Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 41 references

DexterSQL: Deep Schema Exploration and Rule-based Correction for Text-to-SQL Generation

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read DexterSQL, a prompting-only text-to-SQL pipeline that never changes the LLM's weights, reaches 67.6% execution accuracy on BIRD-Dev with an open-weight model and 71.6–72.2% with closed-weight models, beating prior non-fine-tuning systems.

desk verdict The open-weight result looks real and the dependency-tree idea is worth taking seriously, but the closed-weight headline number is built on mixed-source baselines and the paper ships no artifacts. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11889 v1 pith:2JRVYAW2 submitted 2026-08-12 cs.DB cs.AIcs.CLcs.IR

Anik Pramanik , Murat Kantarcioglu , Vincent Oria , Shantanu Sharma This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DBcs.AIcs.CLcs.IR
keywords text-to-SQLnon-fine-tuningpromptingschemalinkingdeepexplorationdependencytreeSQLcorrectionrulesexecutionaccuracy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

DexterSQL is a text-to-SQL system that does not fine-tune or change the underlying LLM; it improves generation entirely through prompting and offline-computed database context. The paper reports execution accuracy of 67.6% on the BIRD-Dev benchmark with an open-weight model, 84.4% on Spider-Test, and 71.6–72.2% with closed-weight models, exceeding prior non-fine-tuning systems in each setting. The practical significance is that open-weight models can be deployed locally on sensitive data, so accuracy gains without weight updates strengthen private, cheaper deployments. The paper attributes the gains to three components: data-distribution notes that disambiguate confusable columns, mined correction rules for recurring SQL mistakes, and a dependency-tree-guided multi-path generator. If these results hold beyond the two benchmarks, the main takeaway is that database-content understanding and reusable failure patterns, not model retraining, drive much of text-to-SQL performance.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a pipeline of three offline-built artifacts reused at inference. First, the deep schema explorator: for column pairs that look confusable by name or profile, it computes value-set overlap, join coverage, fan-out, and agreement, then has an LLM summarize the evidence into short disambiguation notes stating which column to use when. Second, the rule creator: it samples training questions, keeps generated SQL whose execution differs from gold, filters out explanations judged to be tied to a particular database, clusters the remaining explanations, and synthesizes correction rules of the form 'gist, bad-pattern, correct-pattern, fix'. Third, multi-path SQL generation: one path parses the question into a dependency tree and maps the tree to an SQL skeleton so question mentions and literals are preserved, while the other two paths are few-shot in-context learning and divide-and-conquer. A confidence-aware selector then clusters corrected candidates by execution result and invokes LLM adjudication only when agreement is low.

