Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 65 references

SQLens: An End-to-End Framework for Error Detection and Correction in Text-to-SQL

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Semantic SQL errors can be detected and fixed clause-by-clause without a correctness oracle.

desk verdict A solid weak-supervision layer for clause-level SQL error detection and iterative correction; the fixed signal taxonomy caps recall on unseen error types, but the headline empirical claims on BIRD and Spider hold up. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04494 v1 pith:SB2OPGDU submitted 2025-06-04 cs.CL

Yue Gong , Chuan Lei , Xiao Qin , Kapil Vaidya , Balakrishnan Narayanaswamy , Tim Kraska This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords text-to-SQLsemanticerrordetectionweaksupervisioncorrectionLLMself-evaluationexecutionaccuracyclause-leveldiagnosissignals
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

SQLens is an end-to-end framework for finding and fixing semantic errors in SQL queries generated by text-to-SQL systems. The paper's central claim is that a fixed taxonomy of fourteen noisy error signals, some computed from the database and query plan and some from the LLM's own reasoning, can be fused with weak supervision to predict whether a query is correct and to identify which clauses are suspect, without any correctness oracle. On the BIRD and Spider benchmarks, SQLens outperforms the best LLM self-evaluation baseline by 25.78% in detection F1 and raises execution accuracy of several out-of-the-box text-to-SQL systems by up to 20%. The result matters because LLM-generated SQL often executes but returns wrong answers, and existing self-reflection methods give users only a confidence score rather than a debuggable, clause-level explanation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the error-signal taxonomy plus the weak-supervision aggregator. Each of the fourteen signals is a labeling function that votes on whether a query has that class of error; a generative model fits the joint distribution over signal decision vectors and the hidden true correctness label, and the learned weights calibrate signal reliability and correlation. The resulting classifier produces structured error reports, including signal description, correction instruction, problematic clauses, and confidence, which drive a sequential correction loop. The Error Selector reranks reports to pick the most critical error, the Error Fixer applies one targeted correction under a syntax checker, and iteration continues until no signals fire or a maximum iteration count is reached; a high-precision guardrail signal and an LLM-based SQL Auditor protect against over-correction.

What would settle it

A reader could build a small set of semantically wrong SQL queries whose errors are deliberately chosen to fall outside the fourteen-signal taxonomy; if SQLens flags none of them, the taxonomy, not the weak-supervision aggregation, is the recall bottleneck.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's core discovery is that semantic SQL errors are detectable and correctable through error signals, fourteen noisy, imperfect proxies such as an empty predicate, an abnormal result, a suboptimal join tree, an evidence violation, or an LLM's own low-confidence self-check. The signals are cast as labeling functions in a generative weak-supervision model, so the unobserved correctness label can be estimated from agreement patterns among them; the resulting probabilities train a classifier that emits clause-level error reports with correction instructions and confidence buckets. The correction phase greedily fixes the most critical single error per iteration, re-detects, and finally asks an auditor LLM to choose between the original and revised queries. The paper shows this recipe fixes more incorrect queries and breaks fewer correct ones than LLM self-reflection across four base generators on BIRD and Spider, with the largest reported gain being a 20.50% nnet accuracy improvement on DIN-SQL-generated BIRD queries.

