Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

This paper argues that consistency among sampled SQL queries is the strongest black-box confidence signal for text-to-SQL without gold answers, while SQL-syntax-aware reading of token probabilities leads in white-box settings, and execution

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Consistency-based methods are the most reliable confidence signal for text-to-SQL in black-box LLMs, and executing queries against a database adds a useful correctness signal.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Sensible empirical evaluation of known confidence signals for text-to-SQL, but an unreadable full text leaves the headline ranking claims unverified. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2508.14056 v1 pith:EHVW4X47 submitted 2025-08-08 cs.CL cs.DB

Confidence Estimation for Text-to-SQL in Large Language Models

Sepideh Entezari Maleki , Mohammadreza Pourreza , Davood Rafiei This is my paper
classification cs.CL cs.DB
keywords text-to-SQLconfidence estimationlarge language modelsblack-boxwhite-boxconsistencylogitsexecution grounding
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks how an LLM-based text-to-SQL system can tell whether its generated SQL query is trustworthy when no correct answer is available. It evaluates black-box strategies, which only see sampled outputs, and white-box strategies, which can inspect token probabilities, across cross-domain benchmarks. The central finding is that consistency-based methods—generating several candidate queries and measuring how much they agree—are the strongest black-box confidence signal, while interpreting logits through SQL syntax is the strongest white-box signal. Running the candidate query against the database adds a useful supplementary signal that improves both families. If the finding holds, developers can build text-to-SQL systems that know when to abstain, flag, or ask for human review without needing gold labels.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that confidence for text-to-SQL can be estimated from the model's own behavior and from database feedback, without gold queries. In black-box settings, the paper finds that consistency-based methods outperform other approaches: a model is asked to produce the SQL for a question multiple times, and the degree of agreement among the sampled queries acts as the confidence score. In white-box settings, the paper finds that looking at token-level probabilities through the lens of SQL grammar—treating structural tokens and expressions distinctly—is more reliable than using raw logits. Execution-based grounding, i.e., actually running the generated query on the target d

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is repeated sampling turned into a consistency score: multiple SQL queries are decoded from the same natural-language question, and agreement among them is taken as confidence. For white-box access, the relevant machinery is SQL-syntax-aware logit aggregation, which weights or groups the token probabilities the model assigns according to the structure of SQL rather than averaging them uniformly. Execution-based grounding supplies a third signal by running the candidate query against the database and using execution success, errors, or result characteristics as evidence. The paper's argument is that these signals are complementary and that their combination yields better

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that agreement among sampled SQL queries tracks actual correctness—a model that consistently produces the same wrong query would fool this confidence signal.

What would settle it

A reader could take a cross-domain text-to-SQL benchmark, sample several queries per question from a strong LLM, and rank questions by consistency. If the accuracy of the high-consistency half is not higher than the low-consistency half, the paper's black-box claim is refuted. To target the execution claim, hold the consistency signal fixed and compare confidence rankings with and without running queries on the database; no improvement means the supplementary signal is not doing work.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • API-only text-to-SQL systems can attach confidence scores to their outputs by sampling several candidate SQL queries and measuring agreement, enabling abstention or human review without access to model internals.
  • White-box systems should not treat raw token probabilities as the confidence measure; aggregating logits according to SQL syntax gives a stronger reliability signal.
  • Execution feedback—whether the query runs and what it returns—should be included as a complementary signal in both black-box and white-box confidence pipelines.
  • Confidence estimates that are valid without gold answers open the door to selective deployment: systems can answer only when confident and escalate otherwise.
  • The ranking of methods across cross-domain benchmarks suggests the recipe may transfer to new schemas and domains rather than being tuned to one database.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves open whether consistency mostly proxies for the model's decoding temperature: at very low temperatures the same wrong query may be sampled repeatedly and receive high confidence. A testable extension would compare consistency confidence against correctness under different sampling temperatures.
  • Execution-based grounding may over-credit queries that run successfully but return empty results, since a syntactically valid query can still be semantically wrong. A natural extension would condition execution-confidence on non-empty, schema-consistent results.
  • The syntax-aware logit idea is not SQL-specific in principle; the same grammar-weighted aggregation could be tested for code generation, JSON generation, or other structured outputs where token-level probabilities hide structure.
  • If consistency is as informative as the paper suggests, a practical system could combine it with execution checks into a single calibrated score; the paper's evaluation provides a baseline that such a combination should beat.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The submission addresses confidence estimation for text-to-SQL without gold answers, studying black-box and white-box strategies for large language models. According to the abstract, the paper evaluates consistency-based methods, LLM-logit interpretation, and execution-based query grounding, and claims that consistency-based methods are superior for black-box settings, SQL-syntax-aware logit interpretation is advantageous for white-box settings, and execution grounding is a valuable supplementary signal. The body of the manuscript, however, is almost entirely unreadable mojibake; no methods, benchmarks, baselines, tables, or statistics can be inspected. The central empirical claims therefore cannot be verified from the submitted text.

