Title:When Do LLMs Help with Feature Selection? A Systematic Empirical Study

Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) can leverage semantic feature names alongside summary statistics for tabular feature selection, yet it remains unclear when such information improves subset selection relative to established statistical methods. We investigate this question within an 18-dataset framework comprising 10 datasets for Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) training, 2 for checkpoint validation, and 6 held-out evaluation datasets. We compare five classical baselines, frozen Qwen2.5-7B and Llama-3.3-70B selectors, and two GRPO-adapted Qwen2.5-7B models, reporting classification ROC-AUC and regression R^2 separately and using dataset-wise ranks for cross-task comparison. Across five seeded evaluation partitions, classical selectors generally achieve higher predictive performance than the tested 7B LLM/RL selectors, including under a pre-specified ~33% feature budget with strict train-only classical fitting, while the 7B selectors retain compact subsets. A cardinality-matched semantic sensitivity experiment shows that, for Zero-shot Qwen-7B, informative feature names improve regression performance over anonymized and shuffled alternatives (+0.1964 and +0.1606 mean R^2), whereas aggregate classification differences are smaller (+0.0159 and +0.0084 ROC-AUC) and dataset-dependent. These results characterize when semantic information benefits LLM-based feature selection and show that classical selectors remain strong baselines for predictive tabular feature selection.

Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2610.28556 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2610.28556v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.28556 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

analiza aiqbench

When Do LLMs Help with Feature Selection? A Systematic Empirical Study

Subiecte conexe