What would settle it

Run the full pipeline on a held-out set of databases not drawn from BIRD or Spider, with and without the rule-based correction stage, and count how often applying a mined rule changes a wrong SQL into a right one. If rule-triggered rewrites help on BIRD-Dev but fail on unseen databases, or fire mostly on queries that were already correct, then the claim that database-agnostic correction rules generalize would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that DexterSQL, which leaves LLM weights untouched, achieves execution accuracy of 67.6% on BIRD-Dev with the open-weight GPT-OSS-120B model (84.4% on Spider-Test), and 71.6% with GPT-4o and 72.2% with GPT-5.2, outperforming prior prompt-based systems by margins of at least 2.7 and 0.9 percentage points, respectively. The central discovery is that three offline-computed artifacts—column-distribution disambiguation notes, mined correction rules, and a dependency-tree-derived SQL skeleton—carry most of the improvement: removing the schema-exploration or rule-based correction drops accuracy to about 65.4–65.5%, and removing all three drops it to 63.3%. This is a claim about a prompting-only pipeline, not about a fine-tuned model.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the correction rules, learned from failures on training databases and filtered to remove explanations tied to any particular database, still apply to unseen target databases, so the measured gain from rule-based correction is not just tuned to the two benchmarks in the paper.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A prompting-only system can outperform previous non-fine-tuning systems on both BIRD-Dev and Spider-Test using open-weight and closed-weight LLMs, so accuracy gains do not require retraining or weight updates.
  • The three generation paths are complementary: the dependency-tree path is the strongest alone at 66.3% EX, and combining all three raises EX to 67.6% and UB-EX to 74.8%.
  • Rule-based correction is responsible for a substantial share of the gain: disabling it lowers accuracy from 67.6% to 65.5%, while disabling deep schema exploration lowers it to 65.4%.
  • Deep schema exploration improves schema linking, reaching 97.09% recall and 72.26% precision on BIRD-Dev, so data-distribution analysis recovers ambiguous columns that schema linking alone would miss.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, if the mined rules are truly database-agnostic, one could build shared, model-specific rule libraries from many training databases and test whether they transfer to enterprise or scientific schemas outside BIRD and Spider, and whether they decay as base LLMs improve.
  • Beyond the paper, the coverage, fan-out, and agreement statistics computed for ambiguous column pairs double as schema-quality diagnostics, potentially flagging denormalized attributes or misleading column names in a data catalog.
  • Beyond the paper, the dependency-tree-to-SQL-skeleton idea generalizes to other structured-output tasks, such as generating SPARQL, API calls, or dataframe code, whenever a question carries several conditions that all have to survive decomposition.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces DexterSQL, a non-fine-tuning (prompting-only) text-to-SQL system combining three components: a deep schema explorator that mines data-level statistics and LLM-generated notes for ambiguous column pairs, a database-agnostic rule creator that mines recurring SQL generation failures from training databases into correction rules, and a multi-path SQL generator that uses a dependency-tree-based intermediate representation alongside few-shot and divide-and-conquer generation. The system is evaluated on BIRD-Dev and Spider-Test with an open-weight model (GPT-OSS-120B) and closed-weight models (GPT-4o, GPT-5.2), reporting execution accuracy of 67.6% on BIRD-Dev with GPT-OSS-120B (claimed at least 2.7% over the strongest baseline) and 71.6%/72.2% with GPT-4o/GPT-5.2 (claimed at least 0.9% over prior work). Ablations attribute gains to all three components, with full-pipeline accuracy dropping to 63.3% when they are all removed.