Significance. If the reported findings hold, they would provide a useful practical ranking of confidence signals for text-to-SQL in settings where gold answers are unavailable, particularly for API-constrained black-box models and open-weight white-box models. The problem is relevant and the proposed signal taxonomy (consistency, logit interpretation, execution grounding) is sensible. However, because the full text is illegible, the manuscript currently lacks verifiable support for these claims. There is no code, data, or machine-checked artifact visible from the abstract, so the contribution rests entirely on an empirical evaluation that cannot be inspected.

major comments (3)
  1. [Full text (entire body)] The submission body is unreadable mojibake; no section, equation, table, or benchmark can be checked. The abstract's claims of 'superior performance', 'advantage of SQL-syntax-aware approaches', and 'valuable supplementary signal' are unsupported because the methods, datasets, baselines, and evaluation metrics are inaccessible. This is the primary load-bearing issue: without a legible manuscript, the contribution cannot be assessed. The authors must resubmit a correctly encoded version before technical review can proceed.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract ranks consistency-based methods as performing best without providing any evidence that consistency tracks gold correctness. A model can repeatedly emit the same incorrect SQL, especially with a strong schema prior, yielding high consistency and zero accuracy. The abstract reports no correlation metrics (e.g., AUROC, calibration error, precision at k), no per-dataset breakdown, and no comparison against the trivial baseline of using the most frequent sampled query as the prediction. Since the body is unreadable, I cannot confirm whether such evidence exists elsewhere; as presented, the central claim is not established.
  3. [Abstract] The terms 'consistency-based methods' and 'SQL-syntax-aware approaches' are not defined. For a confidence-estimation paper, the exact scoring functions are essential: e.g., whether consistency means exact string matching after normalization, semantic-equivalence matching, or parse-tree alignment, and whether logit interpretation uses sequence-level margins or token-level statistics. Without these definitions—which presumably reside in the unreadable body—the claimed ranking is not reproducible.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract uses qualitative terms such as 'superior performance' and 'improving effectiveness' without reporting magnitudes or significance. Even in an abstract, effect sizes or a reference to a table would help calibrate the claims.
  2. [Full text (metadata)] The corrupted text includes 'arXiv:2508.14055v1' while the submission number is 2508.14056. The authors should verify that the correct version and identifier are displayed in the final PDF footer.
  3. [Abstract] The abstract does not mention whether code, data splits, or evaluation scripts will be released. For an empirical paper of this type, such reproducibility artifacts are important and should be named.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper does not propose new theoretical constructs or fit parameters at the abstract level. It relies on standard empirical assumptions about LLM sampling, logits, and execution evaluation. A full audit is impossible from the abstract alone.

