Demonstrating CatDB: LLM-based Generation of Data-centric ML Pipelines
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AutoML systems automate finding Machine Learning (ML) pipelines but struggle to scale with large datasets due to time-consuming data analysis and complex hyper-parameter search spaces. LLMs (Large Language Models) offer flexibility and scalability for code generation with strong generalization across coding tasks. However, generating data-centric ML pipeline scripts is more challenging, as it requires complex reasoning to align the needs of a dataset with coding tasks, such as data cleaning or feature transformation. Thus, LLMs struggle to generate effective and efficient ML pipelines. This demo paper presents CatDB, which overcomes these challenges by dynamically generating dataset-specific instructions to guide LLMs in generating effective pipelines. CatDB profiles datasets to extract metadata, including refined data catalog information and statistics, and then uses this metadata to break down pipeline generation into instructions of tasks such as data cleaning, transformation, and model training, tailored to specifics of the dataset at hand. This process enables CatDB to leverage LLM coding capabilities more effectively. Our evaluation shows CatDB outperforms existing LLM-based and AutoML systems with up to orders of magnitude faster runtime on large datasets. The audience will experience CatDB's capabilities with commercial and open-source LLMs, using a variety of real datasets, as shown in our demo video and Colab notebook.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it