Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

ReEx-SQL: Reasoning with Execution-Aware Reinforcement Learning for Text-to-SQL

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read ReEx-SQL claims that execution-aware reasoning—interleaving exploratory SQL with execution feedback during decoding—trains a 7B text-to-SQL model to beat standard chain-of-thought by 2.7% on Spider and 2.6% on BIRD.

desk verdict A promising but partially underspecified text-to-SQL framework; the headline gain is clouded by unreported baseline reward weights, though the efficiency result is solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.12768 v2 pith:IW3H3ZBX submitted 2025-05-19 cs.CL

Yaxun Dai , Wenxuan Xie , Xialie Zhuang , Tianyu Yang , Yiying Yang , Haiqin Yang , Yuhang Zhao , Pingfu Chao
show 1 more author
Wenhao Jiang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords text-to-sqlexecutionfeedbackreinforcementlearningGRPOreasoningSQLgenerationtree-structureddecodingaccuracy
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 a text-to-SQL model can be trained to interleave its own reasoning with live database queries, writing exploratory SQL, reading execution results or error logs, and revising its plan before emitting a final query. This execution-aware reasoning, trained with GRPO and a five-part reward, lets a 7B model reach 88.8% execution accuracy on Spider and 64.9% on BIRD, beating a standard reasoning baseline by 2.7% and 2.6%. If true, it shows execution feedback is not just a post-hoc verification signal but a usable training signal for small open-weight models. The paper also claims that tree-structured decoding over interaction steps cuts inference time by 51.9% on BIRD Dev while improving accuracy.

What carries the argument

The central object is the execution-aware reasoning path: a structured rollout in which the model emits <think> reasoning, an <intermediate_sql> exploratory query, receives <result> execution feedback, and only then produces <final_sql>. Training extends GRPO to these interleaved rollouts, masking the externally generated feedback tokens from the loss, and scores rollouts with a composite reward: format, exact match, execution (validity plus result equality), entity match (schema overlap with the gold SQL), and an exploration reward that penalizes duplicate intermediate queries and rewards more interaction steps when the final SQL is wrong. Decoding uses a tree where each node is an interaction step, with execution-based self-consistency selecting the final SQL.

What would settle it

Run the trained ReEx-SQL-7B on the BIRD development set with the <result> feedback replaced by a constant dummy string (for example, 'ok') while keeping the prompt format unchanged; if execution accuracy does not drop materially below the reported 64.9%, the gain is not attributable to the execution-aware mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

ReEx-SQL claims that interleaving SQL execution into the decoding process—rather than using it only to correct or select an already-generated query—is what drives the accuracy gains. On the BIRD development set it reports 64.9% execution accuracy and 73.1% VES, and on Spider development 88.8% EX and 83.7% TS, with a 7B Qwen2.5-Coder model. Compared with the same model trained under a standard chain-of-thought prompt with GRPO, it gains 2.6% on BIRD and 2.7% on Spider, and reduces syntax errors from 4.5% to 1.9%. The gains are largest on the hardest questions, and the method also improves robustness variants such as Spider-Syn, Spider-Realistic, and Spider-DK.

Load-bearing premise

It assumes that masking the externally generated execution tokens from the loss still yields a valid GRPO update for the model's own tokens, even though those tokens are part of the rollout sequences used in the objective.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, execution feedback can serve as a dense training signal for small models, narrowing the gap with large proprietary systems on SQL tasks.
  • Tree-structured, feedback-guided decoding offers both accuracy and latency gains, making interactive decoding practical in settings where inference cost matters.
  • The error profile shifts: syntax errors drop from 4.5% to 1.9%, suggesting that in-loop execution catches syntactic issues that post-hoc correction would overwrite.
  • The same recipe—interleaved tool feedback plus composite reward under GRPO—could transfer to other structured generation tasks such as code repair or data-wrangling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implicit consequence the authors do not develop: the approach turns the database into a learned policy's environment, so the exploration reward is a stand-in for curiosity; decoupling the policy from the executor may enable training in settings where the real database is unavailable.
  • A testable extension beyond the paper: apply the execution-aware rollout to multi-hop numerical reasoning over tables, where intermediate SQL serves the same verification role but intermediate answers are numeric.
  • The masking claim in Eq. (1) is asserted rather than proven; a careful reader may want to check whether the KL penalty and importance weighting over the full interleaved sequence change the effective objective.
  • If the mask is valid, the same training recipe could apply to any environment with external feedback, such as Python executors or API calls, without modifying GRPO.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ReEx-SQL, a text-to-SQL framework that interleaves intermediate SQL execution feedback into the model’s decoding-time reasoning. The method uses structured prompts with markup tags (<think>, <intermediate_sql>, <result>, <final_sql>), a stepwise rollout mechanism with a SQL executor, and GRPO training with a composite reward consisting of format, exact-match, execution, entity-match, and exploration terms. It also proposes a tree-structured decoding strategy with execution-based self-consistency. Experiments on Qwen2.5-Coder-7B-Instruct report 88.8% execution accuracy on Spider Dev and 64.9% on BIRD Dev, outperforming a standard-reasoning GRPO baseline by 2.7 and 2.6 points respectively, and reducing syntax errors from 4.5% to 1.9% on BIRD Dev.