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Gold answers are unavailable during inference
    The problem definition explicitly states that confidence must be estimated without access to gold answers, which motivates the use of proxy signals like consistency and execution.
  • domain assumption Consistency across repeated sampled queries is a valid proxy for correctness
    The main black-box finding treats consistency as the best confidence signal; this assumes that sampling variability tracks correctness, which is not proven in the abstract.
  • domain assumption Executing queries and comparing results is a sound surrogate for semantic equivalence
    Execution-based grounding is claimed to improve confidence estimation, which requires that matching execution results correlate with query correctness on the benchmarks.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Confidence Estimation for Text-to-SQL in Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EHVW4X47

@misc{pith2026250814056,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Confidence Estimation for Text-to-SQL in Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EHVW4X47}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.14056}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Confidence estimation for text-to-SQL aims to assess the reliability of model-generated SQL queries without having access to gold answers. We study this problem in the context of large language models (LLMs), where access to model weights and gradients is often constrained. We explore both black-box and white-box confidence estimation strategies, evaluating their effectiveness on cross-domain text-to-SQL benchmarks. Our evaluation highlights the superior performance of consistency-based methods among black-box models and the advantage of SQL-syntax-aware approaches for interpreting LLM logits in white-box settings. Furthermore, we show that execution-based grounding of queries provides a valuable supplementary signal, improving the effectiveness of both approaches.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Towards Agents That Know When They Don't Know: Uncertainty as a Control Signal for Structured Reasoning

    cs.AI 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0

    An LLM agent using retrieval and summary uncertainty as training rewards and inference filters produces more factual, useful multi-omics summaries and better downstream survival predictions.

  2. Dual-Phase Playtime-guided Recommendation: Interest Intensity Exploration and Multimodal Random Walks

    cs.IR 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A game recommendation model turns playtime and multimodal game similarity into a dual-phase signal and claims gains in both accuracy and diversity on a real-world dataset.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Azaria, A.; and Mitchell, T. 2023. The internal state of an LLM knows when it's lying. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13734

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Becker, E.; and Soatto, S. 2024. Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.03441

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    D.; Dhariwal, P.; Neelakantan, A.; Shyam, P.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; et al

    Brown, T.; Mann, B.; Ryder, N.; Subbiah, M.; Kaplan, J. D.; Dhariwal, P.; Neelakantan, A.; Shyam, P.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 1877--1901

    2020

  4. [4]

    Cao, R.; Chen, L.; Chen, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Zhu, S.; and Yu, K. 2021. LGESQL: line graph enhanced text-to-SQL model with mixed local and non-local relations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.01093

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Chen, K.; Chen, Y.; Koudas, N.; and Yu, X. 2025. Reliable Text-to-SQL with Adaptive Abstention. Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data, 3(1): 1--30

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Chen, M.; Tworek, J.; Jun, H.; Yuan, Q.; Pinto, H. P. d. O.; Kaplan, J.; Edwards, H.; Burda, Y.; Joseph, N.; Brockman, G.; et al. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    W.; Sutton, C.; Gehrmann, S.; et al

    Chowdhery, A.; Narang, S.; Devlin, J.; Bosma, M.; Mishra, G.; Roberts, A.; Barham, P.; Chung, H. W.; Sutton, C.; Gehrmann, S.; et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    M.; Srisuwananukorn, A.; Karpeyev, D.; Ramesh, S.; Kochanny, S.; Cody, B.; Mansfield, A

    Dolezal, J. M.; Srisuwananukorn, A.; Karpeyev, D.; Ramesh, S.; Kochanny, S.; Cody, B.; Mansfield, A. S.; Rakshit, S.; Bansal, R.; Bois, M. C.; et al. 2022. Uncertainty-informed deep learning models enable high-confidence predictions for digital histopathology. Nature communications, 13(1): 6572

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    Dong, X.; Zhang, C.; Ge, Y.; Mao, Y.; Gao, Y.; Lin, J.; Lou, D.; et al. 2023. C3: Zero-shot Text-to-SQL with ChatGPT. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.07306

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    Duan, J.; Cheng, H.; Wang, S.; Wang, C.; Zavalny, A.; Xu, R.; Kailkhura, B.; and Xu, K. 2023. Shifting attention to relevance: Towards the uncertainty estimation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01379

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    Gal, Y.; and Ghahramani, Z. 2016. Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning. In international conference on machine learning, 1050--1059. PMLR

    work page 2016

  12. [12]