Load-bearing premise

The framework's coverage rests on the fourteen named error signals capturing the dominant semantic errors; any incorrect query whose mistake triggers none of these signals is invisible to it, and the paper's own unfixable-query analysis acknowledges this.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If SQLens's claims hold, text-to-SQL assistants can tell users which clause is wrong and why, rather than only that the query may be wrong.
  • Because it needs no correctness oracle, the detection pipeline can be applied to arbitrary LLM-generated SQL in settings where gold queries are unavailable.
  • Its detection F1 gain of 25.78% over the best LLM self-evaluation baseline on BIRD means more silent wrong answers are caught before reaching the user.
  • The correction loop lifts execution accuracy by up to 20% on BIRD for DIN-SQL-generated queries, with net improvements exceeding both self-reflection and a one-shot 'fix all errors at once' variant.
  • The SQL Auditor and the guardrail signal trade off aggressive fixing against regression risk, letting users choose a conservative or a more aggressive correction mode.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the weak-supervision aggregation is the true source of gains, adding new labeling functions should improve recall without retraining the generative model from scratch, a property the paper does not test directly.
  • The clause-level error reports could be reused as dense rewards for RL-based text-to-SQL training, a use the paper mentions only as a direction for future work.
  • Because the fourteen-signal taxonomy sets the recall ceiling, an adversarial benchmark whose semantic errors are engineered to evade all fourteen signals would reveal whether SQLens generalizes or is benchmark-specific.
  • The same signal-fusion recipe may transfer to other code-generation tasks where execution feedback is sparse and syntax is easy to validate, such as data-frame transformations.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SQLens, an end-to-end framework for detecting and correcting semantic errors in text-to-SQL outputs. The method defines 14 hand-crafted error signals from database analysis and LLM self-assessment, aggregates these noisy signals with a weak-supervision generative model, trains a correctness classifier, and then iteratively repairs flagged queries with a prioritized, LLM-based error fixer and a final auditor. The empirical study uses the BIRD and Spider dev sets with four base text-to-SQL systems and reports that SQLens improves semantic error detection F1 over the best LLM-based self-evaluation baseline by 25.78% on average and improves execution accuracy by up to 20% (DIN-SQL on BIRD).

