Finding the Right Tables and Columns: A Benchmark and Corpus-Adaptive Embeddings for SQL Schema Retrieval

Aman Mehta; Fuheng Zhao; Puxuan Yu; Qingcheng Zeng; Rajhans Samdani

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 16 references

Finding the Right Tables and Columns: A Benchmark and Corpus-Adaptive Embeddings for SQL Schema Retrieval

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Corpus-adaptive fine-tuning establishes schema retrieval as a standalone task, lifting a 305M-parameter embedder to match 4–8B models.

desk verdict The benchmark is a real contribution; the 'label-free' headline is not supported by the paper's own recipe — Appendix A mixes in labeled Spider/BIRD training pairs and no ablation isolates the synthetic data. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.13311 v1 pith:5KO73DQ5 submitted 2026-07-14 cs.CL

Qingcheng Zeng , Puxuan Yu , Aman Mehta , Fuheng Zhao , Rajhans Samdani This is my paper

classification cs.CL

keywords schemaretrievallinkingtext-to-SQLdensecorpus-adaptivefine-tuninghardnegativesembeddingmodelsrecall@10

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

The paper argues that at warehouse scale, the bottleneck in text-to-SQL is not generation but retrieval of the right tables and columns, which routinely exceed a model's context. It turns five text-to-SQL datasets into a retrieval benchmark at table and column granularity and shows that off-the-shelf embedders, however large, underperform. The proposed fix, corpus-adaptive fine-tuning, generates training queries from the schema itself, mines granularity-aware hard negatives, and contrastively trains an embedder with no labeled queries. This lifts a 305M model to recall@10 of 75.6, competitive with 4–8B embedders, and improves an 8B model to the best ranking. If correct, schema linking is a cheap, standalone retrieval problem rather than a byproduct of generation.

What carries the argument

Corpus-adaptive fine-tuning: a three-step recipe that (1) anchors LLM query generation on sampled schema documents so gold sets are known by construction, (2) mines hard negatives within each (source, granularity) pool to avoid cross-granularity confusion, and (3) contrastively fine-tunes an embedder. This machinery carries the argument by making label-free adaptation possible and by isolating granularity-specific signals that preserve table-level retrieval.

What would settle it

Re-annotate a random sample of queries with human-identified gold columns, including those used implicitly, and recompute recall@10 for the adapted 305M model and the 4B/8B baselines; if the adapted model no longer matches the larger models on the corrected labels, the claim of cheap parity is undermined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes schema retrieval — ranking a database's tables and columns for a natural-language question — as a first-class retrieval task and shows it can be solved cheaply. From five text-to-SQL datasets recast at table and column granularity, off-the-shelf embedders transfer poorly, especially on value-only and large schemas. The paper's recipe, corpus-adaptive fine-tuning, synthesizes queries from the schema itself, mines granularity-aware hard negatives, and contrastively trains a 305M model: recall@10 rises from 60.4 to 75.6, best under 1B parameters and competitive with 4–8B embedders; the same recipe raises an 8B model to the best nDCG@10 (71.7). Leave-one-out and leakage che

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark's gold relevance sets are obtained by parsing table and column references from ground-truth SQL, which the paper's own limitations note can miss implicitly used columns; if many gold columns are absent, both the metric and the measured improvements are computed against incomplete labels.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Schema linking should be benchmarked as its own retrieval task rather than inferred from end-to-end text-to-SQL accuracy.
A 305M model adapted with only the target schema corpus can rival 4–8B general embedders, so label-free corpus adaptation is a viable enterprise deployment route.
The same recipe improves a near-state-of-the-art 8B model, showing that adaptation complements, not substitutes for, model scale.
Granularity-aware hard negatives and table-level positives are load-bearing: removing them drops table-level recall@10 from 80.9 to 52.4, below the base model.
Adaptation improves retrieval most on abbreviated, code-like column names, the dominant case in real schemas.