Significance. If the claimed results hold, the paper makes a useful practical contribution: it demonstrates that a small open model can be trained to use live execution feedback during decoding, that a controlled GRPO comparison shows gains over standard reasoning, and that tree-structured decoding can cut inference time substantially. The controlled Table 3 ablation, the reward-component ablations, and the error analysis are valuable. However, the central comparison is weakened by reward-weight selection on the reported dev sets, the baseline is not tuned by the same protocol, no variance estimates are provided, and the theoretical justification for masking external tokens is incomplete. The potential of the idea is clear, but the current evidence does not yet establish that the reported gains come from execution-aware reasoning itself.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.3, §4.4 (Tables 3 and 5)] Table 3’s headline comparison (Execution-Aware GRPO vs. Standard Reasoning GRPO) uses the MaxTune weight vector, which Table 5 labels "Best" after selection on BIRD Dev. The standard-reasoning baseline’s reward weights are never reported, and no equivalent tuning procedure is described for it. This is load-bearing: under the Base configuration (Table 5), ReEx-SQL achieves 60.9 EX on BIRD Dev, nearly identical to the baseline’s 60.8 EX in Table 3. Thus the claimed 2.6/2.7-point advantage may be attributable to reward-weight tuning rather than to execution-aware reasoning. Please either select weights on a disjoint validation split, report the baseline under all weight configurations, or otherwise demonstrate that the baseline is compared at its own best setting.
  2. [§3.1, Eq. (1)] The GRPO objective in Eq. (1) writes the importance ratio πθ(yi|x;E)/πθold(yi|x;E) over full rollouts yi, but the loss is computed only over model-generated tokens, with external execution-feedback tokens masked. The paper asserts without proof that this masking "ensures correct GRPO optimization." Without a formal likelihood decomposition that separates model-generated tokens from deterministic environment-generated tokens, the masked ratio is not shown to be an unbiased estimator of the intended policy gradient. Please provide that derivation and state under what conditions the masked update is valid; otherwise the trained policy is not precisely the one described.
  3. [§4.3, Table 3] Execution-Aware Reasoning with No Post-Training collapses on Spider Test (EX 37.0, TS 57.4) while staying far closer to other paradigms on BIRD Dev (48.6) and on other Spider variants (57.4–80.0). The paper does not explain this roughly 40-point drop. Because this collapse inflates the reported GRPO gain for execution-aware reasoning (14.8 points vs. 11.3 for the baseline), the paper should quantify format non-compliance or other failure causes for this condition, or remove/adjust this comparison.
  4. [§4.2, §4.3, Tables 1 and 3] All main results are single-run point estimates without standard deviations, seeds, or significance tests. The central advantage over the baseline is 2.6–2.7 EX points, which could easily be within run-to-run noise on a dev set of roughly 1,500 examples. No code or data are provided, so variance cannot be assessed and the results are not reproducible. Please report multiple seeds or confidence intervals, and release the code and the trained model to support the central claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.3, Eq. (4)] The exploration reward uses a sigmoid σ(n) over the interaction count, but σ is never defined. Please define it explicitly, including its range and how it scales with n.
  2. [§3.1, Eq. (1)] The KL penalty is written as β DKL(πθ ∥ πθref) without an outer expectation over the input distribution x; aligning the notation with the standard GRPO objective would remove ambiguity.
  3. [§3.4] The "execution-based self-consistency" mechanism is not specified in detail. Please state how candidate SQLs are grouped and selected (for example, by exact result-set equality) and how the decoding tree is expanded or pruned.
  4. [§4.2] The text uses "significantly" in several places ("significantly narrowing the gap", "significantly improves") without statistical tests or variance estimates; please qualify these statements.
  5. [§3.1] The notation πθold(·|x;E) and the interleaving operator ⊗ are introduced before being fully defined; a short formal definition at first use would improve readability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Dev-set reward-weight tuning makes the headline BIRD Dev gain a selected maximum rather than an independent prediction; the method itself is otherwise self-contained.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.4, Table 5; Section 4.3, Table 3; Section 4.1 Implementation Details]
    "MaxTune, which simultaneously increases wformat, wexec, and wexpl, achieves the best performance, highlighting the synergistic effect of combining multiple reward signals. The reward weight vector is defined as w = (2.0, 1.0, 3.0, 1.0, 2.0), a configuration referred to as MaxTune."