Significance. If the experimental claims hold, SQLens is a practically valuable contribution: it offers clause-level, interpretable error reports, does not assume a correctness oracle, and appears to fix more queries and break fewer than self-reflection baselines. The paper ships code and full documentation, uses two standard benchmarks and four base generators, and the headline 25.78% F1 improvement is a faithful average of the seven reported settings, with the per-setting F1 differences generally large and in the same direction. The signal-driven approach is a credible alternative to pure LLM self-evaluation, and the weak-supervision aggregation is a sensible way to combine heterogeneous evidence. The main weakness, as detailed below, is that the signal taxonomy caps what the method can see, and the paper never quantifies that ceiling, while the correction results lack variance or significance testing.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, §3.3, Algorithm 1, Appendix F.3] The paper never reports the signal-silent rate: the fraction of execution-incorrect queries for which all 14 signals return no flag and the positive labelers λall, λdb, and λllm in §3.3 therefore vote 'likely correct.' This is load-bearing for both headline claims because every downstream component (the weak-supervision label model, the correctness classifier, and the correction loop in Algorithm 1) can only act on signals that fire. Appendix F.3 itself lists 'The detected semantic errors do not fully capture the root cause' as one of the three causes of unfixed queries, and §6 concedes that some repairs are missed even when signals fire. Without a coverage measurement, the 25.78% F1 improvement and the +20% accuracy gain cannot be separated from the coverage properties of the hand-picked signals on these particular benchmarks. I ask the authors to compute, per benchmark and per base system, the fraction of incorrect queries with zero active signals, and to report recall on that silent subset or otherwise bound the coverage-limited recall.
  2. [Tables 1, 3, and 9] The correction results are single-run counts (Nfix, Nbreak, Nnet) with no variance or significance testing. Because the correction pipeline invokes an LLM stochastically, the differences that support the ordering claims are sometimes small: for example, Table 3 Vanilla shows SQLens with Nnet=50 vs. w/o SQLAuditor with Nnet=53, and Table 9 Vanilla shows SQLens and Fix-ALL both at Nnet=15. Without repeated runs (e.g., different seeds or temperatures) or a paired significance test over query-level outcomes, the reader cannot tell whether the reported improvements over Self-Reflection and Fix-ALL are reliable or within noise. Please add variance estimates or a significance test for the main correction comparisons.
  3. [§3.3] The weak-supervision component is not described in enough detail to reproduce. The text says a generative model estimates p(Λ, Y) and that the resulting probabilistic labels are used to train a classifier, but it does not specify the label-model family (e.g., Snorkel or a triplet method), the parameterization of labeler accuracies and correlations, the classifier architecture, the feature representation, or the train/validation split used in the 5-fold cross-validation of Tables 2 and 10. Since the weak-supervision variant is a key contribution and is claimed to yield higher recall and F1 than the supervised variant, these details are essential for the method to be reproducible and for the ablation to be interpretable.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.1, Table 8] The end-to-end accuracy tables (Tables 1 and 9) should explicitly state that the denominator is the number of queries without syntax errors, as defined in Table 8, and should give the valid-query count for each setting so the reader can reconstruct the proportions behind Nfix and Nbreak.
  2. [§4.3, SQL Auditor] The text says the SQL Auditor 'helps reduce the number of broken queries,' but Table 3 shows that on Vanilla and DIN-SQL the auditor reduces Nnet; the trade-off discussion would be clearer with a direct comparison of Nbreak with and without the auditor across all four systems.
  3. [Appendix B, Unnecessary Subquery] The Unnecessary Subquery signal uses a threshold set to 3, but no sensitivity analysis is provided; since this is a free parameter, please report how the threshold affects detection and correction.
  4. [Algorithm 1] Line 11 uses a single equality sign in 'if |ErrorDetector(ctx, {eg})| = 1'; this should be '==' in pseudocode.
  5. [§1, Contributions] There is a typo in the phrase 'boosts execution execution accuracy' in the fourth contribution; it should read 'execution accuracy.'
  6. [§3.2, Figure 3] The mapping between the three error categories (question ambiguity, data ambiguity, semantic misalignment) and the fourteen signals in Figure 3 is not fully explained in the text; a short paragraph describing the edges of the causal graph would help the reader understand why each signal is placed where it is.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: SQLENS's headline detection and correction gains are measured against external gold SQL and execution accuracy, and its own limitation analysis confirms the signal set does not define correctness.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. Error signals in Section 3.2 are hand-crafted heuristics; the weak-supervision label model in Section 3.3 aggregates them without gold labels, and the resulting detector is evaluated against gold correctness labels derived by comparing generated SQL to BIRD/Spider ground truth (Section 4.1, Table 2), an external criterion. Correction is evaluated by execution accuracy against gold SQL (Table 1), so the loop 'signals detect errors, signals guide fixes, stop when no signals remain' is not self-justifying: if the signals merely encoded correctness, the F1 and accuracy numbers would be 100% by construction, whereas Appendix F.3 explicitly reports unfixed queries because 'the detected semantic errors do not fully capture the root cause, and even after the identified errors are fixed, some errors remain in the SQL query.' This admission demonstrates that the gold labels and execution results are doing real, independent work. The only self-reference is a non-load-bearing citation: the signal taxonomy in Section 3.2 says it draws inspiration from 'Redset [41]', which includes co-authors Vaidya, Narayanaswamy, and Kraska; this citation motivates signal design but does not prove any evaluation result. Positive labelers λall/λdb/λllm do encode an absence-of-signal assumption that caps recall, but this is an empirically measurable limitation, not a tautology, since precision and F1 against gold labels are well below 100%. Score 2 reflects the minor non-load-bearing self-citation; no circular step reduces to the paper's own inputs by construction.

