Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 9 minor 65 references

SafeQL: Search-based Refinement for Safe and Efficient LLM-based Text-to-SQL

T0 review · 4 major / 9 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read SafeQL reframes LLM text-to-SQL repair as a guided search inside the database, fixing only the broken parts instead of regenerating whole queries.

desk verdict A genuinely new refinement idea for Text-to-SQL with real empirical gains; Lemma 7 overclaims a guarantee and needs to be pulled back, but the paper deserves a proper review. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09260 v1 pith:DGKSX6EJ submitted 2026-08-10 cs.DB cs.AI

Geonho Lee , Min-Soo Kim This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DBcs.AI
keywords text-to-SQLqueryrefinementlargelanguagemodelssafespacebest-firstsearchsemanticdistancedatabasemanagementsystemsexecutionaccuracy
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

SafeQL claims that the standard regeneration-based approach to fixing LLM-generated SQL—executing the query, reading the error message, and asking the LLM to write the whole query again—can be replaced by a guided search over a safe query space. The paper redefines the DBMS as an active participant: its parser, binder, and type analyzer locate the faulty component, and admissible refinement operations repair only that component while preserving the rest of the query. A best-first search, ranked by a semantic distance that blends structural and embedding similarity, selects the executable candidate closest to the original intent. On the Bird and Spider benchmarks, the authors report execution-accuracy gains up to +5.8 percentage points and up to a 15x reduction in LLM token consumption compared with regeneration-based baselines. The broader claim is that localized, execution-guided repair is both more reliable and cheaper than repeated regeneration.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the safe query space $\mathcal{Q}_{\text{safe}}$ together with its safe refinement tree $\mathcal{T}_{\text{safe},q}$. Each node is a candidate SQL query, and each edge is an atomic refinement step permitted for the observed error type: relation, join, attribute, value, or function refinement. Best-first search over this tree, ordered by semantic distance $\delta$, returns the first executable leaf as the nearest safe query. Type-based pruning removes substitutions that violate the database typing environment $\Gamma$, while top-$K$ pruning keeps only the most embedding-similar candidates per category, and in-database caching plus a vector index make the similarity computations fast. The paper's guarantee is Lemma 7, which asserts that every error in the tree has an admissible refinement that resolves it.

What would settle it

Run SafeQL in search-only mode on a hand-built database where a query fails with an unknown-function type mismatch but no attribute of the required type exists in the schema, or where an empty-result error stems from a predicate no value substitution can satisfy; if the search terminates without an executable query, the reachability guarantee of Lemma 7 is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that Text-to-SQL refinement can be formulated as a shortest-path-style search into an executable subspace, with each hop being a single structure-preserving edit triggered by the DBMS's own error diagnosis. For a failing query, SafeQL builds a safe refinement tree whose edges are admissible operations selected by error type: relation refinement, join refinement, attribute refinement, value refinement, or function refinement. The paper argues in Lemma 7 that every execution error has at least one such edge that resolves it, so the search eventually reaches a leaf whose execution succeeds, and the set of such leaves is the safe query space $\mathcal{Q}_{\text{safe}}$. Because this space can grow exponentially, SafeQL uses type-based pruning and top-$K$ embedding pruning, and it ranks candidates by semantic distance $\delta = \alpha d_{\text{struct}} + (1-\alpha) d_{\text{embed}}$ to recover the most faithful executable query. Implemented inside a DBMS, it refines the query AST rather than raw text, with a hybrid fallback that regenerates only when localized search cannot recover.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is Lemma 7's reachability: every error type must have an admissible refinement that truly resolves it, which presumes the schema contains at least one attribute of the type each failing function argument needs, and presumes every empty-result failure can be fixed by substituting some value in the database.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Refinement cost shifts from expensive LLM regeneration to cheaper in-database search: in the reported Bird and Spider experiments, SafeQL in search-only mode resolves a large share of errors with zero additional LLM tokens.
  • Weaker and smaller models benefit most: the reported gains of +5 to +12 percentage points for open-source models such as Qwen and Llama suggest that structural, execution-guided repair narrows the gap with larger commercial models.
  • The DBMS parser, binder, and type analyzer become first-class components of the refinement loop, which implies that future text-to-SQL systems should expose structured error locations rather than plain error strings.
  • Because only the erroneous AST node changes, valid fragments of the original query are preserved, reducing the chance of reintroducing previously fixed errors compared with full regeneration.
  • The hybrid fallback bounds worst-case behavior: if search does not converge within a step threshold, regeneration reinitializes the search, keeping the system robust to fundamentally misgenerated queries.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the reachability result is treated as an empirical heuristic rather than a theorem, the same search structure could be extended to other DBMS-level failures, such as constraint violations, permission errors, or result-shape mismatches, whenever an admissible repair operation can be defined.
  • The semantic-distance objective is a proxy for user intent; a natural extension would be to re-rank safe candidates by executing them and comparing results against the question or a small validation set, turning the refinement search into a test-guided loop.
  • The same pattern—use a symbolic checker to localize an error, propose minimal edits, then search over edit sequences—applies beyond SQL to code repair, API misuse, and data-pipeline generation, where regeneration is currently the default repair strategy.
  • The weakest part of Lemma 7 is the empty-result case, where the paper says a Value Refinement 'typically' supplies a repair; a contradictory predicate that no value substitution can satisfy would be a direct counterexample to the stated guarantee.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 9 minor