    The MaxTune reward weights are explicitly selected to maximize BIRD Dev EX: Table 5 reports Base=60.9, HighExploration=62.0, HighFormat-EX=62.3, Uniform=62.3, MaxTune=63.4, with MaxTune labeled 'Best'. Implementation details then fix w=(2.0,1.0,3.0,1.0,2.0) for all experiments. Table 3 uses this same configuration to claim 'Execution-Aware Reasoning GRPO 63.4+2.6' over the standard-reasoning baseline (60.8) on BIRD Dev. The reported advantage is therefore the maximum over the configurations evaluated on the very dataset used for the claim, not an out-of-sample prediction; the '+2.6' is a post-selection gap. No equivalent configuration search or selection path is reported for the baseline, so the comparison cannot separate the method's contribution from the evaluation-set selection.

full rationale

The central learning pipeline is self-contained: GRPO updates use rollouts generated by the policy and rewards computed from the executor and gold SQL; no predicted quantity is defined in terms of a fitted constant, and the benchmarks are external. The same-author citations (e.g., MAG-SQL [33]) are not load-bearing for the derivation. The only substantial circularity concern is the reward-weight selection: Section 4.4/Table 5 chooses the MaxTune configuration by maximum BIRD Dev EX (63.4 vs 60.9 Base), and Section 4.3/Table 3 then uses that same configuration to report the headline +2.6% gain on BIRD Dev over the standard-reasoning GRPO baseline. This makes the BIRD Dev improvement a selected maximum over the configurations tried on the evaluation set, not an independent prediction; the same selection protocol is not described for the baseline. The Spider Dev and robustness results are less affected because the weights were not explicitly tuned on those sets, though they share the chosen configuration. This is a tuning and overfitting concern rather than definitional circularity: the method's execution-aware rollouts, masking of environment tokens, and composite rewards are not equivalent to the evaluation metric by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests mainly on empirical results. The only fitted numbers are the reward weights, tuned on BIRD Dev; the masking assumption and the undefined sigmoid in the exploration reward are the main under-specified pieces.

free parameters (1)
  • Reward weight vector w = (w_format, w_em, w_exec, w_entity, w_expl) = (2.0, 1.0, 3.0, 1.0, 2.0)
    Selected as the best configuration ('MaxTune') on BIRD Dev in Table 5; the authors tune these weights on the evaluation benchmark.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math GRPO objective (Eq. 1) is a valid policy-gradient update for the interleaved execution-aware rollouts.
    The paper adopts GRPO from DeepSeekMath [31] and extends it; correctness of this extension is assumed.
  • domain assumption Execution feedback tokens can be masked from the loss without invalidating the RL update (Section 3.1).
    The authors state this without proof; the policy conditions on external tokens while gradients flow only through model tokens.
  • ad hoc to paper The exploration reward uses a sigmoid σ(n) over interaction count; σ is not defined in the paper.
    Eq. (4) references σ(n) but no formula is given, making the reward underspecified.
  • domain assumption SQLite execution results (up to 3 rows, with column headers) are a sufficient feedback signal for semantic error correction.
    Used for both training rollouts and inference; the paper provides examples but no systematic analysis of false feedback.
  • domain assumption CodeS database prompts provide adequate schema linking for the model to perform execution-aware reasoning.
    The model relies on CodeS prompts for schema filtering and value hints; the paper does not test the framework without this external component.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ReEx-SQL: Reasoning with Execution-Aware Reinforcement Learning for Text-to-SQL." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IW3H3ZBX

@misc{pith2026250512768,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ReEx-SQL: Reasoning with Execution-Aware Reinforcement Learning for Text-to-SQL},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IW3H3ZBX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.12768}
}
read the original abstract

In Text-to-SQL, execution feedback is essential for guiding large language models (LLMs) to reason accurately and generate reliable SQL queries. However, existing methods treat execution feedback solely as a post-hoc signal for correction or selection, failing to integrate it into the generation process. This limitation hinders their ability to address reasoning errors as they occur, ultimately reducing query accuracy and robustness. To address this issue, we propose ReEx-SQL (Reasoning with Execution-Aware Reinforcement Learning), a framework for Text-to-SQL that enables models to interact with the database during decoding and dynamically adjust their reasoning based on execution feedback. ReEx-SQL introduces an execution-aware reasoning paradigm that interleaves intermediate SQL execution into reasoning paths, facilitating context-sensitive revisions. It achieves this through structured prompts with markup tags and a stepwise rollout strategy that integrates execution feedback into each stage of generation. To supervise policy learning, we develop a composite reward function that includes an exploration reward, explicitly encouraging effective database interaction. Additionally, ReEx-SQL adopts a tree-based decoding strategy to support exploratory reasoning, enabling dynamic expansion of alternative reasoning paths. Notably, ReEx-SQL achieves 88.8% on Spider and 64.9% on BIRD at the 7B scale, surpassing the standard reasoning baseline by 2.7% and 2.6%, respectively. It also shows robustness, achieving 85.2% on Spider-Realistic with leading performance. In addition, its tree-structured decoding improves efficiency and performance over linear decoding, reducing inference time by 51.9% on the BIRD development set.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.12768 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Standard reasoning vs. Execution-aware reasoning. Standard reasoning (e.g., Chain-of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison between linear-structured and tree-structured self-consistency decoding. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Multi-dimensional comparison between ReEx-SQL and the baseline: (a) Training reward [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Execution-aware reasoning prompt for ReEx-SQL. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Standard reasoning prompt for baseline. Direct Output Prompt You are an experienced database expert. Now you need to generate a SQL query given the database information, a question, and some additional information. Your goal is to generate a single **SQLite** query tha…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Direct output prompt. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Impact of reward components on training reward (left), response length (middle), and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Impact of different reward weight settings on training reward (left), response length [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Output comparison: execution-aware (ReEx-SQL) vs. standard reasoning (Baseline). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Reasoning output comparison for example 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Reasoning output comparison for example 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Reasoning output comparison for example 3. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Reasoning output comparison for example 4. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Reasoning output comparison for example 5. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. ReLog: Execution-Aware Logging with Runtime Feedback for LLM-Oriented Debugging

    cs.SE 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ReLog iteratively writes and rewrites logging statements guided by runtime feedback, and its logs beat static logging baselines on Defects4J debugging tasks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Chi, Quoc V