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

The framework relies on hand-crafted error signals and a weak-supervision aggregator. The main free parameters are thresholds and stopping criteria that the paper does not fully specify. No new physical or ontological entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Unnecessary Subquery threshold = 3
    Appendix B states 'In our evaluation, this threshold is set to 3.' This threshold directly controls when the signal fires and was not justified across datasets.
  • Maximum correction iterations (max_iter) = not reported
    Algorithm 1 takes max_iter as input, but the paper never states the value used in experiments, so the stopping criterion is underspecified.
  • Guardrail signal choice = not reported
    Section 3.4 says 'a high-precision signal can be designated as a guardrail', but the paper does not state which signal was used in Tables 1 and 3.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The error taxonomy and the 14 signals capture most semantic errors in BIRD and Spider.
    Section 3.2 defines signals based on 'insights from recent text-to-SQL studies'; F.3 admits some root causes are not captured.
  • standard math The weak supervision generative model accurately estimates p(Lambda, Y) from labeler agreement without ground truth.
    Section 3.3 cites Snorkel [34]; the specific model and its correlation structure are not described, so the correctness of this estimation is taken from prior work.
  • domain assumption LLM-based signals from a single LLM call provide noisy but useful evidence for clause-level correctness.
    Section 3.2 states all LLM signals come from one call; the reliability of these signals on new domains is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SQLens: An End-to-End Framework for Error Detection and Correction in Text-to-SQL." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SB2OPGDU

@misc{pith2026250604494,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SQLens: An End-to-End Framework for Error Detection and Correction in Text-to-SQL},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SB2OPGDU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04494}
}
read the original abstract

Text-to-SQL systems translate natural language (NL) questions into SQL queries, enabling non-technical users to interact with structured data. While large language models (LLMs) have shown promising results on the text-to-SQL task, they often produce semantically incorrect yet syntactically valid queries, with limited insight into their reliability. We propose SQLens, an end-to-end framework for fine-grained detection and correction of semantic errors in LLM-generated SQL. SQLens integrates error signals from both the underlying database and the LLM to identify potential semantic errors within SQL clauses. It further leverages these signals to guide query correction. Empirical results on two public benchmarks show that SQLens outperforms the best LLM-based self-evaluation method by 25.78% in F1 for error detection, and improves execution accuracy of out-of-the-box text-to-SQL systems by up to 20%.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04494 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An overview of SQLENS. schema. Identifying them is challenging due to NL ambiguity and the complexity of SQL queries, data, and schema [42, 15], and requires joint reasoning over all these sources. Challenge 2: predict the correctness of a SQL query with noisy error signals. Error signals are noisy proxies for true semantic errors. Each signal evaluates the semantic correctness of the generated SQL from a specific p… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A running example from BIRD, where each client is guaranteed to have an account. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The causal graph of semantic errors and signals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Signal aggregation using weak supervision. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example error report for Suboptimal Join Tree bias [27, 47] and limited factual grounding [35], and (2) degradation of originally correct queries when relying on a single, unreliable correctness estimate. Other methods similarly assume that all SQL queries are incorrec…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Text-to-SQL debugging use case [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (right) shows an optimal join tree connecting tables A and C. SQLENS identifies columns not involved in JOIN clauses as Dreq and uses Kruskal’s algorithm [19] to find the minimum Steiner Tree on the pre-built join graph. If the query involves more tables than necessary…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Self-rag: Learn- ing to retrieve, generate, and critique through self-reflection

    Akari Asai, Zeqiu Wu, Yizhong Wang, Avirup Sil, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. Self-rag: Learn- ing to retrieve, generate, and critique through self-reflection. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7-11, 2024. Open- Review.net, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=hSyW5go0v8

    2024

  2. [2]

    Magic: Generating self-correction guideline for in-context text-to-sql, 2024

    Arian Askari, Christian Poelitz, and Xinye Tang. Magic: Generating self-correction guideline for in-context text-to-sql, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.12692

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Amazon q generative sql

    AWS. Amazon q generative sql. https://tinyurl.com/yjwcfwmc, 2024. Accessed: 2024- 10-17

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Bird leaderboard

    BIRD-bench. Bird leaderboard. https://bird-bench.github.io/, 2023. Accessed: May 2025

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Enhancing Trust in LLMs: Algorithms for Comparing and Interpreting LLMs

    Nik Bear Brown. Enhancing trust in llms: Algorithms for comparing and interpreting llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01943, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Error Detection for Text-to-SQL Semantic Parsing

    Shijie Chen, Ziru Chen, Huan Sun, and Yu Su. Error detection for text-to-sql semantic parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13683, 2023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Teaching large language models to self-debug, 2023