Reading between the lines

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

If transferable beyond SQL, this recipe gives a general label-free route to adapting retrievers to any structured corpus — APIs, functions, knowledge-base entries — for tool-augmented agents.
The concentration of gains on code-like identifiers suggests the adapter partly learns a mapping from business concepts to enterprise naming conventions; explicit identifier normalization could push this further.
Because gains are steepest on value-only and large-schema settings, enterprise text-to-SQL systems could use this to avoid passing entire schemas to large models, cutting latency and cost.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's the short version: the benchmark is a keeper, and there is a good paper hiding behind an exaggerated headline. The 'label-free corpus adaptation' claim is not supported by the training recipe. Appendix A (and, more briefly, §4 step 3) says they mix the synthetic in-domain queries with labeled schema-linking pairs built from the Spider and BIRD training splits. Those are supervised labels, and Spider plus BIRD account for about 80% of the evaluation queries. The leave-one-corpus-out experiments withhold only the synthetic queries, never the labeled pairs, so the marginal contribution of the synthetic pipeline is never identified. That is the one experiment this paper has to have: synthetic-only, labeled-only, and both.

What is actually new and good: recasting five text-to-SQL datasets as table- and column-level retrieval, with two document representations and schemas up to ~17k columns, fills a genuine gap — CoIR/CoQuIR retrieve whole programs, not schema elements. The evaluation is serious: eleven baselines, a BM25 floor, rank-bucket analysis, and the finding that 71% of gold columns have code-like names that break off-the-shelf embedders is the kind of analysis that makes a benchmark durable. The leakage audit is careful (zero near-duplicates in five of six settings, 2/2147 in Spider). And the leave-one-out numbers on held-out corpora — BEAVER value-only 12.5→44.3 without seeing BEAVER in synthesis — show something real is transferring, even if the labeled pairs muddy exactly what.

Soft spots, in proportion. The label-free contradiction is the main one; it is a framing-and-ablation gap, not hidden malpractice, because the disclosure is in the paper — but the abstract overreaches. Second: no error bars, single run, and the headline average is an unweighted mean over nine very heterogeneous settings, several of which barely move (Spider metadata +0.3, LiveSQLBench base +0.4). Third: no code or checkpoints, and the synthesis/mining pipeline relies on a proprietary LLM and voyage-multilingual-2, so fine-tuning is not fully reproducible as described. Fourth: relevance labels come from parsing gold SQL, so implicitly-used columns get missed (the Limitations admit this); a defensible first cut, but it could bias the metric.

Who this is for: teams building retrieve-then-generate text-to-SQL over large schemas, and embedding folks who want a hard domain. It deserves a serious referee; the benchmark alone justifies it. But push the authors to (a) rerun the headline claim without the labeled pairs, (b) report variance, and (c) release the fine-tuning code. If the ablation shows the synthetic data carries the gains, this is a solid specialty paper; if the labeled pairs carry the gains, it is a benchmark paper with a much smaller method.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces schema retrieval as a first-class retrieval task, recasting five text-to-SQL datasets (Spider, BIRD, BEAVER, and two LiveSQLBench variants) into table- and column-level retrieval benchmarks under two document representations. It evaluates a range of off-the-shelf embedders, showing that they transfer poorly, and proposes corpus-adaptive fine-tuning: the target schema corpus is used to synthesize queries with document-anchored generation, mine granularity-aware hard negatives, and contrastively fine-tune a 305M embedder (Arctic-Embed-M) or an 8B embedder (Qwen3-Embedding-8B). The authors report large gains (e.g., average recall@10 from 60.4 to 75.6 for the 305M model), competitive performance against 4–8B models, and provide a leave-one-corpus-out experiment and a leakage audit as evidence of generalization. The central claim is that schema retrieval can be solved cheaply by label-free, corpus-adaptive retrieval.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper makes a useful contribution: it provides a reproducible benchmark for a genuinely under-evaluated retrieval task, systematically compares baselines, and proposes a lightweight adaptation recipe with plausible practical value. The evaluation design is generally careful: it includes an ablation, a leave-one-corpus-out transfer check, a leakage audit, and per-corpus results rather than only a single aggregate. The public release of the benchmark is a practical asset. However, the paper's headline 'label-free' characterization is not supported by the training recipe as described, because labeled schema-linking pairs from Spider and BIRD are mixed into the contrastive fine-tuning data. Since Spider and BIRD are also the two largest evaluation components, the claimed gains on those corpora may be substantially attributable to supervised fine-tuning rather than to the proposed corpus-adaptive synthetic-query mechanism. This is the main load-bearing issue and needs to be resolved before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (2)