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed H. Chi, Quoc V . Le, and Denny Zhou. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Sanmi Koyejo, S. Mohamed, A. Agarwal, Danielle Belgrave, K. Cho, and A. Oh, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35: Annual Conference on Neu-...

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Recent advances in text-to-sql: A survey of what we have and what we expect

    Naihao Deng, Yulong Chen, and Yue Zhang. Recent advances in text-to-sql: A survey of what we have and what we expect. In Nicoletta Calzolari, Chu-Ren Huang, Hansaem Kim, James Pustejovsky, Leo Wanner, Key-Sun Choi, Pum-Mo Ryu, Hsin-Hsi Chen, Lucia Donatelli, Heng Ji, Sadao Kurohashi, Patrizia Paggio, Nianwen Xue, Seokhwan Kim, Younggyun Hahm, Zhong He, To...

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    A survey on deep learning approaches for text-to- sql

    George Katsogiannis-Meimarakis and Georgia Koutrika. A survey on deep learning approaches for text-to- sql. VLDB J., 32(4):905–936, 2023. doi: 10.1007/S00778-022-00776-8. URL https://doi.org/10. 1007/s00778-022-00776-8

    doi:10.1007/s00778-022-00776-8 2023

  4. [5]

    Chan, Raymond Chi-Wing Wong, and Haiqin Yang

    Weixu Zhang, Yifei Wang, Yuanfeng Song, Victor Junqiu Wei, Yuxing Tian, Yiyan Qi, Jonathan H. Chan, Raymond Chi-Wing Wong, and Haiqin Yang. Natural language interfaces for tabular data querying and visualization: A survey. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [6]

    A survey of nl2sql with large language models: Where are we, and where are we going? CoRR, abs/2408.05109, 2024

    Xinyu Liu, Shuyu Shen, Boyan Li, Peixian Ma, Runzhi Jiang, Yuxin Zhang, Ju Fan, Guoliang Li, Yuyu Luo, and Nan Tang. A survey of nl2sql with large language models: Where are we, and where are we going? CoRR, abs/2408.05109, 2024. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.05109. URL https://doi.org/10. 48550/arXiv.2408.05109

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.05109 2024

  6. [7]

    Alpha-sql: Zero-shot text-to-sql using monte carlo tree search

    Boyan Li, Jiayi Zhang, Ju Fan, Yanwei Xu, Chong Chen, Nan Tang, and Yuyu Luo. Alpha-sql: Zero-shot text-to-sql using monte carlo tree search. CoRR, abs/2502.17248, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  7. [8]

    CHESS: contextual harnessing for efficient SQL synthesis

    Shayan Talaei, Mohammadreza Pourreza, Yu-Chen Chang, Azalia Mirhoseini, and Amin Saberi. CHESS: contextual harnessing for efficient SQL synthesis. CoRR, abs/2405.16755, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  8. [9]

    RAT-SQL: relation-aware schema encoding and linking for text-to-sql parsers

    Bailin Wang, Richard Shin, Xiaodong Liu, Oleksandr Polozov, and Matthew Richardson. RAT-SQL: relation-aware schema encoding and linking for text-to-sql parsers. In Dan Jurafsky, Joyce Chai, Natalie Schluter, and Joel R. Tetreault, editors, Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10,...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.677 2020

Show all 69 references
  1. [10]

    Finsql: Model-agnostic llms-based text-to-sql framework for financial analysis

    Chao Zhang, Yuren Mao, Yijiang Fan, Yu Mi, Yunjun Gao, Lu Chen, Dongfang Lou, and Jinshu Lin. Finsql: Model-agnostic llms-based text-to-sql framework for financial analysis. In Pablo Barceló, Nayat Sánchez-Pi, Alexandra Meliou, and S. Sudarshan, editors,Companion of the 2024 I...

