Relational databases (RDBs) remain the primary infrastructure for storing and managing structured data across enterprise and scientific domains. Natural-language (NL) interfaces to RDBs aim to let users ask questions without writing SQL, but real user needs go beyond SQL-style lookup: some questions require reasoning over the observable database state, while others require predictive inference from historical relational records under temporal constraints. Existing benchmarks address these goals in isolation. To address this gap, we introduce RDL-Bench, a benchmark for task-aware question answering (QA) over real RDBs. RDL-Bench organizes diverse user questions into reasoning-oriented questions, whose answers are determined by the current database state, and prediction-oriented questions, whose answers depend on future outcomes under temporal constraints. Each instance contains an NL question, task metadata, schema information, temporal context, either executable evidence or target-construction logic, and denotation-level ground truth. RDL-Bench supports two evaluation settings: native solvers under their intended capabilities, and task-aware modular systems where a router dispatches each question to an appropriate execution module.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Overview of RDL-Bench in the relational QA landscape. RDL-Bench places current-state reasoning and future-oriented prediction under a shared NL interface and evaluates both native solvers and task-aware modular systems. Each instance contains six components: NL question, task metadata, schema information, evidence or target-construction logic, temporal context, and denotation-level ground truth.
TABLE II: Statistics of the seven domains in RDL-Bench. Diversity is reflected in the varying number of tables, relational depth, and the presence of temporal event streams.
Fig. 2: Example of a predictive instance.
Fig. 5: Dataset statistics of RDL-Bench. (a) Instance distribution by domain and query type. (b) Track distribution. (c) Reasoning sub-type breakdown. (d) Complexity distribution.
Family
Method
Reasoning
Predictive
Input
Role
LLM-based
LLM-Schema
✓
–
Question, schema
Schema-only reasoning solver
LLM-2Hop
✓
–
Question, schema, 2-hop subgraph
Context-augmented reasoning solver
LLM-only
–
✓
Schema, profiling statistics
Data-blind predictive reference
LLM-GraphCtx
–
✓
Schema, time-filtered 2-hop subgraph
Graph-context predictive reference
Text-to-SQL
DIN-SQL [ 28 ]
✓
–
Question, schema
Prompting-based SQL parser
C3 [ 8 ]
✓
–
Question, schema
Zero-shot SQL parser
TABLE III: Baseline methods in RDL-Bench.
Fig. 6: Prompt template for LLM-Schema. This baseline evaluates schema-only reasoning over the observable database state.
Fig. 7: Prompt template for LLM-2Hop. This baseline augments schema-only reasoning with local relational context.
Family
Method
Olist
Financial
NCAA
Hepatitis
Airline
Stats
Dallas
Avg.
LLM-based
Claude-Schema
0.65
0.45
0.49
0.50
0.47
0.42
0.44
0.49
Claude-2Hop
0.64
0.47
0.44
0.41
0.48
0.43
0.43
0.47
Qwen32B-Schema
0.57
0.48
0.51
0.41
0.46
0.42
0.43
0.47
Qwen32B-2Hop
0.58
0.40
0.46
0.41
0.36
0.45
0.31
0.42
Llama8B-Schema
0.38
0.32
0.31
0.37
0.35
0.34
0.21
0.33
Llama8B-2Hop
0.37
0.35
0.48
0.41
0.36
0.34
0.21
0.36
TABLE IV: Native Reasoning Track results by domain. Each domain score averages per-instance scores using normalized EM for Scalar, Set-F1 for Set, Accuracy for Boolean, and NDCG@5 for Ranking answers. All scores are in [0,1] , higher is better. The final column reports the unweighted mean over the seven domains.