    Xinyun Chen, Maxwell Lin, Nathanael Schärli, and Denny Zhou. Teaching large language models to self-debug, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.05128

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Text-to-SQL Error Correction with Language Models of Code

    Ziru Chen, Shijie Chen, Michael White, Raymond Mooney, Ali Payani, Jayanth Srinivasa, Yu Su, and Huan Sun. Text-to-sql error correction with language models of code, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.13073

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Databricks assistant

    Databricks. Databricks assistant. https://tinyurl.com/cdva2bjx, 2023. Accessed: 2024- 10-17

    2023

  2. [10]

    AutoGluon-Tabular: Robust and Accurate AutoML for Structured Data, March 2020

    Nick Erickson, Jonas Mueller, Alexander Shirkov, Hang Zhang, Pedro Larroy, Mu Li, and Alexander Smola. AutoGluon-Tabular: Robust and Accurate AutoML for Structured Data, March 2020. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2003.06505. arXiv:2003.06505 [cs, stat]

    2020 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Venkatesh Emani, Vivek Pandit, Victor Shnayder, Wenjing Wang, and Carlo Curino

    Avrilia Floratou, Fotis Psallidas, Fuheng Zhao, Shaleen Deep, Gunther Hagleither, Wangda Tan, Joyce Cahoon, Rana Alotaibi, Jordan Henkel, Abhik Singla, Alex Van Grootel, Brandon Chow, Kai Deng, Katherine Lin, Marcos Campos, K. Venkatesh Emani, Vivek Pandit, Victor Shnayder, We...

    2024

  4. [12]

    Fast and three-rious: Speeding up weak supervision with triplet methods

    Daniel Fu, Mayee Chen, Frederic Sala, Sarah Hooper, Kayvon Fatahalian, and Christopher Re. Fast and three-rious: Speeding up weak supervision with triplet methods. In Hal Daumé III and Aarti Singh, editors, Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ...

    2020

  5. [13]

    Text-to-sql empowered by large language models: A benchmark evaluation, 2023

    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, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.15363

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    A survey of confidence estimation and calibration in large language models

    Jiahui Geng, Fengyu Cai, Yuxia Wang, Heinz Koeppl, Preslav Nakov, and Iryna Gurevych. A survey of confidence estimation and calibration in large language models. In Kevin Duh, Helena Gomez, and Steven Bethard, editors, Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American C...

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    Data ambiguity strikes back: How documentation improves gpt’s text-to-sql, 2023

    Zezhou Huang, Pavan Kalyan Damalapati, and Eugene Wu. Data ambiguity strikes back: How documentation improves gpt’s text-to-sql, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2310. 18742

    2023

  8. [16]

    Minimum spanning trees.Involve, a Journal of Mathematics, 2(4):439–450, 2009

    Pallavi Jayawant and Kerry Glavin. Minimum spanning trees.Involve, a Journal of Mathematics, 2(4):439–450, 2009

    2009

  9. [17]

    Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know, November 2022

    Saurav Kadavath, Tom Conerly, Amanda Askell, Tom Henighan, Dawn Drain, Ethan Perez, Nicholas Schiefer, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Nova DasSarma, Eli Tran-Johnson, Scott Johnston, Sheer El-Showk, Andy Jones, Nelson Elhage, Tristan Hume, Anna Chen, Yuntao Bai, Sam Bowman, Stanislav For...

