This benchmark probes an LLM's ability to perform high-arity relational reasoning and multi-constraint integration across scientific domains. It isolates the difficulty of jointly binding independent entities to satisfy a relation, independent of prompt length or in-context learning. Use when the user wants to benchmark on REL, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports accuracy.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill rel-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Rel Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-rel-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: rel-eval
description: This benchmark probes an LLM's ability to perform high-arity relational reasoning and multi-constraint integration across scientific domains. It isolates the difficulty of jointly binding independent entities to satisfy a relation, independent of prompt length or in-context learning. Use when the user wants to benchmark on REL, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports accuracy.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2604.12176
bibtex_key: fesser2026rel
confidence: high
---
# rel-eval
> Evaluating Relational Reasoning in LLMs with REL — Fesser et al. (2026) (arXiv:2604.12176, 2026)
## What this evaluates
This benchmark probes an LLM's ability to perform high-arity relational reasoning and multi-constraint integration across scientific domains. It isolates the difficulty of jointly binding independent entities to satisfy a relation, independent of prompt length or in-context learning.
## Datasets
- **REL** — total ?; splits: test (-1); repo https://github.com/ada-f/relational_reasoning
## Metrics
- `accuracy` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- Fraction of correctly answered multiple-choice questions. For REL-A, models choose 1 of 8 options, yielding a trivial accuracy of 12.5%.
- `exact match` — range: [0, 1]
- All-or-nothing scoring where the model's prediction must exactly match the ground-truth set of taxa (REL-B) or canonical SMILES string(s) (REL-C).
- `task completion rate` — range: [0, 1]
- Proportion of instances where the model successfully completes the task requirements, used as a proxy for accuracy in REL-B and REL-C.
- `recall` — range: [0, 1]
- TP / (TP + FN), measuring the fraction of true positive entities (e.g., missing isomers) correctly identified by the model.
- `precision` — range: [0, 1]
- TP / (TP + FP), measuring the fraction of predicted entities that are actually correct.
- `F1` — range: [0, 1]
- Harmonic mean of precision and recall: 2 * (precision * recall) / (precision + recall).
## Input / output format
**Input**: REL-A: RPMs formatted as row arrays separated by pipes, with a '?' marking the missing value, plus 8 answer choices. REL-B: Biological sequences with motifs, asking to detect homoplasy and identify taxa. REL-C: Canonicalized SMILES strings of molecules, asking to identify isomers or substructures.
**Output**: REL-A: Selection of one of the 8 provided answer choices. REL-B: Boolean flag for homoplasy presence plus an exact set of homoplastic taxa names. REL-C: Canonical SMILES string(s) for the predicted molecule(s).
## Scoring recipe
```python
def score(predictions, gold, task):
if task == 'REL-A':
return 1.0 if predictions == gold else 0.0
elif task in ['REL-B', 'REL-C']:
return 1.0 if predictions == gold else 0.0
# For REL-C3 recall/precision/F1:
tp = len(set(predictions) & set(gold))
fn = len(set(gold) - set(predictions))
fp = len(set(predictions) - set(gold))
prec = tp / (tp + fp) if (tp + fp) > 0 else 0.0
rec = tp / (tp + fn) if (tp + fn) > 0 else 0.0
f1 = 2 * prec * rec / (prec + rec) if (prec + rec) > 0 else 0.0
return prec, rec, f1
```
## Common pitfalls
- Confusing Relational Complexity (RC) with input size or prompt length; RC specifically measures the minimum number of independent entities that must be jointly bound, not the number of tokens or rows.
- For REL-B, failing to exactly match the set of homoplastic taxa; partial credit is not given, and all other outcomes are counted as incorrect.
- For REL-C, not canonicalizing predicted SMILES strings before comparison, which would incorrectly penalize chemically equivalent representations.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> Model responses are evaluated by canonicalizing both predicted and ground-truth SMILES strings and comparing the canonical forms for exact match, ensuring that chemically equivalent SMILES representations are treated as correct.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{fesser2026rel,
title={Evaluating Relational Reasoning in LLMs with REL},
author={Fesser et al. (2026)},
year={2026},
note={arXiv:2604.12176}
}
```
- arXiv: 2604.12176
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!