[§4 step (3); Appendix A; Abstract and Discussion] The paper repeatedly describes the method as 'label-free' and states that it 'requires only the schema corpus' (Abstract; Discussion). However, Appendix A says that during contrastive fine-tuning the authors 'mix the in-domain synthetic data with schema-linking pairs derived from the public text-to-SQL training splits of Spider and BIRD.' These are labeled query–schema pairs, and they come from the same two datasets that make up the largest evaluation components (Spider: 2,147 queries; BIRD: 1,534 queries). The claimed gains on these corpora (e.g., BIRD value-only 75.3→97.5; Spider value-only 67.3→91.5) may therefore be largely due to standard supervised fine-tuning, not to the proposed corpus-adaptive synthesis. The leave-one-corpus-out experiment in Appendix C does not resolve this because it only removes the held-out corpus's synthetic queries; the external labeled Spider/BIRD pairs r
[§3; Limitations] The benchmark's gold relevance sets are obtained by 'parsing table and column references from the ground-truth SQL.' As the Limitations acknowledge, this can miss columns that are used implicitly. If a substantial fraction of gold columns are missed, then both the metric values and the model rankings are computed against an incomplete ground truth, which could change conclusions about which models or which adaptations are best. The paper should provide a quantitative audit of this parsing step, for example by comparing parsed gold sets against human annotation on a sample of queries from each dataset, and report the missed-column rate. This is important for the benchmark's validity as a standalone evaluation resource.

minor comments (5)

[Tables 2–3] The headline 'average recall@10' is an unweighted mean over nine heterogeneous settings with very different numbers of queries (e.g., 1,534 BIRD queries vs. 332 LiveSQLBench-Large queries). The per-corpus results are reported, which is good, but the abstract and discussion emphasize the unweighted average. Consider also reporting weighted averages or per-corpus aggregates so that the headline is not dominated by small, high-variance settings.
[Table 6] Table 6 includes only four models, but the text says the corpus-adapted models 'exceed every off-the-shelf model' on the code bucket. If this claim is based on the full set of evaluated models, the table should either include all models or refer to a fuller table in an appendix; otherwise the wording is stronger than the presented evidence.
[Appendix B] The leakage audit defines leakage as a near-duplicate synthetic query that also shares more than half of its gold set. This is a reasonable definition, but it is loose: a synthetic query could be semantically near a test query while not meeting the cosine/sequence thresholds. The paper should state whether the reported thresholds were chosen before or after inspecting the data, and should maybe report sensitivity to the thresholds.
[Appendix A] The implementation details say hard negatives are mined with 'voyage-multilingual-2' but no reference or version is given. Also, the 'skip the top-1 neighbor' choice is mentioned but not ablated; a one-sentence justification or ablation would help.
[General] Minor typographical and presentation issues: 'BEA VER' spacing in tables; 'Lg.-T/Lg.-C' abbreviations are not expanded in the captions; the phrase 'more than an order of magnitude larger' is correct for 305M vs. 4–8B but could be stated as '13–26×' for precision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation; the 'label-free' framing is internally inconsistent with Appendix A, but this is a correctness/leakage concern, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical claim—corpus-adaptive fine-tuning improves schema retrieval—is not circular: evaluation is against external, held-out queries from Spider, BIRD, BEAVER, and LiveSQLBench; baseline comparisons are off-the-shelf embedders; and the proposed training signal is generated from schema documents with gold sets fixed by construction, independent of the benchmark labels. Leave-one-corpus-out and the query-overlap audit are genuine external checks. The main caveat is an internal inconsistency rather than circularity: the abstract and Discussion call the recipe 'label-free' ('lightweight, label-free corpus adaptation'), but Appendix A states the authors 'mix the in-domain synthetic data with schema-linking pairs derived from the public text-to-SQL training splits of Spider and BIRD.' Since Spider and BIRD are also two of the five evaluation sources, gains on those benchmarks may be partly attributable to supervised fine-tuning, and no ablation isolates the synthetic-query component. The Limitations' admission that gold relevance 'can miss columns that are used implicitly' similarly affects label completeness, not the derivation. No equation, fitted parameter, or self-citation chain reduces the reported predictions to their inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard empirical ML assumptions rather than new mathematical axioms. The main free parameters are fine-tuning hyperparameters chosen by hand. The benchmark's validity depends on the completeness of parsing-derived gold labels and the representativeness of LLM-synthesized queries.

