FeatAug: Automatic Feature Augmentation From One-to-Many Relationship Tables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feature augmentation from one-to-many relationship tables is a critical but challenging problem in ML model development. To augment good features, data scientists need to come up with SQL queries manually, which is time-consuming. Featuretools [1] is a widely used tool by the data science community to automatically augment the training data by extracting new features from relevant tables. It represents each feature as a group-by aggregation SQL query on relevant tables and can automatically generate these SQL queries. However, it does not include predicates in these queries, which significantly limits its application in many real-world scenarios. To overcome this limitation, we propose FEATAuG, a new feature augmentation framework that automatically extracts predicate-aware SQL queries from one-to-many relationship tables. This extension is not trivial because considering predicates will exponentially increase the number of candidate queries. As a result, the original Featuretools framework, which materializes all candidate queries, will not work and needs to be redesigned. We formally define the problem and model it as a hyperparameter optimization problem. We discuss how the Bayesian Optimization can be applied here and propose a novel warm-up strategy to optimize it. To make our algorithm more practical, we also study how to identify promising attribute combinations for predicates. We show that how the beam search idea can partially solve the problem and propose several techniques to further optimize it. Our experiments on four real-world datasets demonstrate that FeatAug extracts more effective features compared to Featuretools and other baselines. The code is open-sourced at https://github.com/sfu-db/FeatAug.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".