Significance. If the headline numbers are taken at face value, DexterSQL would be a credible state-of-the-art non-fine-tuning system, particularly for open-weight deployment, and the open-weight comparison in Table 5 appears the strongest part of the evidence because the authors state that baselines were run locally. The rule-mining design is not circular on label-leakage grounds: rules are mined from a disjoint training database and applied to target queries, which is a meaningful methodological distinction. The dependency-tree-based intermediate representation is a reasonable and clearly motivated addition to multi-path generation. However, the closed-weight claim rests on mixed-source comparisons, and the headline 67.6% is obtained by selecting a confidence threshold on the test set itself, which inflates the reported accuracy and weakens the ablation; these issues must be addressed before the central claims can be accepted.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.2.1, Table 5] The paper states that "We executed all baseline approaches, with available implementations, ourselves locally using GPT-OSS-120B," but the phrase "with available implementations" leaves it unclear whether all ten rows in Table 5 are locally produced or whether some rows are taken from published papers. Since the central open-weight claim of "at least 2.7%" improvement over DeepEye-SQL depends on a like-for-like local comparison, please specify for each baseline whether it was run locally or cited from its paper, and report the version/configuration used for any local rerun.
  2. [§4.2.2, Table 6, footnote 7] The GPT-4o comparison is not fully controlled. In Table 6, only DeepEye-SQL and DexterSQL are reported from local runs on GPT-4o; the RSL-SQL, OpenSearch-SQL, and APEX-SQL rows are taken from their published papers. Footnote 7 explicitly shows that running the released APEX-SQL code locally with GPT-5.2 yields 69.7%, a full point below the published GPT-4o number of 70.7%, which demonstrates that published numbers are not necessarily reproduced in the authors' harness. Consequently, the abstract's claim of "at least 0.9%" improvement on closed-weight models (71.6% vs 70.7%) is not established. Please rerun the close baselines locally on GPT-4o, or reword the claim to explicitly state that the GPT-4o margin is against a published number rather than a controlled local comparison.
  3. [§4.2.5, Figure 4] The confidence threshold is selected by maximizing execution accuracy on the BIRD-Dev test set: Figure 4 shows EX rising from 66.7% at threshold 0 to 67.6% at threshold 0.6 and then falling to 67.1% at threshold 1, and the text concludes that "the highest EX is achieved at a threshold of 0.6." This is test-set hyperparameter tuning: the reported 67.6% is the best accuracy over the threshold grid, and the 2.7% improvement over DeepEye-SQL in Table 1 is therefore partly attributable to this selection. Because the baselines did not have the same opportunity to tune this free parameter on the test set, the comparison is unfair. Please select the threshold on a validation split, use a fixed default threshold justified a priori, or report the full sensitivity curve with a clear statement that the peak is test-set-selected.
  4. [Table 11, Exp. 6] The ablation results report single-point accuracy values with no variance, number of runs, temperature, or seed information. The difference between the full pipeline (67.6%) and the pipeline without dependency-tree-based generation (67.2%) is only 0.4 percentage points, which is within the range of run-to-run variability expected from stochastic LLM sampling. Additionally, because the ablation is evaluated at the test-set-tuned threshold of 0.6, the component contributions are confounded with threshold selection. Please report multiple runs with standard deviations (or a paired bootstrap), specify the decoding temperature and seeds, and ideally show the ablation across a range of thresholds.
  5. [§3.1.4, Exp. 6] The paper's "database-agnostic" rule transfer claim is a central novelty, yet its support is limited. Rules are mined from training databases and applied to target databases, but the only evidence that they transfer is the overall BIRD-Dev and Spider-Test accuracy, with no analysis of the mined rules themselves: the paper does not report how many rules were synthesized, how many error groups were formed, how often each rule fired, whether rule application ever decreased accuracy, or whether the rules are stable across training samples. The reader cannot tell whether the 2.1-point gain from Rule Creator (65.5 to 67.6 in Table 11) is a robust transferable effect or an artifact of a few high-frequency rules fitting the two test benchmarks. Please provide a rule audit (counts, examples, firing statistics, and cross-benchmark transfer analysis) or otherwise substantiate the transfer claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The sentence "DexterSQL's shows a high improvement" is ungrammatical; it should read "DexterSQL shows a high improvement".
  2. [§3.1.3, Step 4] The text begins with "TPrevious step produces useful but low-level evidence"; "TPrevious" should be "The previous".
  3. [Table 8] The comparison in Table 8 mixes different underlying LLMs (Gemini-1.5-Pro, DeepSeek-V3.1, GPT-4o); the caption and findings should explicitly state that this is a cross-model comparison and not a controlled evaluation, so that readers do not infer a like-for-like advantage over AutoLink or CHESS.
  4. [§4.1, Reproducibility] The paper does not state whether code, prompt templates, or the mined rule set will be released, and it does not specify the decoding temperature or number of runs for the LLM calls; given the prompting-heavy nature of the system, this information is essential for reproducibility.
  5. [Figure 4] The figure caption says "confidence shortcut thresholds"; the word "shortcut" appears to be unintended and should be removed or defined.
  6. [Table 6] The OpenSearch-SQL row has dashes for the Simple/Moderate/Challenging breakdown; please state whether these breakdowns are unavailable from the original paper or were omitted for brevity.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Core DexterSQL pipeline is not circular; the only fitted-input artifact is the confidence threshold selected on the very BIRD-Dev set whose accuracy is then reported.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2.5 (Exp. 5), Figure 4; compare with Table 5 and Table 11]
    "Figure 4 shows EX rises from 66.7% at threshold 0 to 67.6% at 0.6, then falls to 67.1% at threshold 1. These results show that selectively invoking LLM review when candidate agreement is insufficient improves SQL selection accuracy, with the highest EX achieved at a threshold of 0.6."