    2024

  2. [11]

    Xiyan-sql: A multi-generator ensemble framework for text-to-sql

    Yingqi Gao, Yifu Liu, Xiaoxia Li, Xiaorong Shi, Yin Zhu, Yiming Wang, Shiqi Li, Wei Li, Yuntao Hong, Zhiling Luo, Jinyang Gao, Liyu Mou, and Yu Li. Xiyan-sql: A multi-generator ensemble framework for text-to-sql. CoRR, abs/2411.08599, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [12]

    The dawn of natural language to SQL: are we fully ready? [experiment, analysis \u0026 benchmark ]

    Boyan Li, Yuyu Luo, Chengliang Chai, Guoliang Li, and Nan Tang. The dawn of natural language to SQL: are we fully ready? [experiment, analysis \u0026 benchmark ]. Proc. VLDB Endow., 17(11):3318–3331, 2024

    2024

  4. [13]

    Sean Wang

    Tonghui Ren, Yuankai Fan, Zhenying He, Ren Huang, Jiaqi Dai, Can Huang, Yinan Jing, Kai Zhang, Yifan Yang, and X. Sean Wang. PURPLE: making a large language model a better SQL writer. In ICDE, pages 15–28. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  5. [14]

    DIN-SQL: decomposed in-context learning of text- to-sql with self-correction

    Mohammadreza Pourreza and Davood Rafiei. DIN-SQL: decomposed in-context learning of text- to-sql with self-correction. In Alice Oh, Tristan Naumann, Amir Globerson, Kate Saenko, Moritz Hardt, and Sergey Levine, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: Ann...

    2023

  6. [15]

    Navigate through enigmatic labyrinth A survey of chain of thought reasoning: Advances, frontiers and future

    Zheng Chu, Jingchang Chen, Qianglong Chen, Weijiang Yu, Tao He, Haotian Wang, Weihua Peng, Ming Liu, Bing Qin, and Ting Liu. Navigate through enigmatic labyrinth A survey of chain of thought reasoning: Advances, frontiers and future. In ACL (1), pages 1173–1203. Association fo...

    2024

  7. [16]

    ACT-SQL: in-context learning for text-to-sql with automatically-generated chain-of-thought

    Hanchong Zhang, Ruisheng Cao, Lu Chen, Hongshen Xu, and Kai Yu. ACT-SQL: in-context learning for text-to-sql with automatically-generated chain-of-thought. In EMNLP (Findings), pages 3501–3532. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2023

    2023

  8. [17]

    Excot: Optimizing reasoning for text-to-sql with execution feedback

    Bohan Zhai, Canwen Xu, Yuxiong He, and Zhewei Yao. Excot: Optimizing reasoning for text-to-sql with execution feedback. CoRR, abs/2503.19988, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Distilling step-by-step! outperforming larger language models with less training data and smaller model sizes

    Cheng-Yu Hsieh, Chun-Liang Li, Chih-Kuan Yeh, Hootan Nakhost, Yasuhisa Fujii, Alex Ratner, Ranjay Krishna, Chen-Yu Lee, and Tomas Pfister. Distilling step-by-step! outperforming larger language models with less training data and smaller model sizes. In Anna Rogers, Jordan L. B...

    2023

  10. [20]

    Nl2sql-bugs: A benchmark for detecting semantic errors in NL2SQL translation

    Xinyu Liu, Shuyu Shen, Boyan Li, Nan Tang, and Yuyu Luo. Nl2sql-bugs: A benchmark for detecting semantic errors in NL2SQL translation. CoRR, abs/2503.11984, 2025

    2025

  11. [21]

    Sqlcritic: Correcting text-to-sql generation via clause-wise critic

    Jikai Chen. Sqlcritic: Correcting text-to-sql generation via clause-wise critic. CoRR, abs/2503.07996, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  12. [22]

    A study of in-context-learning-based text-to-sql errors

    Jiawei Shen, Chengcheng Wan, Ruoyi Qiao, Jiazhen Zou, Hang Xu, Yuchen Shao, Yueling Zhang, Weikai Miao, and Geguang Pu. A study of in-context-learning-based text-to-sql errors. CoRR, abs/2501.09310, 2025

    2025

  13. [23]

    Llms cannot find reasoning errors, but can correct them given the error location

    Gladys Tyen, Hassan Mansoor, Victor Carbune, Peter Chen, and Tony Mak. Llms cannot find reasoning errors, but can correct them given the error location. In ACL (Findings), pages 13894–13908. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2024

    2024

  14. [24]

    Boosting text-to-sql through multi-grained error identification

    Bo Xu, Shufei Li, Hongyu Jing, Ming Du, Hui Song, Hongya Wang, and Yanghua Xiao. Boosting text-to-sql through multi-grained error identification. In COLING, pages 4282–4292. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2025

    2025

  15. [25]

    The dawn of natural language to SQL: are we fully ready? CoRR, abs/2406.01265, 2024

    Boyan Li, Yuyu Luo, Chengliang Chai, Guoliang Li, and Nan Tang. The dawn of natural language to SQL: are we fully ready? CoRR, abs/2406.01265, 2024. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV .2406.01265. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.01265. 11

    2024 doi arXiv

  16. [26]

    Chase-sql: Multi-path reasoning and preference optimized candidate selection in text-to-sql

    Mohammadreza Pourreza, Hailong Li, Ruoxi Sun, Yeounoh Chung, Shayan Talaei, Gaurav Tarlok Kakkar, Yu Gan, Amin Saberi, Fatma Ozcan, and Sercan O Arik. Chase-sql: Multi-path reasoning and preference optimized candidate selection in text-to-sql. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.01943, 2024

    arXiv

  17. [27]