    Gao, D.; Wang, H.; Li, Y.; Sun, X.; Qian, Y.; Ding, B.; and Zhou, J. 2023. Text-to-SQL Empowered by Large Language Models: A Benchmark Evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.15363

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    Gawlikowski, J.; Tassi, C. R. N.; Ali, M.; Lee, J.; Humt, M.; Feng, J.; Kruspe, A.; Triebel, R.; Jung, P.; Roscher, R.; et al. 2023. A survey of uncertainty in deep neural networks. Artificial Intelligence Review, 1--77

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    Geng, J.; Cai, F.; Wang, Y.; Koeppl, H.; Nakov, P.; and Gurevych, I. 2024. A Survey of Confidence Estimation and Calibration in Large Language Models. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers), 6577--6595

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    Guo, C.; Pleiss, G.; Sun, Y.; and Weinberger, K. Q. 2017. On calibration of modern neural networks. In International conference on machine learning, 1321--1330. PMLR

    2017

  16. [16]

    Guo, D.; Zhu, Q.; Yang, D.; Xie, Z.; Dong, K.; Zhang, W.; Chen, G.; Bi, X.; Wu, Y.; Li, Y.; et al. 2024. DeepSeek-Coder: When the Large Language Model Meets Programming--The Rise of Code Intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.14196

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Guo, J.; Zhan, Z.; Gao, Y.; Xiao, Y.; Lou, J.-G.; Liu, T.; and Zhang, D. 2019. Towards complex text-to-sql in cross-domain database with intermediate representation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.08205

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    Huang, L.; Yu, W.; Ma, W.; Zhong, W.; Feng, Z.; Wang, H.; Chen, Q.; Peng, W.; Feng, X.; Qin, B.; et al. 2023 a . A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05232

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Huang, Y.; Song, J.; Wang, Z.; Chen, H.; and Ma, L. 2023 b . Look before you leap: An exploratory study of uncertainty measurement for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.10236

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    Kadavath, S.; Conerly, T.; Askell, A.; Henighan, T.; Drain, D.; Perez, E.; Schiefer, N.; Hatfield-Dodds, Z.; DasSarma, N.; Tran-Johnson, E.; et al. 2022. Language models (mostly) know what they know. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05221

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    S.; Reid, M.; Matsuo, Y.; and Iwasawa, Y

    Kojima, T.; Gu, S. S.; Reid, M.; Matsuo, Y.; and Iwasawa, Y. 2022. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35: 22199--22213

    2022

  22. [22]

    Lakshminarayanan, B.; Pritzel, A.; and Blundell, C. 2017. Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30

    work page 2017

  23. [23]

    Lee, G.; Chay, W.; Cho, S.; and Choi, E. 2024. Trustsql: A reliability benchmark for text-to-sql models with diverse unanswerable questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.15879

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Li, J.; Hui, B.; Qu, G.; Li, B.; Yang, J.; Li, B.; Wang, B.; Qin, B.; Cao, R.; Geng, R.; et al. 2023. Can llm already serve as a database interface? a big bench for large-scale database grounded text-to-sqls. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.03111

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Li, J.; Hui, B.; Qu, G.; Yang, J.; Li, B.; Li, B.; Wang, B.; Qin, B.; Geng, R.; Huo, N.; et al. 2024. Can llm already serve as a database interface? a big bench for large-scale database grounded text-to-sqls. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    Liang, S.; Li, Y.; and Srikant, R. 2017. Enhancing the reliability of out-of-distribution image detection in neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.02690

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  27. [27]

    Lin, S.; Hilton, J.; and Evans, O. 2022. Teaching models to express their uncertainty in words. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.14334

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  28. [28]

    Lin, Z.; Trivedi, S.; and Sun, J. 2023. Generating with Confidence: Uncertainty Quantification for Black-box Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.19187

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    S.; Wang, Y.; and Zhang, L