Summary. SafeQL proposes a search-based refinement paradigm for LLM-based Text-to-SQL. Rather than regenerating entire SQL queries after DBMS execution failure, SafeQL localizes the faulty AST component and applies minimal admissible refinement operations (relation, join, attribute, value, function) to build a 'safe refinement tree'; a best-first search over a semantic distance metric (weighted tree-edit and embedding distance) with type-based and top-K pruning selects the executable query closest to the original. The system is implemented as a PostgreSQL extension with an embedding cache, an HNSW vector index, and a hybrid regeneration fallback. Experiments on Bird (full dev and mini dev) and Spider, using DAIL-SQL and OpenSearch-SQL as testbeds and five regeneration baselines, report execution-accuracy gains up to +5.8 percentage points and 1.8–15.1x token reductions, plus ablations of pruning, caching/indexing, and the alpha and K parameters. The theoretical centerpiece is Lemma 7, which asserts that every execution error in the safe refinement tree has an admissible refinement edge that resolves it, guaranteeing convergence to an executable query.

Significance. If the empirical results hold, the paper makes a substantial systems contribution: the DBMS is turned into an active search guide rather than a passive error reporter, and the accuracy gains replicate across two benchmarks, two testbed systems (prompt- and agent-based), and five LLM families (Table 2), while the token-efficiency gains are large. Credit is due for the promised public artifact, the informative ablations (Figures 10-11), and the honest per-error-type analysis (Figure 9). The central accuracy improvement is not an artifact of the semantic distance metric: SafeQL improves over regeneration baselines while using the same LLM and the same initial query. However, the theoretical guarantee is overstated, and the stress-test concern lands: the empty-result case of Lemma 7 is asserted rather than proved, Case 3.2 rests on an unstated schema assumption, and the paper's own error statistics (Section 7.3.2, Figure 9) concede unresolved queries that contradict the 'converging to an executable query' framing in the abstract.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Lemma 7 (Case 4) and Definition 8] The empty-result case is not proved. The proof states that 'a Value Refinement typically provides a refinement edge,' which is an empirical tendency, not a guarantee; the proof also mentions 'relaxing a comparison,' yet the operation set of Definition 5 contains no operator-relaxation step. For a database containing an empty relation R, the query SELECT a FROM R WHERE a = 1 returns an empty result and every value substitution still returns an empty result, so the node has no admissible edge that resolves the error. Under the tree construction that node is then a leaf, which makes the 'Proof' attached to Definition 8 circular: the claim that every leaf satisfies [q] != epsilon(q) holds only if every error node has at least one child, exactly what Lemma 7 was supposed to establish. The manuscript itself concedes the gap at Section 7.3.2 ('queries that cannot enter the safe query space'), and Figure 9 shows 29% (prompt-based) and 16% (agent-based) of empty-result errors unresolved. I recommend restating Lemma 7 with explicit sufficient conditions or reclassifying it as a heuristic property, and aligning the abstract's convergence claim with the revised statement.
  2. [Section 3.2, Lemma 7 (Case 3.2)] The type-mismatch repair relies on an assumption that is neither stated in the lemma's hypotheses nor verified for the experimental databases: 'the schema includes at least one attribute of each required type.' Moreover, an Attribute Refinement only resolves the unknown-function error if the replacement attribute belongs to a relation in the current FROM scope (or is made accessible by an admissible step, but Join and Relation refinement are not admissible for unknown-function errors). Under the stated assumption, replacing the invalid argument with a type-compatible attribute outside the current scope would just convert the unknown-function error into an unknown-attribute error, and no admissible edge would restore the violated premise. The assumption must be made explicit and either proven for the benchmarks or the lemma restricted; as written, the universal guarantee for arbitrary D is not established.