Scalar
Set
Boolean
Ranking
Family
Method
EM ↑
nMAE ↓
F1 ↑
EM ↑
Acc ↑
AUROC ↑
NDCG@5 ↑
ρ↑
LLM-based
Claude-Schema
0.76
0.51
0.62
0.41
0.83
–
0.01
0.01
Claude-2Hop
0.81
0.43
0.52
0.35
0.80
–
0.05
0.04
Qwen32B-Schema
0.76
0.10
0.32
0.19
0.66
–
0.03
0.02
Qwen32B-2Hop
0.76
0.94
0.32
0.20
0.65
–
0.05
0.04
Llama8B-Schema
0.61
1.18
0.26
0.14
0.50
–
0.03
0.02
TABLE V: Reasoning Track performance by answer type. Primary and secondary metrics are reported for each answer type. All metrics except nMAE are in [0,1] , higher is better. AUROC is not applicable (–) for LLM-based methods as they output discrete Yes/No without confidence scores.
Family
Method
Olist
Financial
NCAA
Airline
Stats
Dallas
Macro Avg.
LLM-based
Claude-only
0.88
0.72
0.61
0.52
0.91
0.63
0.71
Qwen32B-only
0.66
0.64
0.51
0.54
0.59
0.57
0.59
Llama8B-only
0.74
0.53
0.50
0.44
0.60
0.58
0.57
Claude-GraphCtx
0.89
0.74
0.65
0.55
0.92
0.67
0.74
Qwen32B-GraphCtx
0.68
0.66
0.55
0.56
0.61
0.61
0.61
Llama8B-GraphCtx
0.75
0.55
0.53
0.46
0.61
0.62
0.59
TABLE VI: Native Predictive Track classification results by domain. Each cell reports Accuracy over Boolean Predictive tasks instances. The final column reports the unweighted macro average over the six temporal domains. Higher is better.
Family
Method
Olist
Financial
NCAA
Airline
Stats
Dallas
Macro Avg.
LLM-based
Claude-only
0.99
0.97
11.07
0.66
1.43
1.11
2.70
Qwen32B-only
1.08
3.35
0.47
1.05
1.61
1.15
1.45
Llama8B-only
0.94
1.00
0.56
50.04
1.88
0.94
9.23
Claude-GraphCtx
0.97
0.94
10.21
0.69
1.38
1.05
2.54
Qwen32B-GraphCtx
1.05
3.10
0.48
1.02
1.55
1.10
1.38
Llama8B-GraphCtx
0.92
0.98
0.54
48.73
1.82
0.91
8.98
TABLE VII: Native Predictive Track regression results by domain. Each cell reports nMAE over Scalar Predictive Track instances instantiated as entity-level regression tasks. The final column reports the unweighted macro average over the six temporal domains. Lower is better.
Generator
Claude-Schema
Qwen32B-Schema
Claude
0.57
0.54
Qwen
0.58
0.51
TABLE VIII: Cross-generator Reasoning evaluation on Olist and NCAA. Rows denote question generators and columns denote solvers. Higher scores are better.
Fig. 8: Prompt template for LLM-Router. This setting evaluates whether an LLM can recover task route metadata from a natural-language question.
Router
Track Acc.
QType F1
Ans. Acc.
Table F1
Module Acc.
Random-Router
0.49
0.46
0.49
0.00
0.49
Llama8B-Router
0.29
0.25
0.29
0.78
0.29
Qwen32B-Router
0.95
0.93
0.95
0.91
0.95
Claude-Router
0.97
0.96
0.97
0.94
0.97
Oracle-Router
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
TABLE IX: Routing diagnosis results on all test instances. Higher is better.
System
Reasoning ↑
Bool. Acc ↑
Scalar nMAE ↓
Track Acc. ↑
Random-Router
0.20
0.43
1.06
0.49
Llama8B-Router
0.03
0.43
1.91
0.29
Qwen32B-Router
0.44
0.72
1.10
0.95
Claude-Router
0.44
0.84
0.98
0.97
Oracle-Router
0.44
0.87
0.91
1.00
TABLE X: End-to-end modular QA results with fixed execution modules.
Fig. 9: Performance trends across difficulty levels. Panel (a) reports Reasoning Track denotation scores, where higher is better. Panel (b) reports Predictive Classification AUROC, where higher is better. Panel (c) reports Predictive Regression nMAE, where lower is better.
