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
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.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
VineLM: Trie-Based Fine-Grained Control for Agentic Workflows
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...
-
How Many Instructions Can LLMs Follow at Once?
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.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.