  3. [Section 7, Tables 3 and 4] All headline numbers come from single runs with no error bars, seeds, or statistical tests, although the pipeline samples from stochastic LLMs. The margins against the strongest regeneration baselines on Bird full dev are small: Table 3 prompt-based shows SafeQL hybrid at 63.3 vs. RED-SQL at 62.9 and CHESS-SQL at 62.6, and search-only at 62.5 vs. OpenSearch-SQL at 62.0; agent-based shows 69.4 vs. 68.5 for CHESS-SQL. The abstract's claim that SafeQL 'significantly improves execution accuracy compared to regeneration-based methods' is therefore not yet supported for those pairwise comparisons. I ask for either an explicit statement of temperature-0, seed-stable decoding, or multiple runs with variance and a paired test (e.g., paired bootstrap over the test queries).
  4. [Section 7.1.3 and Tables 3-4] The five regeneration baselines are re-implemented, but the manuscript does not report their prompts, few-shot counts, regeneration iteration limits, or decoding parameters, and it does not state the alpha, K, and hybrid-fallback settings used for the main results. The alpha/K study in Figure 11 is run on the Bird mini dev split, which is a subset of the same dev set used for the Table 3 headline numbers, so those choices are inherited without disclosure. Because the central efficiency claim (1.8-15.1x fewer tokens, '15x' in the abstract) is measured against these re-implementations, the convergence criteria for the baseline regeneration loops must be specified or the comparison is not reproducible. Please publish the baseline configurations and the exact settings used for Tables 3 and 4.
minor comments (9)
  1. [Section 3.2] The line immediately preceding the proof ('Formally: the error condition indicating a violation of execution premise D|-q=>epsilon(q)') is a dangling fragment, and no actual inference rules for the claimed 'lightweight operational semantics' are given; either provide the rules or label the argument as a proof sketch.
  2. [Definition 8] Attaching a 'Proof' to a definition is nonstandard, and the proof depends on Lemma 7; I suggest turning the statement into a proposition whose validity is conditional on Lemma 7.
  3. [Section 2.2] 'the model offers no guaranty' should read 'no guarantee'.
  4. [Section 3.2] 'These refinements differs from traditional rule-based generation' has a subject-verb agreement error; it should be 'differ.'
  5. [Figure 11] The sub-caption '(c) Elapsed time while varying K' appears twice with mismatched panels; please renumber the sub-figures (a)-(d) and ensure each panel has a single caption.
  6. [Sections 7.1.2-7.1.3] OpenSearch-SQL serves both as a testbed system (hosting the agent-based no-refinement baseline and SafeQL) and as one of the five comparison methods; this dual role is legitimate but should be stated explicitly to avoid the impression of double counting.
  7. [Table 3] DIN-SQL shows DeltaErr = +4.2% while DeltaEX = -0.3pp; since DeltaErr counts resolved execution errors, positive error reduction with negative accuracy change is possible, but the table and Section 7.2.1 should explain this so readers do not read DeltaErr as an accuracy improvement.
  8. [Section 7.3.2] The sentence 'the defined safe query space is not only theoretically sound but also practically effective' stands in direct tension with the same section's admission that some queries 'cannot enter the safe query space'; after revising Lemma 7, please align this sentence with the revised claims.
  9. [Section 6.3] The regeneration-fallback threshold (default 100 refinement steps) is not ablated; a sentence on its sensitivity, or a small sweep, would strengthen the hybrid-design evaluation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Safe query space convergence guarantee is definitional: Definition 8's proof assumes the reachability lemma it is supposed to establish; empirical accuracy claims are not circular.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.2, Definition 8 (Safe Query Space) and its proof; depends on Lemma 7]
    "Proof. By construction of Tsafe,q, a query q is refined when ⟦q⟧=ε(q). Thus, if a node q′ has no children (i.e., it is a leaf), it must satisfy ⟦q′⟧≠ε(q′)."

