Benchmark Almanac

RelBench

Only in system cards

Agents build models for prediction tasks over multi-table relational databases, graded on held-out targets.

Built as a deep learning benchmark. xAI reports an aggregate agent score labeled accuracy. RelBench v2 (January 2026) added 4 databases and 36 tasks, and v3 (August 2026) moved data to Hugging Face. Original task numbers stay comparable.

Released
July 2024
Kind
Machine learning engineering
Level
Expert
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Agent task
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
Grok 4.5 #46 on the capability index
Last in a system card
July 2026
Last model added
July 2026

In the authors’ words

We present RelBench, a public benchmark for solving predictive tasks over relational databases with graph neural networks. RelBench provides databases and tasks spanning diverse domains and scales, and is intended to be a foundational infrastructure for future research. We use RelBench to conduct the first comprehensive study of Relational Deep Learning (RDL) (Fey et al., 2024), which combines graph neural network predictive models with (deep) tabular models that extract initial entity-level representations from raw tables. End-to-end learned RDL models fully exploit the predictive signal encoded in primary-foreign key links, marking a significant shift away from the dominant paradigm of manual feature engineering combined with tabular models. To thoroughly evaluate RDL against this prior gold-standard, we conduct an in-depth user study where an experienced data scientist manually engineers features for each task. In this study, RDL learns better models whilst reducing human work needed by more than an order of magnitude. This demonstrates the power of deep learning for solving predictive tasks over relational databases, opening up many new research opportunities enabled by RelBench.

Abstract of RelBench: A Benchmark for Deep Learning on Relational Databases (arXiv:2407.20060, CC0)
1
Model scored in lab cards
1
System card reports it, from 1 lab

Grok 4.5 leads with 38.4%

Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.

  1. 1 Grok 4.5 38.4%

Source: Labs’ model cards

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Grok 4.5 38.4% Jul 2026 Lab model card

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

Reported by the lab in its model card
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Near the ceiling (85%) Grok 4.5 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Near the ceiling (85%) Grok 4.5

Source: Labs’ model cards

Labs report it only in system cards

We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark. Some system cards do, below.

One system card reports it

Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
Jul 14, 2026 Grok 4.5 model card 38.4 RelBench, aggregate score labeled accuracy, high (5.2) AI R&D risk

More in AI research

All 104 in AI research
  • PaperBench In use Agent replicates ICML 2024 papers from scratch. LLM judge grades against author-written hierarchical rubrics. Qwen 3.8 Max 93%
  • MLS-Bench In use Agent must invent one algorithmic change in an ML research scaffold whose gain transfers across settings. Scored relative to human baselines. Claude Fable 5.1 50.3%
  • PostTrainBench 1.2 In use CLI agent gets a base model, one H100 and a time budget to post-train it for a target benchmark. Scored on normalized gain. Claude Fable 5.1 44.6%
  • MLE-bench In use Kaggle-style ML engineering competitions. Agent trains models and is scored against competition leaderboards. GPT-6 Astra 93.8%
  • KernelBench In use Replace PyTorch operators with faster custom GPU kernels. Scored on correctness and speedup. MiniMax-M3 28.8%
  • PMPP-Hard In use Agents write GPU kernels for 69 tasks that must be correct, and on 48 of them also run within 1.25 times the reference time. The score is the area under the solved-tasks curve over a 10-hour budget, out of 690 task-hours. Inkling 2 Small 494.3