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Decomposed prompting: A modular approach for solving complex tasks

    Tushar Khot, Harsh Trivedi, Matthew Finlayson, Yao Fu, Kyle Richardson, Peter Clark, and Ashish Sabharwal. Decomposed prompting: A modular approach for solving complex tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02406, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    On the shortest spanning subtree of a graph and the traveling salesman problem

    Joseph B Kruskal. On the shortest spanning subtree of a graph and the traveling salesman problem. Proceedings of the American Mathematical society, 7(1):48–50, 1956

    1956

  12. [20]

    MCS-SQL: Leveraging Multiple Prompts and Multiple-Choice Selection For Text-to-SQL Generation, May 2024

    Dongjun Lee, Choongwon Park, Jaehyuk Kim, and Heesoo Park. MCS-SQL: Leveraging Multiple Prompts and Multiple-Choice Selection For Text-to-SQL Generation, May 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.07467v1

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Jinyang Li, Binyuan Hui, Ge Qu, Jiaxi Yang, Binhua Li, Bowen Li, Bailin Wang, Bowen Qin, Rongyu Cao, Ruiying Geng, Nan Huo, Xuanhe Zhou, Chenhao Ma, Guoliang Li, Kevin C. C. Chang, Fei Huang, Reynold Cheng, and Yongbin Li. Can LLM Already Serve as A Database Interface? A BIg B...

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Liu, Kevin Lin, John Hewitt, Ashwin Paranjape, Michele Bevilacqua, Fabio Petroni, and Percy Liang

    Nelson F. Liu, Kevin Lin, John Hewitt, Ashwin Paranjape, Michele Bevilacqua, Fabio Petroni, and Percy Liang. Lost in the middle: How language models use long contexts, 2023. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.03172

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Sql-r1: Training natural language to sql reasoning model by reinforcement learning, 2025

    Peixian Ma, Xialie Zhuang, Chengjin Xu, Xuhui Jiang, Ran Chen, and Jian Guo. Sql-r1: Training natural language to sql reasoning model by reinforcement learning, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.08600

    2025

  16. [24]

    Zero-shot listwise document reranking with a large language model, 2023

    Xueguang Ma, Xinyu Zhang, Ronak Pradeep, and Jimmy Lin. Zero-shot listwise document reranking with a large language model, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.02156

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    The death of schema linking? text-to-sql in the age of well-reasoned language models, 2024

    Karime Maamari, Fadhil Abubaker, Daniel Jaroslawicz, and Amine Mhedhbi. The death of schema linking? text-to-sql in the age of well-reasoned language models, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.07702

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    The making of tpc-ds

    Raghunath Othayoth Nambiar and Meikel Poess. The making of tpc-ds. In VLDB, volume 6, pages 1049–1058, 2006

    2006

  19. [27]

    Bowman, and Shi Feng

    Arjun Panickssery, Samuel R. Bowman, and Shi Feng. Llm evaluators recognize and favor their own generations, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.13076

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Lotus: Enabling se- mantic queries with llms over tables of unstructured and structured data

    Liana Patel, Siddharth Jha, Carlos Guestrin, and Matei Zaharia. Lotus: Enabling se- mantic queries with llms over tables of unstructured and structured data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.11418, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    DIN-SQL: Decomposed In-Context Learning of Text-to-SQL with Self-Correction, April 2023

    Mohammadreza Pourreza and Davood Rafiei. DIN-SQL: Decomposed In-Context Learning of Text-to-SQL with Self-Correction, April 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2304. 11015v3. 11

    2023

  22. [31]

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

    Mohammadreza Pourreza, Hailong Li, Ruoxi Sun, Yeounoh Chung, Shayan Talaei, Gau- rav 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

  23. [32]

    Mohammadreza Pourreza, Shayan Talaei, Ruoxi Sun, Xingchen Wan, Hailong Li, Azalia Mirhoseini, Amin Saberi, and Sercan "O. Arik. Reasoning-sql: Reinforcement learning with sql tailored partial rewards for reasoning-enhanced text-to-sql, 2025. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2503.23157

    2025 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Rankvicuna: Zero-shot listwise document reranking with open-source large language models, 2023

    Ronak Pradeep, Sahel Sharifymoghaddam, and Jimmy Lin. Rankvicuna: Zero-shot listwise document reranking with open-source large language models, 2023. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2309.15088

    2023 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Bach, Henry Ehrenberg, Jason Fries, Sen Wu, and Christopher Ré

    Alexander Ratner, Stephen H. Bach, Henry Ehrenberg, Jason Fries, Sen Wu, and Christopher Ré. Snorkel: rapid training data creation with weak supervision. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 11(3):269–282, November 2017. ISSN 2150-8097. doi: 10.14778/3157794. 3157797. URL https:...