    The proof derives 'every leaf is error-free' from the rule that error nodes are refined, but a node can be an error node with no outgoing edge if no admissible refinement resolves it; whether such an edge exists is exactly Lemma 7. Lemma 7's Case 4 only states that 'a Value Refinement typically provides a refinement edge' - a tendency, not a guarantee - and Case 3.2 assumes 'the schema includes at least one attribute of each required type.' Thus the claimed guarantee that refinement 'converges to an executable query' is not proved from first principles; it is assumed by defining the safe query space as error-free leaves while simultaneously asserting all leaves are error-free.

full rationale

The paper's empirical core - SafeQL versus regeneration baselines on Bird and Spider - is self-contained and benchmarked against external systems, so the reported accuracy and token-efficiency improvements are not artifacts of the metric or of the safe-query-space definition. The only load-bearing circularity is in the formal convergence argument: Definition 8's proof presupposes Lemma 7, and Lemma 7's empty-result case is an explicit 'typically' claim rather than a proof, with Section 7.3.2 admitting that some queries 'cannot enter the safe query space.' This makes the universal reachability guarantee definitional rather than derived. Hyperparameter selection of alpha and K on the Bird mini dev split (Figure 11) before full-dev evaluation is a tuning/overfitting concern, not circularity, because full-dev accuracy is not forced by construction. No self-citation chain, imported uniqueness theorem, or renaming of a known result is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a simplified database model with distinct attribute names, a restricted set of four error types, and a reachability lemma that assumes value substitution can fix empty results and that required attribute types exist in the schema. These are reasonable for the Bird and Spider benchmarks but limit the theoretical guarantee.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha = 0.3-0.4 recommended from Figure 11
    Weight balancing structural and embedding distance in the semantic distance metric; tuned on the Bird mini dev split.
  • K = 3
    Top-K pruning threshold; accuracy saturates at K>=3 per Section 7.4.
  • hybrid fallback threshold = 100
    Number of refinement steps before triggering regeneration; set by default in Section 6.3.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption All attributes in Atts are distinct
    Definition 2 simplifies the database model; in real schemas duplicate column names across tables are common and would break error localization.
  • ad hoc to paper Schema contains at least one attribute of each type required by a function signature
    Used in Lemma 7 proof case 3.2 to guarantee unknown-function errors are repairable by attribute refinement; not generally true.
  • domain assumption Empty-result errors can be fixed by value substitution
    Lemma 7 case 4 assumes modifying a constant value makes the predicate satisfiable; the gold query may require a structural change instead.
  • domain assumption Execution errors are limited to the four enumerated types
    The theory focuses on unknown relation, unknown attribute, unknown function, and empty result; Figure 9 shows an 'others' category that is not modeled.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SafeQL: Search-based Refinement for Safe and Efficient LLM-based Text-to-SQL." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DGKSX6EJ