    Sql-o1: A self-reward heuristic dynamic search method for text-to-sql

    Shuai Lyu, Haoran Luo, Zhonghong Ou, Yifan Zhu, Xiaoran Shang, Yang Qin, and Meina Song. Sql-o1: A self-reward heuristic dynamic search method for text-to-sql. CoRR, abs/2502.11741, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  18. [28]

    Elliesql: Cost-efficient text-to-sql with complexity-aware routing

    Yizhang Zhu, Runzhi Jiang, Boyan Li, Nan Tang, and Yuyu Luo. Elliesql: Cost-efficient text-to-sql with complexity-aware routing. CoRR, abs/2503.22402, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  19. [29]

    MAC-SQL: A multi-agent collaborative framework for text-to-sql

    Bing Wang, Changyu Ren, Jian Yang, Xinnian Liang, Jiaqi Bai, Qian-Wen Zhang, Zhao Yan, and Zhoujun Li. MAC-SQL: A multi-agent collaborative framework for text-to-sql. CoRR, abs/2312.11242, 2023. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV .2312.11242. URLhttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2312.11242

    2023 doi arXiv

  20. [30]

    ROUTE: robust multitask tuning and collaboration for text-to-sql

    Yang Qin, Chao Chen, Zhihang Fu, Ze Chen, Dezhong Peng, Peng Hu, and Jieping Ye. ROUTE: robust multitask tuning and collaboration for text-to-sql. CoRR, abs/2412.10138, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [31]

    Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Mingchuan Zhang, Y . K. Li, Y . Wu, and Daya Guo. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models. CoRR, abs/2402.03300, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  22. [32]

    Manning, Stefano Ermon, and Chelsea Finn

    Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D. Manning, Stefano Ermon, and Chelsea Finn. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. In NeurIPS, 2023

    2023

  23. [33]

    Mag-sql: Multi-agent generative approach with soft schema linking and iterative sub-sql refinement for text-to-sql, 2024

    Wenxuan Xie, Gaochen Wu, and Bowen Zhou. Mag-sql: Multi-agent generative approach with soft schema linking and iterative sub-sql refinement for text-to-sql, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2408. 07930

    2024

  24. [34]

    Text-to-sql empowered by large language models: A benchmark evaluation

    Dawei Gao, Haibin Wang, Yaliang Li, Xiuyu Sun, Yichen Qian, Bolin Ding, and Jingren Zhou. Text-to-sql empowered by large language models: A benchmark evaluation. Proc. VLDB Endow., 17(5):1132–1145,

  25. [35]

    C3: zero-shot text-to-sql with chatgpt

    Xuemei Dong, Chao Zhang, Yuhang Ge, Yuren Mao, Yunjun Gao, Lu Chen, Jinshu Lin, and Dongfang Lou. C3: zero-shot text-to-sql with chatgpt. CoRR, abs/2307.07306, 2023. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV .2307.07306. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2307.07306

    2023 doi arXiv

  26. [36]

    Codes: Towards building open-source language models for text-to-sql

    Haoyang Li, Jing Zhang, Hanbing Liu, Ju Fan, Xiaokang Zhang, Jun Zhu, Renjie Wei, Hongyan Pan, Cuiping Li, and Hong Chen. Codes: Towards building open-source language models for text-to-sql. Proc. ACM Manag. Data, 2(3):127, 2024. doi: 10.1145/3654930. URL https://doi.org/10.11...

    2024 doi

  27. [37]

    RESDSQL: decoupling schema linking and skeleton parsing for text-to-sql

    Haoyang Li, Jing Zhang, Cuiping Li, and Hong Chen. RESDSQL: decoupling schema linking and skeleton parsing for text-to-sql. In Brian Williams, Yiling Chen, and Jennifer Neville, editors, Thirty-Seventh AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2023, Thirty-Fifth Confere...

    2023

  28. [38]

    DeepSeek-AI, Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, Xiaokang Zhang, Xingkai Yu, Yu Wu, Z. F. Wu, Zhibin Gou, Zhihong Shao, Zhuoshu Li, Ziyi Gao, Aixin Liu, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Bei F...

    2025 arXiv

  29. [39]

    Daya Guo, Qihao Zhu, Dejian Yang, Zhenda Xie, Kai Dong, Wentao Zhang, Guanting Chen, Xiao Bi, Y . Wu, Y . K. Li, Fuli Luo, Yingfei Xiong, and Wenfeng Liang. Deepseek-coder: When the large language model meets programming - the rise of code intelligence. CoRR, abs/2401.14196, 2...

