REVIEW 1 cited by
CSC-SQL: Corrective Self-Consistency in Text-to-SQL via Reinforcement Learning
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 strong capabilities in translating natural language questions about relational databases into SQL queries. In particular, test-time scaling techniques such as Self-Consistency and Self-Correction can enhance SQL generation accuracy by increasing computational effort during inference. However, these methods have notable limitations: Self-Consistency may select suboptimal outputs despite majority votes, while Self-Correction typically addresses only syntactic errors. To leverage the strengths of both approaches, we propose CSC-SQL, a novel method that integrates Self-Consistency and Self-Correction. CSC-SQL selects the two most frequently occurring outputs from parallel sampling and feeds them into a merge revision model for correction. Additionally, we employ the Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) algorithm to fine-tune both the SQL generation and revision models via reinforcement learning, significantly enhancing output quality. Experimental results confirm the effectiveness and generalizability of CSC-SQL. On the BIRD private test set, our 7B model achieves 71.72\% execution accuracy, while the 32B model achieves 73.67\%. The code has been open sourced at https://github.com/CycloneBoy/csc_sql.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
The Horizon Gap: Planning, Memory, Execution, Training, and Evaluation for Long-Horizon LLM Agents
A survey of 1,547 papers defines the 'horizon gap' and documents that long-horizon agent research is converging on trajectory-level process signals instead of outcome-only scores.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.