@misc{pith2026260809260,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SafeQL: Search-based Refinement for Safe and Efficient LLM-based Text-to-SQL},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DGKSX6EJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09260}
}
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have advanced Text-to-SQL by enabling natural language interfaces to databases without task-specific fine-tuning. However, existing LLM-based systems remain unreliable, often generating SQL queries that are invalid under the database schema, referencing non-existent tables, attributes, functions, or values. Such errors persist because interactions with the database management system (DBMS) are typically limited to error messages, leaving it in a largely passive role during query refinement. This paper proposes SafeQL, \textit{a search-based refinement paradigm that redefines the role of the DBMS as an active guide in the refinement process}. Instead of regenerating entire queries after execution failure, SafeQL interprets DBMS feedback to incrementally repair only the erroneous components. Each refinement step is formulated as a guided search within a \textit{safe query space}, where candidate queries are progressively validated through DBMS execution, thereby converging to an executable query and preventing repeated regeneration of errors. Experiments on the Bird and Spider benchmarks show that SafeQL significantly improves execution accuracy and efficiency compared to regeneration-based methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09260 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. High-level comparison of refinement paradigms. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Examples of erroneous SQLs and gold SQLs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. illustrates this common prompt structure adopted by most regeneration-based methods. However, as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simplified SQL syntax. † The symbol ⊕ denotes a comparison operator (e.g., =, <, >). Based on this grammar, we define the refinement stage a se￾quence of atomic refinement steps, where each step is a transforma￾tion between two SQL queries that modifies exactly one syn…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: illustrates an example Safe Refinement Tree. The root query first fails with an unknown attribute error because the at￾tribute txt does not exist in the Users relation in the FROM clause. Accordingly, SafeQL explores only the admissible refinements for this error type—…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example of pruning in the safe refinement tree. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: summarizes how these components interact within the SafeQL architecture. When a query 𝑞𝑖 fails over the database 𝐷, the query refiner operates inside the DBMS to locate the error source 𝜖 (𝑞𝑖) and generate refined candidates 𝑞 ′ 𝑖 that correct the erroneous AST nodes (…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Error statistics of SafeQL. 7.3.2 Error analysis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Efficiency ablation studies. Execu �on Accuracy (%) α = 58.4 59.2 60 60.2 60.2 60 59.7 58.6 57.2 57 59 61 0.20.250.30.350.40.450.5 1 2 780621517 379 243189176157155 0 400 800 0.20.250.30.350.40.450.5 Elapsed Time (sec) α = 1 2 (a) Execu�on accuracy while varying 𝜶 Exe…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Effects of the parameters 𝛼 and 𝐾. 7.5 System overhead [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Jason Ai, Sam Altman, Andy Applebaum, Edwin Arbus, Rahul K Arora, Yu Bai, Bowen Baker, Haiming Bao, et al . 2025. gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b model card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.10925(2025)

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Meta AI. 2024. The Llama 3 Herd of Models. https://ai.meta.com/llama/

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D. Ka- plan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott...

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Ziru Chen, Shijie Chen, Michael White, Raymond Mooney, Ali Payani, Jayanth Srinivasa, Yu Su, and Huan Sun. 2023. Text-to-SQL Error Correction with Lan- guage Models of Code. InProceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers). 1359–1372

    work page 2023

  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]

    Thibault Formal, Benjamin Piwowarski, and Stéphane Clinchant. 2021. SPLADE: Sparse Lexical and Expansion Model for First Stage Ranking. InProceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 2288–2292. https://doi.org/10.1145/3404835.3463098

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Dawei Gao, Haibin Wang, Yaliang Li, Xiuyu Sun, Yichen Qian, Bolin Ding, and Jingren Zhou. 2024. Text-to-SQL Empowered by Large Language Models: A Benchmark Evaluation.Proc. VLDB Endow.17, 5 (2024), 1132–1145. https: //doi.org/10.14778/3641204.3641221

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Zihui Gu, Ju Fan, Nan Tang, Songyue Zhang, Yuxin Zhang, Zui Chen, Lei Cao, Guoliang Li, Sam Madden, and Xiaoyong Du. 2023. Interleaving pre-trained language models and large language models for zero-shot nl2sql generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.08891(2023)

    arXiv 2023

Show all 65 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. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1905.08205

    2019 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    Jaemin Hong and Sukyoung Ryu. 2003. Introduction to Programming Languages. (2003)

    2003

  3. [11]

    Radu Cristian Alexandru Iacob, Florin Brad, Elena-Simona Apostol, Ciprian- Octavian Truică, Ionel Alexandru Hosu, and Traian Rebedea. 2020. Neural approaches for natural language interfaces to databases: A survey. Inproceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computati...

    2020

  4. [12]

    George Katsogiannis-Meimarakis and Georgia Koutrika. 2023. A survey on deep learning approaches for text-to-SQL.The VLDB Journal32, 4 (2023), 905–936

    2023

  5. [13]

    Hyeonji Kim, Byeong-Hoon So, Wook-Shin Han, and Hongrae Lee. 2020. Natural language to SQL: Where are we today?Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment13, 10 (2020), 1737–1750

    2020

  6. [14]

    Woosuk Kwon, Zhuohan Li, Siyuan Zhuang, Ying Sheng, Lianmin Zheng, Cody Hao Yu, Joseph Gonzalez, Hao Zhang, and Ion Stoica. 2023. Efficient memory management for large language model serving with pagedattention. In Proceedings of the 29th symposium on operating systems princip...