    The confidence threshold is chosen by maximizing execution accuracy on BIRD-Dev itself, and the same BIRD-Dev accuracy (67.6%) at that threshold is reported as the full-pipeline result in Table 5 and Table 11. The reported 67.6% is therefore, by construction, the maximum of the swept threshold curve on the evaluation set rather than an out-of-sample prediction. The improvement attributed to confidence-aware selection is partly forced by selecting the threshold on the benchmark whose accuracy is advertised, though this does not invalidate the independent contributions of the schema exploration, rule mining, or generation paths.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. Deep Schema Exploration uses only the target database's schema, profiles, and data distributions, never its gold SQL; Rule Creator mines failures from a training database explicitly disjoint from the target database; and multi-path generation uses the question's dependency tree plus established few-shot and divide-and-conquer strategies. None of these components is defined in terms of the reported accuracy, and the main BIRD-Dev/Spider-Test results are evaluated against held-out labels. The only benchmark-fitting issue found is the selection threshold in Exp. 5, which is tuned on the same BIRD-Dev execution-accuracy curve whose maximum (67.6%) is later presented as the system's accuracy; this is a mild circularity/optimistic-bias artifact. The closed-weight comparison also mixes locally run and published baseline numbers, which is a validity concern rather than a circularity, and no load-bearing self-citation chain appears in the paper. Overall, the core method does not reduce to its inputs, so the score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The system introduces no new physical or formal entities; its free parameters are a confidence threshold fitted to the dev set and an unspecified profile-similarity threshold. The main unproven load is carried by domain assumptions about rule transfer, LLM-as-judge reliability, and baseline comparability.

free parameters (2)
  • Selection confidence threshold = 0.6
    Chosen in Exp. 5 by sweeping thresholds on BIRD-Dev and taking the value with highest EX (67.6%); the final reported accuracy uses this threshold on the same benchmark, so the threshold is fitted to the evaluation set.
  • Profile-similarity threshold for ambiguous-pair candidates = not specified
    Step 1 of Deep Schema Explorator adds pairs when profile embedding cosine similarity 'exceeds a threshold'; the threshold value is never given, so the behavior is under-specified and effectively a hidden tuning choice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Database-agnostic SQL-failure patterns mined from a disjoint training database transfer to the target database and improve accuracy when applied as correction rules.
    Core assumption of Rule Creator; if false, the correction step could misapply rules and degrade target accuracy. See Section 3.1.4 Steps 2-4.
  • domain assumption Execution-result equality with gold SQL is a valid and sufficient correctness criterion for generated SQL.
    The paper's headline metric is execution accuracy (EX); the selection and rule-creation pipelines are built around this criterion. See Section 4.1.
  • domain assumption An LLM-as-judge can reliably identify genuinely ambiguous column pairs and synthesize accurate disambiguation notes from statistical evidence.
    Deep Schema Explorator depends on LLM triage (Step 2) and note synthesis (Step 4); no human evaluation of note quality is reported. See Section 3.1.3.
  • domain assumption Published baseline numbers from different papers, models, and prompting environments are directly comparable to DexterSQL's locally-run numbers.
    Tables 6 and 8 mix locally executed baselines with numbers copied from prior papers, sometimes with different LLMs; comparability is assumed rather than controlled. See Section 4.2.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DexterSQL: Deep Schema Exploration and Rule-based Correction for Text-to-SQL Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2JRVYAW2

@misc{pith2026260811889,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DexterSQL: Deep Schema Exploration and Rule-based Correction for Text-to-SQL Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2JRVYAW2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11889}
}
read the original abstract