Fig. 10: Reasoning Track performance by query type.
Fig. 11: Predictive Track performance (Accuracy) by method.
Family
Method
Avg. Runtime
Predictive
XGBoost
28.3s
LightGBM
25.2s
GraphSAGE
35.0s
RelGNN
34.4s
RelGT
34.8s
StructOpt-RDL
29.1s
TABLE XI: Average runtime of representative solvers. Predictive solvers are reported in seconds over the six temporal domains. LLM-based routing and reasoning pipelines are reported in minutes over seven domains. Lower is better.
Relational databases (RDBs) are the primary data infrastructure in many enterprises, yet recent deep learning methods designed for RDBs have been evaluated under inconsistent experimental protocols, making fair comparison difficult. We present one of the first systematic benchmarking studies of recently released deep learning methods for RDBs, evaluating them across five relational databases, with one classification and one regression task for each. We refactor all deep RDB models to allow the full range of experimental procedures to be applied consistently across all methods. Our findings indicate that the relational transformer (RT) approach delivers the strongest overall performance on both classification and regression tasks compared to the state-of-the-art graph-based modeling and learning of RDBs. Even for single-table learning tasks, deep learning methods designed for RDBs outperform the leading tabular foundation model, TabPFN 2.5. Extending learning from a single table (hop = 0) to multiple tables (hop = 1, 2) by connecting neighboring tables in relational databases enhances performance, but the additional benefit from higher hops diminishes as computational overhead grows. Deep RDB learning methods have the potential to challenge state-of-the-art tabular foundation models, especially on large-scale enterprise data. The source code for this benchmarking study is publicly available.
Kazi F. Akhter, Bharath Ajendla, Manar D. Samad
Department of Computer Science Tennessee State University Nashville, TN, USA · SAP AI Research and Innovation SAP Labs Palo Alto, CA, USA
Relational Deep Learning (RDL) has become a powerful paradigm for learning from multi-tabular data. However, manually defining RDL prediction tasks is a laborious process that frequently results in data leakage. To address this issue, we introduce Relational Task Generation Language (RTGL) - an open-source declarative language that streamlines RDL task formulation by abstracting away low-level SQL details. We showcase RTGL by reconstructing existing RDL benchmark tasks and uncovering their inconsistencies stemming from manually crafted SQL definitions of RDL prediction targets, thereby underscoring the value of a dedicated declarative language. In addition, we demonstrate the practical utility of RTGL by designing various new tasks with diverse forms and target types. Our experiments confirm the robustness and usability of RTGL, as well as its seamless integration with the existing RDL frameworks, making it widely accessible to the community.
Oleksii Kolesnichenko, Jakub Peleška, Gustav Šír
Czech Technical University in Prague, Karlovo náměstí 13, Prague, 121 35, Czechia
Relational Databases (RDBs) are the backbone of modern business, yet they lack foundation models comparable to those in text or vision. A key obstacle is that high-quality RDBs are private, scarce, and structurally heterogeneous, making internet-scale pre-training infeasible. To overcome this data scarcity, we introduce RDB-PFN, the first relational foundation model trained purely via synthetic data. Inspired by Prior-Data Fitted Networks (PFNs), where synthetic data generated from Structural Causal Models (SCMs) enables reasoning on single tables, we design a Relational Prior Generator to create an infinite stream of diverse RDBs from scratch. Pre-training on over 2 million synthetic single-table and relational tasks, RDB-PFN learns to adapt to any new database instantly via genuine in-context learning. Experiments show that RDB-PFN achieves strong few-shot performance on 19 real-world relational prediction tasks, outperforming state-of-the-art tabular foundation models evaluated on the same DFS-linearized inputs, while using a lightweight architecture and fast inference. The code is available at https://github.com/MuLabPKU/RDBPFN.
Yanbo Wang, Jiaxuan You, Chuan Shi +1
Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Peking University · University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign · Institute of Computing Technology, Beijing University of Post and Telecommunication +1