free parameters (6)

Learning rate (Arctic-Embed-M) = 3e-5
Appendix A; chosen by hand for contrastive fine-tuning.
Learning rate (Qwen3-Embedding-8B) = 5e-6
Appendix A; backbone-specific setting.
Number of hard negatives per query = 6
Appendix A; hyperparameter.
Batch size / epochs = 32 / 1
Appendix A; hyperparameter.
Hard-negative mining top-k skip = skip top-1
Appendix A; guard against false negatives.
Leakage audit thresholds = cos>=0.95, seq ratio>=0.9, gold overlap>0.5
Appendix B; ad hoc thresholds used to assert absence of leakage.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The schema corpus is available at indexing/adaptation time
§4 opening ('In in-domain retrieval, the corpus of schema documents is available at indexing time'); load-bearing for the corpus-adaptive recipe; acknowledged in Limitations as not covering cold-start databases.
domain assumption Relevant set R(q) equals the set of table/column references parsed from the gold SQL
§3 ('we obtain R(q) by parsing table and column references from the ground-truth SQL'); the paper itself notes in Limitations that this 'can miss columns that are used implicitly', which could bias the benchmark labels.
domain assumption LLM-synthesized queries are representative of real human questions for the purposes of adaptation
§4 and Appendix D; the recipe's transfer depends on synthetic queries matching the distribution of evaluation queries; the leakage audit checks duplication but not stylistic representativeness.
domain assumption Hard negatives mined by cosine similarity in the embedding space are useful contrastive examples
§4 step 2; standard assumption inherited from Xiong et al. 2020; not independently validated for schema documents.
domain assumption Spider/BIRD training-split schema-linking pairs do not overlap the evaluation queries/labels used in the benchmark
§4 step 3 and Appendix A; standard train/test protocol, but the paper does not audit this overlap directly.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Finding the Right Tables and Columns: A Benchmark and Corpus-Adaptive Embeddings for SQL Schema Retrieval." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5KO73DQ5

@misc{pith2026260713311,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Finding the Right Tables and Columns: A Benchmark and Corpus-Adaptive Embeddings for SQL Schema Retrieval},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5KO73DQ5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.13311}
}

read the original abstract

Retrieval in the SQL setting has largely been studied as the task of finding, within a large collection of SQL statements, the statement that answers a natural-language question. At scale, however, a more fundamental retrieval problem precedes generation: schema retrieval, identifying the tables and columns a question requires in a database that may contain thousands of them, far more than fit in a model's context. We argue that this step warrants first-class evaluation. To this end, we recast five text-to-SQL datasets (Spider, BIRD, BEAVER, and two LiveSQLBench variants) as retrieval tasks at both table and column granularity, covering realistic and enterprise-scale schemas under two document representations, and we show that off-the-shelf text and code embedders transfer poorly to this setting. We then propose corpus-adaptive fine-tuning: natural-language queries are synthesized directly from the target schema corpus, granularity-aware hard negatives are mined, and a 305M-parameter embedder is fine-tuned contrastively. This procedure raises average recall@10 from 60.4 to 75.6 (nDCG@10 from 51.9 to 68.0), making the 305M model the strongest retriever under one billion parameters and competitive with state-of-the-art embedders of 4-8B parameters, more than an order of magnitude larger. The same recipe improves an 8B state-of-the-art embedder from 77.8 to 78.4 recall@10, matching the best result on the benchmark and indicating that the adaptation is backbone-agnostic. Leave-one-corpus-out experiments and a leakage audit show that these gains reflect a transferable schema-retrieval ability rather than memorization of the evaluation data. Our results establish schema linking as a standalone retrieval task and lightweight, label-free corpus adaptation as a practical route to deploying it at enterprise scale.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13311 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 9 linked inside Pith

