Reliable and Cost-Effective Exploratory Data Analysis via Graph-Guided RAG
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automating Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA) is critical for accelerating the workflow of data scientists. While Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a promising solution, current LLM-only approaches often exhibit limited accuracy and code reliability on less-studied or private datasets. Moreover, their effectiveness significantly diminishes with open-source LLMs compared to proprietary ones, limiting their usability in enterprises that prefer local models for privacy and cost. To address these limitations, we introduce RAGvis, a novel two-stage Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) framework. RAGvis first builds upon and enriches a base knowledge graph of EDA notebooks with structured EDA operation semantics. These semantics are extracted by an LLM guided by our empirically-developed EDA operations taxonomy. Subsequently, during online generation for new datasets, RAGvis retrieves relevant operations, aligns them to the dataset's structure, refines them using LLM reasoning, and employs a self-correcting agent to generate executable Python code. Experiments on two benchmarks demonstrate that RAGvis significantly improves code executability (pass rate) and semantic accuracy in generated operations. This enhanced performance is achieved with substantially lower token usage compared to LLM-only baselines. Notably, our approach enables smaller, open-source LLMs to match the performance of proprietary models, presenting a reliable and cost-effective pathway for automated EDA code generation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".