Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Is Long Context All You Need? Leveraging LLM's Extended Context for NL2SQL

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2501.12372 v6 pith:5CPAAGKL submitted 2025-01-21 cs.DB cs.AI

classification cs.DBcs.AI
keywords contextcontextualextendedinformationnl2sqllanguagelongambiguous
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities across a range of natural language processing tasks. In particular, improvements in reasoning abilities and the expansion of context windows have opened new avenues for leveraging these powerful models. NL2SQL is challenging in that the natural language question is inherently ambiguous, while the SQL generation requires a precise understanding of complex data schema and semantics. One approach to this semantic ambiguous problem is to provide more and sufficient contextual information. In this work, we explore the performance and the latency trade-offs of the extended context window (a.k.a., long context) offered by Google's state-of-the-art LLM (\textit{gemini-1.5-pro}). We study the impact of various contextual information, including column example values, question and SQL query pairs, user-provided hints, SQL documentation, and schema. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work to study how the extended context window and extra contextual information can help NL2SQL generation with respect to both accuracy and latency cost. We show that long context LLMs are robust and do not get lost in the extended contextual information. Additionally, our long-context NL2SQL pipeline based on Google's \textit{gemini-pro-1.5} achieve strong performances on various benchmark datasets without finetuning and expensive self-consistency based techniques.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. VineLM: Trie-Based Fine-Grained Control for Agentic Workflows

    cs.DC 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    VineLM uses an annotated execution trie plus cascade profiling and online re-rooting to select models per stage invocation in agentic workflows, improving the cost-latency-accuracy frontier by up to 18% accuracy at fi...

  2. How Many Instructions Can LLMs Follow at Once?

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    IFScale measures instruction-following at densities from 10 to 500 constraints and finds that even top frontier models satisfy only about two-thirds of 500 simultaneous keyword instructions.

Pith tools