    2017

  26. [35]

    Retrieval augmenta- tion reduces hallucination in conversation

    Kurt Shuster, Spencer Poff, Moya Chen, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. Retrieval augmenta- tion reduces hallucination in conversation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.07567, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Snowflake copilot

    Snowflake. Snowflake copilot. https://tinyurl.com/mtry8z7p, 2024. Accessed: 2024- 10-17

    2024

  28. [37]

    Calibration and correctness of language models for code, 2024

    Claudio Spiess, David Gros, Kunal Suresh Pai, Michael Pradel, Md Rafiqul Islam Rabin, Amin Alipour, Susmit Jha, Prem Devanbu, and Toufique Ahmed. Calibration and correctness of language models for code, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.02047

    2024 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Is chatgpt good at search? investigating large language models as re-ranking agents, 2023

    Weiwei Sun, Lingyong Yan, Xinyu Ma, Shuaiqiang Wang, Pengjie Ren, Zhumin Chen, Dawei Yin, and Zhaochun Ren. Is chatgpt good at search? investigating large language models as re-ranking agents, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.09542

    2023 arXiv

  30. [39]

    CHESS: Contextual Harnessing for Efficient SQL Synthesis, June 2024

    Shayan Talaei, Mohammadreza Pourreza, Yu-Chen Chang, Azalia Mirhoseini, and Amin Saberi. CHESS: Contextual Harnessing for Efficient SQL Synthesis, June 2024. URL http: //arxiv.org/abs/2405.16755. arXiv:2405.16755 [cs]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Katherine Tian, Eric Mitchell, Allan Zhou, Archit Sharma, Rafael Rafailov, Huaxiu Yao, Chelsea Finn, and Christopher D. Manning. Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedback, October 2023. U...

    2023 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Why tpc is not enough: An analysis of the amazon redshift fleet

    Alexander van Renen, Dominik Horn, Pascal Pfeil, Kapil Eknath Vaidya, Wen- jian Dong, Murali Narayanaswamy, Zhengchun Liu, Gaurav Saxena, Andreas Kipf, and Tim Kraska. Why tpc is not enough: An analysis of the amazon redshift fleet. In VLDB 2024 , 2024. URL https://www.amazon....

    2024

  33. [42]

    Know what I don’t know: Handling ambiguous and unknown questions for text-to-SQL

    Bing Wang, Yan Gao, Zhoujun Li, and Jian-Guang Lou. Know what I don’t know: Handling ambiguous and unknown questions for text-to-SQL. In Anna Rogers, Jordan Boyd-Graber, and Naoaki Okazaki, editors, Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 570...

    2023 doi

  34. [43]

    MAC-SQL: A Multi-Agent Collabora- tive Framework for Text-to-SQL, June 2024

    Bing Wang, Changyu Ren, Jian Yang, Xinnian Liang, Jiaqi Bai, Linzheng Chai, Zhao Yan, Qian-Wen Zhang, Di Yin, Xing Sun, and Zhoujun Li. MAC-SQL: A Multi-Agent Collabora- tive Framework for Text-to-SQL, June 2024. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.11242. arXiv:2312.11242 [cs]. 12

    2024 arXiv

  35. [44]

    A survey on large language model based autonomous agents

    Lei Wang, Chen Ma, Xueyang Feng, Zeyu Zhang, Hao Yang, Jingsen Zhang, Zhiyuan Chen, Jiakai Tang, Xu Chen, Yankai Lin, et al. A survey on large language model based autonomous agents. Frontiers of Computer Science, 18(6):186345, 2024

    2024

  36. [45]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022

    2022

  37. [46]

    Divide-or-conquer? which part should you distill your llm?, 2024

    Zhuofeng Wu, He Bai, Aonan Zhang, Jiatao Gu, VG Vinod Vydiswaran, Navdeep Jaitly, and Yizhe Zhang. Divide-or-conquer? which part should you distill your llm?, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.15000

    2024 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Pride and prejudice: LLM amplifies self-bias in self-refinement

    Wenda Xu, Guanglei Zhu, Xuandong Zhao, Liangming Pan, Lei Li, and William Wang. Pride and prejudice: LLM amplifies self-bias in self-refinement. In Lun-Wei Ku, Andre Martins, and Vivek Srikumar, editors,Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computationa...