[9]

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 Natu- ral Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3982–3992, Hong Kong, China. Association for Com- putational Linguistics. Tarun Suresh, Revanth Gangi Re...

2019
[10]

https://github.com/bird- bench/livesqlbench

Livesqlbench: A dynamic and contamination-free benchmark for evaluating llms on real-world text-to-sql tasks. https://github.com/bird- bench/livesqlbench. Accessed: 2025-05-22. Nandan Thakur, Nils Reimers, Andreas Rücklé, Ab- hishek Srivastava, and Iryna Gurevych

2025
[11]

GPL: Generative pseudo labeling for unsupervised domain adaptation of dense retrieval. InProceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2345–2360, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. 7 Liang Wang, Nan Yang, Xiaolong Huang...

2022
[12]

Shitao Xiao, Zheng Liu, Peitian Zhang, Niklas Muen- nighoff, Defu Lian, and Jian-Yun Nie

Text embeddings by weakly-supervised contrastive pre-training.Preprint, arXiv:2212.03533. Shitao Xiao, Zheng Liu, Peitian Zhang, Niklas Muen- nighoff, Defu Lian, and Jian-Yun Nie

arXiv
[13]

Preprint, arXiv:2007.00808

Approximate nearest neighbor neg- ative contrastive learning for dense text retrieval. Preprint, arXiv:2007.00808. Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Kai Yang, Michihiro Yasunaga, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, James Ma, Irene Li, Qingn- ing Yao, Shanelle Roman, Zilin Zhang, and Dragomir Radev

arXiv 2007
[15]

Preprint, arXiv:2506.05176

Qwen3 embedding: Advancing text embedding and reranking through foundation models. Preprint, arXiv:2506.05176. Victor Zhong, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher

arXiv
[2017]

query":

Seq2sql: Generating structured queries from natural language using reinforcement learning. Preprint, arXiv:1709.00103. A Implementation Details Synthetic queries are generated with a proprietary instruction-tuned LLM served via Snowflake Cor- tex; the recipe does not depend on a specific genera- tor, and we leave a systematic comparison of query- synthesi...

arXiv 2018
[2018]

InProceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing, pages 3911–3921, Brussels, Bel- gium

Spider: A large-scale human-labeled dataset for complex and cross-domain semantic pars- ing and text-to-SQL task. InProceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing, pages 3911–3921, Brussels, Bel- gium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yanzhao Zhang, Mingxin Li, Dingkun Long, Xin Zhang, Huan Lin, Baosong ...

2018

Show all 16 references

[2019]

Mohammadreza Pourreza and Davood Rafiei

Document expansion by query prediction.Preprint, arXiv:1904.08375. Mohammadreza Pourreza and Davood Rafiei

1904 arXiv
[2020]

InProceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6769–6781, Online

Dense passage retrieval for open- domain question answering. InProceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6769–6781, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Omar Khattab and Matei Zaharia

2020
[2021]

InProceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Hu- man Language Technologies, pages 5835–5847, On- line

RocketQA: An optimized train- ing approach to dense passage retrieval for open- domain question answering. InProceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Hu- man Language Technologies, pages 5835–5847, On- l...