    2023

  7. [15]

    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. 337–353. https://aclanthology.org/20...

    2025

  8. [16]

    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. https://openreview.net/forum?id=kGg1ndttmI

    2025

  9. [17]

    Jagadish

    Fei Li and Hosagrahar V. Jagadish. 2014. NaLIR: An Interactive Natural Language Interface for Querying Relational Databases. InProceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. 709–712. https: //doi.org/10.1145/2588555.2594519

    2014

  10. [18]

    Jinyang Li, Binyuan Hui, Ge Qu, Jiaxi Yang, Binhua Li, Bowen Li, Bailin Wang, Bowen Qin, Ruiying Geng, Nan Huo, 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 Sys...

    2024

  11. [19]

    Zhishuai Li, Xiang Wang, Jingjing Zhao, Sun Yang, Guoqing Du, Xiaoru Hu, Bin Zhang, Yuxiao Ye, Ziyue Li, Rui Zhao, et al. 2024. Pet-sql: A prompt-enhanced two-stage Text-to-SQL framework with cross-consistency.CoRR(2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Xi Victoria Lin, Richard Socher, and Caiming Xiong. 2020. Bridging Textual and Tabular Data for Cross-Domain Text-to-SQL Semantic Parsing. https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2012.12627

    2020 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    Xinyu Liu, Shuyu Shen, Boyan Li, Peixian Ma, Runzhi Jiang, Yuxin Zhang, Ju Fan, Guoliang Li, Nan Tang, and Yuyu Luo. 2025. A survey of text-to-sql in the era of llms: Where are we, and where are we going?IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering(2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    Niels Mündler, Jingxuan He, Hao Wang, Koushik Sen, Dawn Song, and Martin Vechev. 2025. Type-constrained code generation with language models.Proceed- ings of the ACM on Programming Languages9, PLDI (2025), 601–626

    2025

  15. [23]

    Shaan Nagy, Timothy Zhou, Nadia Polikarpova, and Loris D’Antoni. 2026. Chop- Chop: A Programmable Framework for Semantically Constraining the Output of Language Models.Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10, POPL (2026), 1905–1932

    2026

  16. [24]

    Linyong Nan, Yilun Zhao, Weijin Zou, Narutatsu Ri, Jaesung Tae, Ellen Zhang, Arman Cohan, and Dragomir Radev. 2023. Enhancing Text-to-SQL Capabilities of Large Language Models: A Study on Prompt Design Strategies. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EM...

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    Narendra and Fukunaga. 1977. A branch and bound algorithm for feature subset selection.IEEE Transactions on computers100, 9 (1977), 917–922

    1977

  18. [26]

    Zheng Ning, Yuan Tian, Zheng Zhang, Tianyi Zhang, and Toby Jia-Jun Li. 2024. Insights into natural language database query errors: From attention misalign- ment to user handling strategies.ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems14, 4 (2024), 1–32

    2024

  19. [27]

    OpenAI. 2023. GPT-3.5 Technical Report. https://openai.com

    2023

  20. [28]

    OpenAI. 2024. GPT-4o System Card. https://openai.com

    2024

  21. [29]

    Ana-Maria Popescu, Oren Etzioni, and Henry Kautz. [n.d.]. Towards a Theory of Natural Language Interfaces to Databases. ([n. d.])

