Relatron: Automating Relational Machine Learning over Relational Databases

Predictive modeling over relational databases (RDBs) powers applications in various domains, yet remains challenging due to the need to capture both cross-table dependencies and complex feature interactions. Recent Relational Deep Learning (RDL) methods automate feature engineering via message passing, while classical approaches like Deep Feature Synthesis (DFS) rely on predefined non-parametric aggregators. Despite promising performance gains, the comparative advantages of RDL over DFS and the design principles for selecting effective architectures remain poorly understood. We present a comprehensive study that unifies RDL and DFS in a shared design space and conducts large-scale architecture-centric searches across diverse RDB tasks. Our analysis yields three key findings: (1) RDL does not consistently outperform DFS, with performance being highly task-dependent; (2) no single architecture dominates across tasks, underscoring the need for task-aware model selection; and (3) validation accuracy is an unreliable guide for architecture choice. This search yields a curated model performance bank that links model architecture configurations to their performance; leveraging this bank, we analyze the drivers of the RDL–DFS performance gap and introduce two task signals—RDB task homophily and an affinity embedding that captures path, feature, and temporal structure—whose correlation with the gap enables principled routing. Guided by these signals, we propose Relatron, a task embedding-based meta-selector that first chooses between RDL and DFS and then prunes the within-family search to deliver strong performance. Lightweight loss-landscape metrics further guard against brittle checkpoints by preferring flatter optima. In experiments, Relatron resolves the “**more tuning, worse performance**” effect and, in joint hyperparameter–architecture optimization, achieves up to 18.5\% improvement over strong baselines with $10\times$ lower computational cost than Fisher information–based alternatives.