    Liu, J.; Xia, C. S.; Wang, Y.; and Zhang, L. 2024. Is your code generated by chatgpt really correct? rigorous evaluation of large language models for code generation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    Manakul, P.; Liusie, A.; and Gales, M. J. 2023. Selfcheckgpt: Zero-resource black-box hallucination detection for generative large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08896

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    Pourreza, M.; and Rafiei, D. 2023. Din-sql: Decomposed in-context learning of text-to-sql with self-correction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.11015

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    Rajkumar, N.; Li, R.; and Bahdanau, D. 2022. Evaluating the text-to-sql capabilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.00498

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    Ramachandran, A.; and Sarawagi, S. 2024. Text-to-SQL Calibration: No Need to Ask--Just Rescale Model Probabilities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.16742

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Shrivastava, V.; Liang, P.; and Kumar, A. 2023. Llamas Know What GPTs Don't Show: Surrogate Models for Confidence Estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.08877

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    Somov, O.; and Tutubalina, E. 2025. Confidence estimation for error detection in text-to-sql systems. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 39, 25137--25145

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    Stengel-Eskin, E.; and Van Durme, B. 2023. Calibrated interpretation: Confidence estimation in semantic parsing. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 11: 1213--1231

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    O.; Nakhost, H.; Dai, H.; Sinha, R.; Yin, P.; and Pfister, T

    Sun, R.; Arik, S. O.; Nakhost, H.; Dai, H.; Sinha, R.; Yin, P.; and Pfister, T. 2023. SQL-PaLM: Improved Large Language ModelAdaptation for Text-to-SQL. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.00739

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    Touvron, H.; Lavril, T.; Izacard, G.; Martinet, X.; Lachaux, M.-A.; Lacroix, T.; Rozi \`e re, B.; Goyal, N.; Hambro, E.; Azhar, F.; et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    Wang, B.; Shin, R.; Liu, X.; Polozov, O.; and Richardson, M. 2019. Rat-sql: Relation-aware schema encoding and linking for text-to-sql parsers. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.04942

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  40. [40]

    Wang, C.; Liu, X.; Yue, Y.; Tang, X.; Zhang, T.; Jiayang, C.; Yao, Y.; Gao, W.; Hu, X.; Qi, Z.; et al. 2023. Survey on factuality in large language models: Knowledge, retrieval and domain-specificity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07521

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    Wang, S.; and Manning, C. 2013. Fast dropout training. In international conference on machine learning, 118--126. PMLR

    work page 2013

  42. [42]

    V.; Zhou, D.; et al

    Wei, J.; Wang, X.; Schuurmans, D.; Bosma, M.; Xia, F.; Chi, E.; Le, Q. V.; Zhou, D.; et al. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 24824--24837

    work page 2022

  43. [43]

    Wretblad, N.; Riseby, F.; Biswas, R.; Ahmadi, A.; and Holmstr \"o m, O. 2024. Understanding the Effects of Noise in Text-to- SQL : An Examination of the BIRD -Bench Benchmark. Bangkok, Thailand: Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    Xiong, M.; Hu, Z.; Lu, X.; Li, Y.; Fu, J.; He, J.; and Hooi, B. 2023. Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.13063

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  45. [45]

    Yu, T.; Zhang, R.; Yang, K.; Yasunaga, M.; Wang, D.; Li, Z.; Ma, J.; Li, I.; Yao, Q.; Roman, S.; et al. 2018. Spider: A Large-Scale Human-Labeled Dataset for Complex and Cross-Domain Semantic Parsing and Text-to-SQL Task. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page 2018

  46. [46]

    Zhang, Y.; Dong, X.; Chang, S.; Yu, T.; Shi, P.; and Zhang, R. 2020. Did you ask a good question? a cross-domain question intention classification benchmark for text-to-sql. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.12634

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  47. [47]

    Zhang, Y.; Li, Y.; Cui, L.; Cai, D.; Liu, L.; Fu, T.; Huang, X.; Zhao, E.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, Y.; et al. 2023. Siren's song in the AI ocean: a survey on hallucination in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.01219

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  48. [48]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  49. [49]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.