Path to Prior-Data Fitted Relational Models via Learned Latent Multi-table Representations
Organizations: SAP Labs
Abstract
Prior-data fitted networks (PFNs) show that pretraining on large populations of synthetic tasks can enable generalization to unseen datasets with little or no downstream fine-tuning. This paradigm is effective for transformer-based tabular and relational foundation models such as RDB-PFN, but remains largely unexplored for graph-based relational models built on message passing. We pretrain the graph-based relational foundation model Griffin on large collections of synthetic relational databases and ask whether curriculum learning, which benefits transformer-based relational learners, also improves message-passing representations. Rather than fine-tune on downstream tasks, we use the pretrained encoder as a general-purpose relational representation learner and pass its latent representations to a frozen in-context predictor (\ticl{}); no component is trained on the target task. On 16 real-world relational classification tasks, evaluated over five seeds against raw-feature and untrained-encoder baselines, a purely synthetic curriculum that begins with schema-guided data and continues with schema-agnostic data gives the strongest frozen in-context performance\rev{, outperforming real-data-only pretraining and every unordered single-stage mixture of the corpora; when appended after real-data pretraining, it yields the best encoders overall}. These results provide initial evidence that PFN-style synthetic pretraining transfers to graph-based relational foundation models.
Figures & tables
| Curriculum | Com1 | Com2 | Othr1 | Othr2 | Avg | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.628 0.013 | – | 0.716 0.006 | – | 0.672 0.004 | 1 | |
| – | 0.618 0.030 | – | 0.730 0.005 | 0.655 0.018 | 2 | |
| 0.584 0.013 | 0.613 0.016 | 0.709 0.012 | 0.729 0.009 | 0.648 0.010 | 3 | |
| 0.569 0.005 | – | 0.699 0.021 | – | 0.634 0.012 | 4 | |
| – | 0.575 0.018 | – | 0.716 0.008 | 0.622 0.014 | 8 | |
| 0.508 0.029 | 0.582 0.019 | 0.704 0.008 | 0.717 0.007 | 0.614 0.010 | 9 |
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Task | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) | (10) | (11) | (12) |
| Com1: diginetica-downsample-ctr | 0.665 | – | 0.605 | 0.607 | – | 0.550 | 0.596 | – | 0.512 | 0.552 | 0.542 | 0.490 |
| Com1: rel-hm-user-churn | 0.565 | – | 0.566 | 0.578 | – | 0.587 | 0.565 | – | 0.541 | 0.565 | 0.495 | 0.542 |
| Com1: retailrocket-cvr | 0.877 | – | 0.901 | 0.858 | – | 0.945 | 0.906 | – | 0.773 | 0.838 | 0.835 | 0.495 |
| Com1: seznam-charge | 0.435 | – | 0.330 | 0.270 | – | 0.279 | 0.278 | – | 0.252 | 0.245 | 0.351 | 0.226 |
| Com1: seznam-prepay | 0.597 | – | 0.518 | 0.532 | – | 0.534 | 0.510 | – | 0.462 | 0.544 | 0.503 | 0.282 |
| Com2: amazon-churn | – | 0.640 | 0.623 | – | 0.639 | – | 0.674 | 0.613 | 0.629 | 0.657 | 0.565 | 0.500 |
| Curriculum | Com1 Othr1 (10 tasks) | Com2 Othr2 (6 tasks) |
|---|---|---|
| 0.672 0.004 | – | |
| – | 0.655 0.018 | |
| 0.646 0.010 | 0.652 0.010 | |
| 0.634 0.012 | – | |
| – | 0.622 0.014 | |
| 0.606 0.011 | 0.627 0.013 |
| Conclusion | Comparison | SE | Tasks | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pretraining helps (RQ1) | vs. RandGriffin | 0.058 | 0.005 | 12.4 | all 16 |
| vs. RandGriffin | 0.015 | 0.005 | 3.2 | all 16 | |
| RandGriffin vs. RawFeat | 0.051 | 0.004 | 13.3 | all 16 | |
| More data helps (RQ5) | vs. | 0.033 | 0.010 | 3.2 | Com2 Othr2 |
| vs. | 0.038 | 0.006 | 6.7 | Com1 Othr1 | |
| Synthetic vs. real alone (RQ2) | vs. | 0.012 | 0.007 | 1.7 | Com1 Othr1 |
| B | C | D | SALT ( sg ) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Databases | 5,623 | 1,408 | 2,112 | 500 |
| Tables per DB (min/max/avg) | 2 / 4 / 3.0 | 2 / 4 / 3.0 | 5 / 8 / 6.5 | 4 / 4 / 4 |
| Total rows per DB (min–max) | 150–600 | 50–400 | 50–400 | 500–5,000 |
| Columns per table (min/max/avg) | 2 / 13 / 7 | 4 / 20 / 10 | 4 / 22 / 7 | 2 / 13 / 7 |
| Tasks per DB | 6 (binary) | 6 (binary) | 6 (binary) | 7 (multi-class) |
| Encoder / sampling | Optimization / evaluation | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Message-passing layers | 4 | Batch size | 256 |
| Hidden dim. | 512 | Learning rate / weight decay | / |
| Subgraph hops | 2 | Max / min steps | 100k / 5k |
| Fanout / few-shot fanout | 20 / 3 | Eval. interval / patience | 250 / 20–30 |
| Reversed FK edges | yes | Binarization (synth. / real) | / |
| Gating | no | TabICL (v2) ensemble / context | 8 / |
Relational Foundation Models
Relational foundation models learn reusable representations and predictors for tasks spanning linked tables and databases.
See all 17 papers