Can Models Help Us Create Better Models? Evaluating LLMs as Data Scientists

We present a benchmark for large language models designed to tackle one of the most knowledge-intensive tasks in data science: writing feature engineering code, which requires domain knowledge in addition to a deep understanding of the underlying problem and data structure. The model is provided with a dataset description in a prompt and asked to generate code transforming it. The evaluation score is derived from the improvement achieved by an XGBoost model fit on the modified dataset compared to the original data. By an extensive evaluation of state-of-the-art models and comparison to well-established benchmarks, we demonstrate that the FeatEng of our proposal can cheaply and efficiently assess the broad capabilities of LLMs, in contrast to the existing methods. The reference implementation is available at https://github.com/FeatEng/FeatEng. The rapid evolution of LLMs has significantly expanded their capabilities in processing and generating human-like text. As these models become increasingly sophisticated, defining what constitutes a meaningful benchmark is becoming harder and harder, as it is much easier to distinguish between bad and good models than between good and better. Today, the limitations of LLMs are predominantly assessed using benchmarks focused on language understanding, world knowledge, code generation, or mathematical reasoning in separation. This setup, however, overlooks some critical capabilities that can be measured in scenarios requiring inregration of skills and verification of their instrumental value in complex, real-world problems. We argue that well-designed LLM benchmarks should embody the following qualities, each reflecting a fundamental aspect of problem-solving ability: 1. Practical Usability. We demand that tasks are grounded in real-world problems where solutions have high functional value. This ensures that improvements in the observed performance translates into tangible benefits, aligning with the pragmatist view on the instrumental value of knowledge and truth, meaning that the validity of an idea depends on its practical utility in achieving desired outcomes (James, 1907). We would value LLM's knowledge for its role in enabling reasoning, decision-making, and problem-solving. The benchmark should be designed to evaluate not only the breadth of a model's knowledge base but also, more importantly, its capacity to dynamically and effectively apply this knowledge within various functional contexts, similarly to how functionalism frames it (Block, 1980). We opt for assessing models concerning their ability to seamlessly combine various competencies, in contrast to measuring them in separation.