I can appreciate surpassing foundation models in RelBench, but I’ve found that peers in our space strongly prefer RelArena because it reruns submitted implementations under shared evaluation protocols. IMHO Prior Labs does a great job of providing a controlled and transparent environment.
In RelBench, hypothetically, a solution could mine for days, weeks, or months for specialized, handcrafted features. I’d would be extremely interested in how the cumulative cost of that exhaustive search scales to new, enterprise-scale databases.
As per the leaderboards you reference: "The RelBench leaderboard uses self-reported prediction files, so we rely on the authors to submit in good faith ... For a more controlled and transparent evaluation on RelBench tasks, please see RelArena".
I would love to see Kapso’s performance in a controlled environment like RelArena, to understand how this approach compares with Relflow and other relational learning methods in an apples-to-apples comparison!
To test it further in live environment (additional to enterprise environment of our customers), we participated with Kapso in AI olympiad this year, and surpassed all human participants, and became top 3 AI systems: https://ioai-official.org/ai-models-track/ioai%c2%b2-2026-re.... In IOAI2, six expert-designed tasks, a single-GPU, and 2 hours budget were given to autonomous agents for deliver solutions without any human intervention.
I think Kapso could be used as an _incredible_ resource to AB test internal architectural changes to complex models with many moving parts ...
I think if a task is iterative and needs experimentation to find the optimal solution, then Kapso can be used there (hopefully helps)!
Should we integrate experimental learnings by evolving the agent harness, or do RL-based post-training, and leave it in LLM's weights? Or Both?