  22. [30]

    Mohammadreza Pourreza, Hailong Li, Ruoxi Sun, Yeounoh Chung, Shayan Talaei, Gaurav Tarlok Kakkar, Yu Gan, Amin Saberi, Fatma Ozcan, and Sercan O. Arik

  23. [31]

    Mohammadreza Pourreza and Davood Rafiei. 2023. DIN-SQL: Decomposed In- Context Learning of Text-to-SQL with Self-Correction. InProceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. 36339–36348

    2023

  24. [32]

    Mohammadreza Pourreza and Davood Rafiei. 2024. DTS-SQL: Decomposed Text-to-SQL with Small Large Language Models. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024. 8212–8220

    2024

  25. [33]

    Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1908.10084

    2019 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    Sean Wang

    Tonghui Ren, Chen Ke, Yuankai Fan, Yinan Jing, Zhenying He, Kai Zhang, and X. Sean Wang. 2025. The Power of Constraints in Natural Language to SQL Translation.Proc. VLDB Endow.18, 7 (March 2025), 2097–2111. https://doi.org/ 10.14778/3734839.3734847

    2025

  27. [35]

    Ohad Rubin and Jonathan Berant. 2021. SmBoP: Semi-autoregressive Bottom-up Semantic Parsing. InProceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Tech- nologies. 311–324. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1...

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    Mittal, and Fatma Özcan

    Diptikalyan Saha, Avrilia Floratou, Karthik Sankaranarayanan, Umar Farooq Minhas, Ashish R. Mittal, and Fatma Özcan. 2016. ATHENA: An Ontology-Driven System for Natural Language Querying over Relational Data Stores.Proc. VLDB Endow.9, 12 (2016), 1209–1220. https://doi.org/10.1...

    2016

  29. [37]

    Keshav Santhanam, Omar Khattab, Jon Saad-Falcon, Christopher Potts, and Matei Zaharia. 2022. ColBERTv2: Effective and Efficient Retrieval via Lightweight Late Interaction. InProceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational L...

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    Torsten Scholak, Nathan Schucher, and Dzmitry Bahdanau. 2021. PICARD: Parsing Incrementally for Constrained Auto-Regressive Decoding from Language Models. 9895–9901. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.779

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    Jiawei Shen, Chengcheng Wan, Ruoyi Qiao, Jiazhen Zou, Hang Xu, Yuchen Shao, Yueling Zhang, Weikai Miao, and Geguang Pu. 2025. A Study of In-Context- Learning-Based Text-to-SQL Errors.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09310(2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    Lei Sheng and Shuai-Shuai Xu. 2025. CSC-SQL: Corrective Self-Consistency in Text-to-SQL via Reinforcement Learning. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505. 13271

    2025 doi

  33. [41]

    Chang-Yu Tai, Ziru Chen, Tianshu Zhang, Xiang Deng, and Huan Sun. 2023. Exploring Chain of Thought Style Prompting for Text-to-SQL. 5376–5393. https: //doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.327

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    Shayan Talaei, Mohammadreza Pourreza, Yu-Chen Chang, Azalia Mirhoseini, and Amin Saberi. 2024. CHESS: Contextual Harnessing for Efficient SQL Synthesis. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.16755v3

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    2024.FastEmbed: Lightweight and Efficient Text Embedding Library

    Qdrant Team. 2024.FastEmbed: Lightweight and Efficient Text Embedding Library. https://github.com/qdrant/fastembed Python library for fast text embedding inference

    2024

  36. [44]

    Qwen Team. 2024. Qwen2 Technical Report. https://qwen.ai

    2024

  37. [45]

    2024.pgvecto.rs: High-performance Vector Search Extension for PostgreSQL

    TensorChord Team. 2024.pgvecto.rs: High-performance Vector Search Extension for PostgreSQL. https://github.com/tensorchord/pgvecto.rs Rust-based vector indexing extension for PostgreSQL

    2024

  38. [46]

    2024.PostgreSQL: The World’s Most Advanced Open Source Relational Database

    The PostgreSQL Global Development Group. 2024.PostgreSQL: The World’s Most Advanced Open Source Relational Database. https://www.postgresql.org/ Version 17

    2024

  39. [47]

    Immanuel Trummer. 2022. CodexDB: Synthesizing code for query processing from natural language instructions using GPT-3 Codex.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment15, 11 (2022), 2921–2928

    2022

  40. [48]

    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

  41. [49]

    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 Association for Computational Linguistics. 7567–7578. https://...