Prompting-based (\textit{i}.\textit{e}., non-fine-tuning) Text-to-SQL methods, where underlying large language model parameters are not changed for the task, face three problems: (\textit{i})~relying on coarse-grained schema information that may not reveal the fine-grained relationships needed to distinguish ambiguous columns, (\textit{ii})~not capturing recurring SQL-generation failures, and (\textit{iii})~suffering from omission, hallucination, or misplacement of conditions in complex questions. This paper develops \textsc{DexterSQL}, a prompting/non-fine-tuning-based Text-to-SQL system that improves SQL generation with three novel components: (\textit{i})~\emph{deep schema explorator} that identifies ambiguous columns, analyzes their individual and joint data distributions to uncover their relationships and the distinct role of each, (\textit{ii})~\emph{database-agnostic rule creator} that mines mismatches between generated and gold SQL only on the training database and converts them into database-agnostic corrective rules that capture recurring LLM failure patterns; and (\textit{iii})~\emph{multi-path SQL generation} that introduces a dependency-tree-based intermediate representation that uses the question's sentence structure to guide its decomposition into an SQL skeleton for final SQL generation. \textsc{DexterSQL} achieves a higher accuracy compared to the state-of-the-art using both open-source/weight and closed-source/weight models. Particularly, \textsc{DexterSQL}'s shows a high improvement of at least 2.7\% using an open-weight model (GPT-OSS-120B) on BIRD-Dev, with total accuracy 67.6\%. \textsc{DexterSQL} also shows better improvement of at least 0.9\% using closed-weight models, with total accuracy 71.6\% and 72.2\% on BIRD-Dev with GPT-4o and GPT-5.2.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11889 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of DexterSQL. Column Profiler, Index Generator, and Deep Schema Explorator process target databases to produce profiles, indices, and disambiguation notes, while Rule Creator mines training databases for correction rules. These artifacts are reused during online Schema Linking, SQL Generation, Correction, and Selection without updating model parameters. to the two required filters, ID=1 and Diagnosis=‘PSS’,… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Dependency-tree example. a question token and each labeled edge identifies its dependency on another token. DexterSQL maps the relevant parts of this tree to SQL components and combines them into a structured intermediate representation. The LLM then uses this representation to generate the final SQL while preserving the required question elements. Second, few-shot in-context-learning generation uses similar train￾i… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Correctness overlap among dependency-tree-based, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Execution accuracy across confidence shortcut [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bowen Cao, Weibin Liao, Yushi Sun, Dong Fang, Haitao Li, and Wai Lam. 2026. APEX-SQL: Talking to the data via Agentic Exploration for Text-to-SQL.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.16720(2026)

    arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    Zhenbiao Cao, Yuanlei Zheng, Zhihao Fan, Xiaojin Zhang, Wei Chen, and Xiang Bai. 2024. Rsl-sql: Robust schema linking in text-to-sql generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.00073(2024)

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Yeounoh Chung, Gaurav T Kakkar, Yu Gan, Brenton Milne, and Fatma Ozcan

  4. [4]

    Minghang Deng, Ashwin Ramachandran, Canwen Xu, Lanxiang Hu, Zhewei Yao, Anupam Datta, and Hao Zhang. 2025. ReFoRCE: a text-to-SQL agent with self-refinement, consensus enforcement, and column exploration.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.00675(2025)

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Xuemei Dong, Chao Zhang, Yuhang Ge, Yuren Mao, Yunjun Gao, Jinshu Lin, Dongfang Lou, et al. 2023. C3: Zero-shot text-to-sql with chatgpt.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.07306(2023)

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Matthijs Douze, Alexandr Guzhva, Chengqi Deng, Jeff Johnson, Gergely Szilvasy, Pierre-Emmanuel Mazaré, Maria Lomeli, Lucas Hosseini, and Hervé Jégou. 2025. The faiss library.IEEE Transactions on Big Data(2025)

    2025

  7. [7]

    Woodward, John H

    Yujian Gan, Xinyun Chen, Jinxia Xie, Matthew Purver, John R. Woodward, John H. Drake, and Qiaofu Zhang. 2021. Natural SQL: Making SQL Easier to Infer from Natural Language Specifications.CoRRabs/2109.05153 (2021). arXiv:2109.05153 https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.05153

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Dawei Gao, Haibin Wang, Yaliang Li, Xiuyu Sun, Yichen Qian, Bolin Ding, and Jin- gren Zhou. 2023. Text-to-sql empowered by large language models: A benchmark evaluation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.15363(2023)

    arXiv 2023

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Jiaqi Guo, Zecheng Zhan, Yan Gao, Yan Xiao, Jian-Guang Lou, Ting Liu, and Dongmei Zhang. 2019. Towards Complex Text-to-SQL in Cross-Domain Database with Intermediate Representation. InProceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2019...

    2019

  2. [10]

    Zhifeng Hao, Qibin Song, Ruichu Cai, and Boyan Xu. 2025. Text-to-SQL as Dual-State Reasoning: Integrating Adaptive Context and Progressive Generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21402(2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    Dongjun Lee, Choongwon Park, Jaehyuk Kim, and Heesoo Park. 2025. MCS-SQL: Leveraging Multiple Prompts and Multiple-Choice Selection For Text-to-SQL Generation. InProceedings of the 31st International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Owen Rambow, Leo Wanner, Marianna Ap...