    2024 doi arXiv

  30. [40]

    Search-r1: Training llms to reason and leverage search engines with reinforcement learning

    Bowen Jin, Hansi Zeng, Zhenrui Yue, Dong Wang, Hamed Zamani, and Jiawei Han. Search-r1: Training llms to reason and leverage search engines with reinforcement learning. CoRR, abs/2503.09516, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  31. [41]

    Pan, Wen Zhang, Huajun Chen, Fan Yang, Zenan Zhou, and Weipeng Chen

    Mingyang Chen, Tianpeng Li, Haoze Sun, Yijie Zhou, Chenzheng Zhu, Haofen Wang, Jeff Z. Pan, Wen Zhang, Huajun Chen, Fan Yang, Zenan Zhou, and Weipeng Chen. Research: Learning to reason with search for llms via reinforcement learning. CoRR, abs/2503.19470, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  32. [42]

    R1-searcher: Incentivizing the search capability in llms via reinforcement learning

    Huatong Song, Jinhao Jiang, Yingqian Min, Jie Chen, Zhipeng Chen, Wayne Xin Zhao, Lei Fang, and Ji-Rong Wen. R1-searcher: Incentivizing the search capability in llms via reinforcement learning. CoRR, abs/2503.05592, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  33. [43]

    Can LLM already serve as A database interface? A big bench for large-scale database grounded text-to-sqls

    Jinyang Li, Binyuan Hui, Ge Qu, Jiaxi Yang, Binhua Li, Bowen Li, Bailin Wang, Bowen Qin, Ruiying Geng, Nan Huo, Xuanhe Zhou, Chenhao Ma, Guoliang Li, Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang, Fei Huang, Reynold Cheng, and Yongbin Li. Can LLM already serve as A database interface? A big bench fo...

    2023

  34. [44]

    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. Spider: A large-scale human- labeled dataset for complex and cross-domain semantic parsing and text-to-sql task. In Ell...

    2018

  35. [45]

    Woodward, Jinxia Xie, and Peng- sheng Huang

    Yujian Gan, Xinyun Chen, Qiuping Huang, Matthew Purver, John R. Woodward, Jinxia Xie, and Peng- sheng Huang. Towards robustness of text-to-sql models against synonym substitution. In Chengqing Zong, Fei Xia, Wenjie Li, and Roberto Navigli, editors, Proceedings of the 59th Annu...

    2021

  36. [46]

    Structure-grounded pretraining for text-to-sql

    Xiang Deng, Ahmed Hassan Awadallah, Christopher Meek, Oleksandr Polozov, Huan Sun, and Matthew Richardson. Structure-grounded pretraining for text-to-sql. In Kristina Toutanova, Anna Rumshisky, Luke Zettlemoyer, Dilek Hakkani-Tür, Iz Beltagy, Steven Bethard, Ryan Cotterell, Ta...

    2021

  37. [47]

    Exploring underexplored limitations of cross-domain text-to-sql generalization

    Yujian Gan, Xinyun Chen, and Matthew Purver. Exploring underexplored limitations of cross-domain text-to-sql generalization. In Marie-Francine Moens, Xuanjing Huang, Lucia Specia, and Scott Wen-tau Yih, editors, Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natura...

    2021 doi

  38. [48]

    Semantic evaluation for text-to-sql with distilled test suites

    Ruiqi Zhong, Tao Yu, and Dan Klein. Semantic evaluation for text-to-sql with distilled test suites. In Bonnie Webber, Trevor Cohn, Yulan He, and Yang Liu, editors,Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, Novemb...

    2020 doi

  39. [49]

    Knapsack optimization-based schema linking for llm-based text-to-sql generation

    Zheng Yuan, Hao Chen, Zijin Hong, Qinggang Zhang, Feiran Huang, and Xiao Huang. Knapsack optimization-based schema linking for llm-based text-to-sql generation. CoRR, abs/2502.12911, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  40. [50]

    Openrlhf: An easy-to-use, scalable and high-performance RLHF framework

    Jian Hu, Xibin Wu, Weixun Wang, Xianyu, Dehao Zhang, and Yu Cao. Openrlhf: An easy-to-use, scalable and high-performance RLHF framework. CoRR, abs/2405.11143, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  41. [51]

    Sqlite home page, n.d

    SQLite. Sqlite home page, n.d. URL https://www.sqlite.org. Accessed: 2025-05-10

    2025

  42. [52]

    MCTS-SQL: an effective framework for text-to-sql with monte carlo tree search

    Shuozhi Yuan, Liming Chen, Miaomiao Yuan, Jin Zhao, Haoran Peng, and Wenming Guo. MCTS-SQL: an effective framework for text-to-sql with monte carlo tree search. CoRR, abs/2501.16607, 2025. 13

    2025

  43. [53]

    Bridging the gap: Transforming natural language questions into SQL queries via abstract query pattern and contextual schema markup

    Yonghui Kong, Hongbing Hu, Dan Zhang, Siyuan Chai, Fan Zhang, and Wei Wang. Bridging the gap: Transforming natural language questions into SQL queries via abstract query pattern and contextual schema markup. CoRR, abs/2502.14682, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  44. [54]

    MCS-SQL: leveraging multiple prompts and multiple-choice selection for text-to-sql generation

    Dongjun Lee, Choongwon Park, Jaehyuk Kim, and Heesoo Park. MCS-SQL: leveraging multiple prompts and multiple-choice selection for text-to-sql generation. In COLING, pages 337–353. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2025

    2025

  45. [55]

    Synthesizing text-to-sql data from weak and strong llms

    Jiaxi Yang, Binyuan Hui, Min Yang, Jian Yang, Junyang Lin, and Chang Zhou. Synthesizing text-to-sql data from weak and strong llms. In Lun-Wei Ku, Andre Martins, and Vivek Srikumar, editors,Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics...

