How Usable is Automated Feature Engineering for Tabular Data?

Bastian Schäfer, Lennart Purucker, Maciej Janowski, Frank Hutter
8/19/2025
cs.LG

No confident code implementation found for this paper. 1 possible match can be shown below.

Abstract

Tabular data, consisting of rows and columns, is omnipresent across various machine learning applications. Each column represents a feature, and features can be combined or transformed to create new, more informative features. Such feature engineering is essential to achieve peak performance in machine learning. Since manual feature engineering is expensive and time-consuming, a substantial effort has been put into automating it. Yet, existing automated feature engineering (AutoFE) methods have never been investigated regarding their usability for practitioners. Thus, we investigated 53 AutoFE methods. We found that these methods are, in general, hard to use, lack documentation, and have no active communities. Furthermore, no method allows users to set time and memory constraints, which we see as a necessity for usable automation. Our survey highlights the need for future work on usable, well-engineered AutoFE methods.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. 1 weaker match is hidden by default — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{schfer2025usable,
  title  = {How Usable is Automated Feature Engineering for Tabular Data?},
  author = {Bastian Schäfer and Lennart Purucker and Maciej Janowski and Frank Hutter},
  year   = {2025},
  eprint = {2508.13932},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.13932v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2508.13932.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2508.13932)

Discussion