    2025

  4. [12]

    Boyan Li, Chong Chen, Zhujun Xue, Yinan Mei, and Yuyu Luo. 2025. DeepEye- SQL: A software-engineering-inspired text-to-sql framework.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.17586(2025)

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Boyan Li, Chong Chen, Zhujun Xue, Yinan Mei, and Yuyu Luo. 2026. DeepEye- SQL: A software-engineering-inspired text-to-sql framework.Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data4, 3 (SIGMOD (2026), 1–28

    2026

  6. [14]

    Boyan Li, Yuyu Luo, Chengliang Chai, Guoliang Li, and Nan Tang. 2024. The Dawn of Natural Language to SQL: Are We Fully Ready? [Experiment, Analysis & Benchmark ].Proc. VLDB Endow.17, 11 (2024), 3318–3331. doi:10.14778/3681954. 3682003

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    Boyan Li, Jiayi Zhang, Ju Fan, Yanwei Xu, Chong Chen, Nan Tang, and Yuyu Luo. 2025. Alpha-SQL: Zero-Shot Text-to-SQL using Monte Carlo Tree Search. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 36810–36830

    2025

  8. [16]

    Haoyang Li, Shang Wu, Xiaokang Zhang, Xinmei Huang, Jing Zhang, Fuxin Jiang, Shuai Wang, Tieying Zhang, Jianjun Chen, Rui Shi, et al. 2025. Omnisql: Synthesizing high-quality text-to-sql data at scale.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.02240 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Haoyang Li, Jing Zhang, Hanbing Liu, Ju Fan, Xiaokang Zhang, Jun Zhu, Renjie Wei, Hongyan Pan, Cuiping Li, and Hong Chen. 2024. CodeS: Towards Building Open-source Language Models for Text-to-SQL.Proc. ACM Manag. Data2, 3 (2024), 127. doi:10.1145/3654930

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    Jinyang Li, Binyuan Hui, Ge Qu, Jiaxi Yang, Binhua Li, Bowen Li, Bailin Wang, Bowen Qin, Ruiying Geng, Nan Huo, Xuanhe Zhou, Chen- hao Ma, Guoliang Li, Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang, Fei Huang, Reynold Cheng, and Yongbin Li. 2023. Can LLM Already Serve as A Data- base Interface? A BI...

    2023

  11. [19]

    Yifu Liu, Yin Zhu, Yingqi Gao, Zhiling Luo, Xiaoxia Li, Xiaorong Shi, Yuntao Hong, Jinyang Gao, Yu Li, Bolin Ding, et al . 2026. Xiyan-sql: A novel multi- generator framework for text-to-sql.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering(2026)

    2026

  12. [20]

    Toby Mao and SQLGlot Contributors. 2026. SQLGlot: Python SQL Parser and Transpiler. https://github.com/tobymao/sqlglot. Software repository, accessed July 28, 2026

    2026

  13. [21]

    Md Mahadi Hasan Nahid, Davood Rafiei, Weiwei Zhang, and Yong Zhang. 2026. Rethinking schema linking: A context-aware bidirectional retrieval approach for text-to-sql. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL

    2026

  14. [22]

    Mohammadreza Pourreza, Hailong Li, Ruoxi Sun, Yeounoh Chung, Shayan Ta- laei, Gaurav Tarlok Kakkar, Yu Gan, Amin Saberi, Fatma Ozcan, and Sercan O Arik. 2024. Chase-sql: Multi-path reasoning and preference optimized candidate selection in text-to-sql.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410....