    2024 doi

  46. [56]

    Uncovering the impact of chain-of-thought reasoning for direct preference optimization: Lessons from text-to-sql

    Hanbing Liu, Haoyang Li, Xiaokang Zhang, Ruotong Chen, Haiyong Xu, Tian Tian, Qi Qi, and Jing Zhang. Uncovering the impact of chain-of-thought reasoning for direct preference optimization: Lessons from text-to-sql. CoRR, abs/2502.11656, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  47. [57]

    DTS-SQL: decomposed text-to-sql with small large language models

    Mohammadreza Pourreza and Davood Rafiei. DTS-SQL: decomposed text-to-sql with small large language models. In EMNLP (Findings), pages 8212–8220. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2024

    2024

  48. [58]

    Db-explore: Automated database exploration and instruction synthesis for text-to-sql

    Haoyuan Ma, Yongliang Shen, Hengwei Liu, Wenqi Zhang, Haolei Xu, Qiuying Peng, Jun Wang, and Weiming Lu. Db-explore: Automated database exploration and instruction synthesis for text-to-sql. CoRR, abs/2503.04959, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  49. [59]

    Zhili Shen, Pavlos V ougiouklis, Chenxin Diao, Kaustubh Vyas, Yuanyi Ji, and Jeff Z. Pan. Improving retrieval-augmented text-to-sql with ast-based ranking and schema pruning. In EMNLP, pages 7865–7879. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2024

    2024

  50. [60]

    Before generation, align it! A novel and effective strategy for mitigating hallucinations in text-to-sql generation

    Ge Qu, Jinyang Li, Bowen Li, Bowen Qin, Nan Huo, Chenhao Ma, and Reynold Cheng. Before generation, align it! A novel and effective strategy for mitigating hallucinations in text-to-sql generation. In ACL (Findings), pages 5456–5471. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2024

    2024

  51. [61]

    Sean Wang

    Yuankai Fan, Tonghui Ren, Can Huang, Zhenying He, and X. Sean Wang. Grounding natural language to SQL translation with data-based self-explanations. CoRR, abs/2411.02948, 2024

    2024

  52. [62]

    Arik, Hootan Nakhost, Hanjun Dai, Rajarishi Sinha, Pengcheng Yin, and Tomas Pfister

    Ruoxi Sun, Sercan Ö. Arik, Hootan Nakhost, Hanjun Dai, Rajarishi Sinha, Pengcheng Yin, and Tomas Pfister. Sql-palm: Improved large language model adaptation for text-to-sql. CoRR, abs/2306.00739, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  53. [63]

    Omnisql: Synthesizing high-quality text-to-sql data at scale

    Haoyang Li, Shang Wu, Xiaokang Zhang, Xinmei Huang, Jing Zhang, Fuxin Jiang, Shuai Wang, Tieying Zhang, Jianjun Chen, Rui Shi, Hong Chen, and Cuiping Li. Omnisql: Synthesizing high-quality text-to-sql data at scale. CoRR, abs/2503.02240, 2025. 14 A Appendices A.1 Prompt Templa...

    2025 arXiv

  54. [66]

    ‘sql your intermediate SQL here

    You should: 2.1. **Analyze** the question intent and map it to relevant tables and columns. 2.2. If the question is complex or ambiguous, you may write an **intermediate SQL** for verification. 2.3. **Do not generate an infinite number of intermediate SQLs**. Instead, focus on...

  55. [68]

    **Analyze** the question intent and map it to relevant tables and columns

  56. [69]

    First, check whether it **correctly expresses all conditions, columns, and logic** described in the original question

  57. [70]

    ‘sql your final SQL here

    Also, verify whether it follows the Database admin instructions, such as avoiding prohibited patterns or optimizing structure. Response Format: Respond strictly in the following format: <think> Reasoning process here. </think> <final_sql> The final SQL query is: “‘sql your fin...

  58. [71]

    The database structure is defined by the following table schemas: **table_name.column_name ( data_type | comment : description | values : values )** The “values” are only examples to illustrate the data type and format; They are not directly related to the question

  59. [72]

    ‘sql your final SQL here

    Your task is to generate the correct SQL query **only**. Do not include any explanation, reasoning, or additional text. Response Format: Respond strictly in the following format: <final_sql> The final SQL query is: “‘sql your final SQL here. ”’</final_sql> [Table creation stat...

    1995

  60. [1971]

    fastestlaptime

    Additionally, I need to look at the “fastestlaptime” column in the “results” table, which represents the fastest lap time of a driver in a race. I need to join the “drivers” and “results” tables based on the “driverid” column to connect the information about the drivers’ birth...

    1971

  61. [2024]

    URL https://www.vldb.org/pvldb/vol17/p1132-gao.pdf

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.