2021
[2022]

Dawei Gao, Haibin Wang, Yaliang Li, Xiuyu Sun, Yichen Qian, Bolin Ding, and Jingren Zhou

Promptagator: Few-shot dense retrieval from 8 examples.Preprint, arXiv:2209.11755. Dawei Gao, Haibin Wang, Yaliang Li, Xiuyu Sun, Yichen Qian, Bolin Ding, and Jingren Zhou

arXiv
[2023]

InProceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics, pages 2014–2037, Dubrovnik, Croatia

MTEB: Massive text embedding benchmark. InProceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics, pages 2014–2037, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics. Rodrigo Nogueira, Wei Yang, Jimmy Lin, and K...

2014
[2024]

Niklas Muennighoff, Nouamane Tazi, Loic Magne, and Nils Reimers

Arctic-embed: Scalable, efficient, and accurate text embedding models.Preprint, arXiv:2405.05374. Niklas Muennighoff, Nouamane Tazi, Loic Magne, and Nils Reimers

arXiv
[2025]

Preprint, arXiv:2411.12644

Codexembed: A generalist embedding model fam- ily for multiligual and multi-task code retrieval. Preprint, arXiv:2411.12644. Luke Merrick, Danmei Xu, Gaurav Nuti, and Daniel Campos

arXiv
[2026]

Zhuyun Dai, Vincent Y

Beaver: An enterprise benchmark for text-to-sql.Preprint, arXiv:2409.02038. Zhuyun Dai, Vincent Y . Zhao, Ji Ma, Yi Luan, Jianmo Ni, Jing Lu, Anton Bakalov, Kelvin Guu, Keith B. Hall, and Ming-Wei Chang

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [9]

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 Natu- ral Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3982–3992, Hong Kong, China. Association for Com- putational Linguistics. Tarun Suresh, Revanth Gangi Re...

2019

[2] [10]

https://github.com/bird- bench/livesqlbench

Livesqlbench: A dynamic and contamination-free benchmark for evaluating llms on real-world text-to-sql tasks. https://github.com/bird- bench/livesqlbench. Accessed: 2025-05-22. Nandan Thakur, Nils Reimers, Andreas Rücklé, Ab- hishek Srivastava, and Iryna Gurevych

2025

[3] [11]

GPL: Generative pseudo labeling for unsupervised domain adaptation of dense retrieval. InProceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2345–2360, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. 7 Liang Wang, Nan Yang, Xiaolong Huang...

2022

[4] [12]

Shitao Xiao, Zheng Liu, Peitian Zhang, Niklas Muen- nighoff, Defu Lian, and Jian-Yun Nie

Text embeddings by weakly-supervised contrastive pre-training.Preprint, arXiv:2212.03533. Shitao Xiao, Zheng Liu, Peitian Zhang, Niklas Muen- nighoff, Defu Lian, and Jian-Yun Nie

arXiv

[5] [13]

Preprint, arXiv:2007.00808

Approximate nearest neighbor neg- ative contrastive learning for dense text retrieval. Preprint, arXiv:2007.00808. Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Kai Yang, Michihiro Yasunaga, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, James Ma, Irene Li, Qingn- ing Yao, Shanelle Roman, Zilin Zhang, and Dragomir Radev

arXiv 2007

[6] [15]

Preprint, arXiv:2506.05176

Qwen3 embedding: Advancing text embedding and reranking through foundation models. Preprint, arXiv:2506.05176. Victor Zhong, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher

arXiv

[7] [2017]

query":

Seq2sql: Generating structured queries from natural language using reinforcement learning. Preprint, arXiv:1709.00103. A Implementation Details Synthetic queries are generated with a proprietary instruction-tuned LLM served via Snowflake Cor- tex; the recipe does not depend on a specific genera- tor, and we leave a systematic comparison of query- synthesi...

arXiv 2018

[8] [2018]

InProceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing, pages 3911–3921, Brussels, Bel- gium

Spider: A large-scale human-labeled dataset for complex and cross-domain semantic pars- ing and text-to-SQL task. InProceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing, pages 3911–3921, Brussels, Bel- gium. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yanzhao Zhang, Mingxin Li, Dingkun Long, Xin Zhang, Huan Lin, Baosong ...

2018