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Mohammadreza Pourreza and Davood Rafiei. 2023. Din-sql: Decomposed in- context learning of text-to-sql with self-correction.Advances in neural information processing systems36 (2023), 36339–36348

    2023

  16. [24]

    Mohammadreza Pourreza and Davood Rafiei. 2024. DTS-SQL: Decomposed Text- to-SQL with Small Large Language Models. EMNLP 2024 (2024), 8212–8220. doi:10.18653/V1/2024.FINDINGS-EMNLP.481

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    Ge Qu, Jinyang Li, Bowen Li, Bowen Qin, Nan Huo, Chenhao Ma, and Reynold Cheng. 2024. Before generation, align it! a novel and effective strategy for mitigating hallucinations in text-to-sql generation. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024. 5456–5471

    2024

  18. [26]

    Abigail Rai and Samarjeet Borah. 2020. Study of various methods for tokenization. InApplications of Internet of Things: Proceedings of ICCCIOT 2020. Springer, 193– 200

    2020

  19. [27]

    Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. InProceedings of the 2019 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing and the 9th international joint conference on natural language processing (EMNLP-IJCN...

    2019

  20. [28]

    Vladislav Shkapenyuk, Divesh Srivastava, Theodore Johnson, and Parisa Ghane. 2025. Automatic metadata extraction for text-to-sql.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.19988(2025)

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Sai Ashish Somayajula, Marianne Menglin Liu, Chuan Lei, Fjona Parllaku, Daniel Garcia, Rongguang Wang, Syed Fahad Allam Shah, Ankan Bansal, Sujeeth Bharad- waj, Tao Sheng, et al. 2026. SOMA-SQL: Resolving Multi-Source Ambiguity in NL- to-SQL via Synthetic Log and Execution Pro...

    2026 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Shayan Talaei, Mohammadreza Pourreza, Yu-Chen Chang, Azalia Mirhoseini, and Amin Saberi. 2024. Chess: Contextual harnessing for efficient sql synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.16755(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Bing Wang, Changyu Ren, Jian Yang, Xinnian Liang, Jiaqi Bai, Linzheng Chai, Zhao Yan, Qian-Wen Zhang, Di Yin, Xing Sun, et al. 2025. Mac-sql: A multi-agent collaborative framework for text-to-sql. InProceedings of the 31st International Conference on Computational Linguistics. 540–557

    2025

  24. [32]

    Bailin Wang, Richard Shin, Xiaodong Liu, Oleksandr Polozov, and Matthew Richardson. 2020. RAT-SQL: Relation-Aware Schema Encoding and Linking for Text-to-SQL Parsers. InProceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online,...

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    Ziyang Wang, Yuanlei Zheng, Zhenbiao Cao, Xiaojin Zhang, Zhongyu Wei, Pei Fu, Zhenbo Luo, Wei Chen, and Xiang Bai. 2026. Autolink: Autonomous schema exploration and expansion for scalable schema linking in text-to-sql at scale. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artifici...

    2026

  26. [34]

    Wenxuan Xie, Gaochen Wu, and Bowen Zhou. 2024. Mag-sql: Multi-agent generative approach with soft schema linking and iterative sub-sql refinement for text-to-sql.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.07930(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Xiangjin Xie, Guangwei Xu, Lingyan Zhao, and Ruijie Guo. 2025. Opensearch- sql: Enhancing text-to-sql with dynamic few-shot and consistency alignment. Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data3, 3 (2025), 1–24

    2025

  28. [36]

    Xiaojun Xu, Chang Liu, and Dawn Song. 2017. Sqlnet: Generating structured queries from natural language without reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.04436(2017)

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Jiaxi Yang, Binyuan Hui, Min Yang, Jian Yang, Junyang Lin, and Chang Zhou. 2024. Synthesizing Text-to-SQL Data from Weak and Strong LLMs. InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2024, Bangkok, Thail...

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Kai Yang, Michihiro Yasunaga, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, James Ma, Irene Li, Qingning Yao, Shanelle Roman, Zilin Zhang, and Dragomir R. Radev

  31. [39]

    Victor Zhong, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2017. Seq2SQL: Generating Structured Queries from Natural Language using Reinforcement Learning.CoRR abs/1709.00103 (2017). arXiv:1709.00103 http://arxiv.org/abs/1709.00103

    2017 arXiv

  32. [2018]

    (2018), 3911–3921

    Spider: A Large-Scale Human-Labeled Dataset for Complex and Cross- Domain Semantic Parsing and Text-to-SQL Task. (2018), 3911–3921. doi:10.18653/ V1/D18-1425

    2018

  33. [2025]

    Is long context all you need? leveraging LLM’s extended context for NL2SQL.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12372(2025)

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.