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    Le, and Denny Zhou

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V. Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems35 (Dec. 2022), 24824–24837

    2022

  43. [51]

    Jun Xiao, Chenglin Wang, Yuxin Huang, et al. 2024. BGE-base-en-v1.5: English Text Embedding Model. https://huggingface.co/BAAI/bge-base-en-v1.5. Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence (BAAI)

    2024

  44. [52]

    Xiangjin Xie, Guangwei Xu, Lingyan Zhao, and Ruijie Guo. 2025. OpenSearch- SQL: Enhancing Text-to-SQL with Dynamic Few-shot and Consistency Align- ment.Proc. ACM Manag. Data3, 3 (2025), 194:1–194:24. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3725331

    2025

  45. [53]

    Xiaojun Xu, Chang Liu, and Dawn Song. 2017. SQLNet: Generating Structured Queries From Natural Language Without Reinforcement Learning. https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1711.04436

    2017 doi arXiv

  46. [54]

    Yuming Xu, Hengyu Liang, Jin Li, Shuotao Xu, Qi Chen, Qianxi Zhang, Cheng Li, Ziyue Yang, Fan Yang, Yuqing Yang, et al. 2023. Spfresh: Incremental in-place update for billion-scale vector search. InProceedings of the 29th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles. 545–561

    2023

  47. [55]

    Navid Yaghmazadeh, Yuepeng Wang, Isil Dillig, and Thomas Dillig. 2017. SQLizer: Query Synthesis from Natural Language.Proc. ACM Program. Lang.1, OOPSLA (2017), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3133887

    2017 doi

  48. [56]

    Song Yu, Shengyuan Lin, Shufeng Gong, Yongqing Xie, Ruicheng Liu, Yijie Zhou, Ji Sun, Yanfeng Zhang, Guoliang Li, and Ge Yu. 2026. A Topology-Aware Localized Update Strategy for Graph-Based ANN Index.Proc. VLDB Endow.19, 3 (2026), 495–508

    2026

  49. [57]

    Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Kai Yang, Michihiro Yasunaga, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, James Ma, Irene Li, Qingning Yao, Shanelle Roman, Zilin Zhang, and Dragomir Radev. 2018. Spider: A Large-Scale Human-Labeled Dataset for Complex and Cross-Domain Semantic Parsing and Text-to-SQL Task. InPr...

    2018

  50. [58]

    John M Zelle and Raymond J Mooney. 1996. Learning to parse database queries using inductive logic programming. InProceedings of the national conference on artificial intelligence. 1050–1055

    1996

  51. [59]

    Hanchong Zhang, Ruisheng Cao, Lu Chen, Hongshen Xu, and Kai Yu. [n.d.]. ACT- SQL: In-Context Learning for Text-to-SQL with Automatically-Generated Chain- of-Thought. InThe 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

    2023

  52. [60]

    Kaizhong Zhang and Dennis Shasha. 1989. Simple Fast Algorithms for the Editing Distance between Trees and Related Problems.SIAM J. Comput.18, 6 (Dec. 1989), 1245–1262

    1989

  53. [61]

    Quanjun Zhang, Chunrong Fang, Yang Xie, YuXiang Ma, Weisong Sun, Yun Yang, and Zhenyu Chen. 2024. A systematic literature review on large language models for automated program repair.ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology(2024)

    2024

  54. [62]

    Rui Zhang, Tao Yu, Heyang Er, Sungrok Shim, Eric Xue, Xi Victoria Lin, Tianze Shi, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Dragomir Radev. 2019. Editing-based SQL query generation for cross-domain context-dependent questions. InPro- ceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Meth...

    2019

  55. [63]

    Victor Zhong, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2017. Seq2SQL: Generating Structured Queries from Natural Language using Reinforcement Learning. https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1709.00103

    2017 doi arXiv

  56. [64]

    Le, and Ed H

    Denny Zhou, Nathanael Schärli, Le Hou, Jason Wei, Nathan Scales, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Claire Cui, Olivier Bousquet, Quoc V. Le, and Ed H. Chi. 2022. Least-to-Most Prompting Enables Complex Reasoning in Large Language Models. https://openreview.net/forum?id=WZH7099tgfM

    2022

  57. [2024]

    https://openreview.net/forum?id=CvGqMD5OtX

    CHASE-SQL: Multi-Path Reasoning and Preference Optimized Candidate Selection in Text-to-SQL. https://openreview.net/forum?id=CvGqMD5OtX

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.