    2024 doi

  39. [48]

    Model-based interactive semantic parsing: A unified formulation and a text-to-sql case study

    Ziyu Yao, Yu Su, Huan Sun, and Wen-tau Yih. Model-based interactive semantic parsing: A unified formulation and a text-to-sql case study. In 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP’19), 2019

    2019

  40. [49]

    An imitation game for learning semantic parsers from user interaction

    Ziyu Yao, Yiqi Tang, Wen-tau Yih, Huan Sun, and Yu Su. An imitation game for learning semantic parsers from user interaction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.00689, 2020

    2005 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Spider: A Large-Scale Human-Labeled Dataset for Complex and Cross-Domain Semantic Parsing and Text-to-SQL Task

    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. Spider: A Large-Scale Human-Labeled Dataset for Complex and Cross-Domain Semantic Parsing and Text-to-SQL Task. In Ellen R...

    2018

  42. [51]

    New York

    Jichuan Zeng, Xi Victoria Lin, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, Michael R Lyu, Irwin King, and Steven CH Hoi. Photon: A robust cross-domain text-to-sql system. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.15280, 2020. A SQL ENS Use Case Figure 6: Text-to-SQL debugging use case. Figure 6 shows a te...

    2007 arXiv

  43. [53]

    Relevant evidence pertaining to the user 's question Database Schema: - Consists of table descriptions - Each table contains multiple column descriptions - Frequent values for each column are provided Your Task:

  44. [54]

    Carefully analyze the user question, evidence and the database schema

  45. [55]

    violates_evidence

    Write a SQL query that correctly answers the user question Format your SQL query using the following markdown: ```sql YOUR SQL QUERY HERE ``` [Question] {question} [Evidence] {evidence} [Database Info] {db_desc_str} [Answer] D.2 Prompt for Evidence Violation You are provided w...

  46. [56]

    Link the concepts, entities, and expressions in the user question to the corresponding clauses in the SQL query.,→ 18

  47. [57]

    yes" or

    For each link you have identified, indicate whether you are confident in the generated clause by answering "yes" or "no.",→ Output a JSON object in the following format. Make sure you generate a valid json response.,→ [Answer] ```json {{ "<(entity in the question, the correspo...

  48. [58]

    A SQLite database schema

  49. [59]

    A proposed SQL query intended to answer the user question

  50. [60]

    An error report for the proposed SQL query. The error report suggests potential errors in the SQL.,→ Database Schema: - Consists of table descriptions - Each table contains multiple column descriptions - Frequent values for each column are provided Your Task:

  51. [61]

    Analyze the error report

  52. [62]

    You can choose not to modify the SQL if it is correct.,→

    Determine if the SQL query needs to be fixed. You can choose not to modify the SQL if it is correct.,→

  53. [63]

    If the proposed SQL is incorrect, generate a correct SQL query to answer the user question,→ Instructions:

  54. [64]

    Review the provided information carefully

  55. [65]

    Use SQL format in code blocks for any SQL queries

  56. [66]

    Explain your reasoning and any changes made to the query

  57. [67]

    guardrail signal

    Avoid using overly complex queries. For example, ... EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM table WHERE condition) can be substituted with JOIN.,→ [Question] {question} [Evidence] 21 {evidence} [Database Info] {db_desc} [Old SQL] ```sql {old_sql} ``` [Error Report] {error_report} Now, please a...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.