mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Towards Generalizable and Robust Text-to-SQL Parsing

arXiv 2210.12674 ↗First posted 23 Oct 2022cs.CLcited by 7

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Text-to-SQL parsing tackles the problem of mapping natural language questions to executable SQL queries. In practice, text-to-SQL parsers often encounter various challenging scenarios, requiring them to be generalizable and robust. While most existing work addresses a particular generalization or robustness challenge, we aim to study it in a more comprehensive manner. In specific, we believe that text-to-SQL parsers should be (1) generalizable at three levels of generalization, namely i.i.d., zero-shot, and compositional, and (2) robust against input perturbations. To enhance these capabilities of the parser, we propose a novel TKK framework consisting of Task decomposition, Knowledge acquisition, and Knowledge composition to learn text-to-SQL parsing in stages. By dividing the learning process into multiple stages, our framework improves the parser's ability to acquire general SQL knowledge instead of capturing spurious patterns, making it more generalizable and robust. Experimental results under various generalization and robustness settings show that our framework is effective in all scenarios and achieves state-of-the-art performance on the Spider, SParC, and CoSQL datasets. Code can be found at https://github.com/AlibabaResearch/DAMO-ConvAI/tree/main/tkk.

Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 42 of its 54 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Oct 2022.

Builds on

42 of 54 references.

References · 42

  1. 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,491
  2. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,302
  3. 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,601
  4. 2022Least-to-Most Prompting Enables Complex Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 1,397
  5. 2018Spider: A Large-Scale Human-Labeled Dataset for Complex and Cross-Domain Semantic Parsing and Text-to-SQL Taskcited by 1,120
  6. 2018Adafactor: Adaptive Learning Rates with Sublinear Memory Costcited by 896
  7. 2021Show Your Work: Scratchpads for Intermediate Computation with Language Modelscited by 871
  8. 2017Seq2SQL: Generating Structured Queries from Natural Language using Reinforcement Learningcited by 679
  9. 2019RAT-SQL: Relation-Aware Schema Encoding and Linking for Text-to-SQL Parserscited by 420
  10. 2021PICARD: Parsing Incrementally for Constrained Auto-Regressive Decoding from Language Modelscited by 402
  11. 2022UnifiedSKG: Unifying and Multi-Tasking Structured Knowledge Grounding with Text-to-Text Language Modelscited by 231
  12. 2019Towards Complex Text-to-SQL in Cross-Domain Database with Intermediate Representationcited by 210
30 more
  1. 2019CoSQL: A Conversational Text-to-SQL Challenge Towards Cross-Domain Natural Language Interfaces to Databasescited by 180
  2. 2020Beyond I.I.D.: Three Levels of Generalization for Question Answering on Knowledge Basescited by 169
  3. 2016Language to Logical Form with Neural Attentioncited by 158
  4. 2020Compositional Generalization and Natural Language Variation: Can a Semantic Parsing Approach Handle Both?cited by 147
  5. 2019SParC: Cross-Domain Semantic Parsing in Contextcited by 141
  6. 2018Improving Text-to-SQL Evaluation Methodologycited by 133
  7. 2020Bridging Textual and Tabular Data for Cross-Domain Text-to-SQL Semantic Parsingcited by 133
  8. 2020Structure-Grounded Pretraining for Text-to-SQLcited by 126
  9. 2021LGESQL: Line Graph Enhanced Text-to-SQL Model with Mixed Local and Non-Local Relationscited by 119
  10. 2021Towards Robustness of Text-to-SQL Models against Synonym Substitutioncited by 110
  11. 2021Measure and Improve Robustness in NLP Models: A Surveycited by 107
  12. 2017Learning a Neural Semantic Parser from User Feedbackcited by 98
  13. 2020SmBoP: Semi-autoregressive Bottom-up Semantic Parsingcited by 97
  14. 2020Compositional Generalization in Semantic Parsing: Pre-training vs. Specialized Architecturescited by 95
  15. 2019Editing-Based SQL Query Generation for Cross-Domain Context-Dependent Questionscited by 80
  16. 2018SyntaxSQLNet: Syntax Tree Networks for Complex and Cross-DomainText-to-SQL Taskcited by 74
  17. 2021Natural SQL: Making SQL Easier to Infer from Natural Language Specificationscited by 66
  18. 2020RYANSQL: Recursively Applying Sketch-based Slot Fillings for Complex Text-to-SQL in Cross-Domain Databasescited by 63
  19. 2021Unlocking Compositional Generalization in Pre-trained Models Using Intermediate Representationscited by 55
  20. 2022A Survey on Text-to-SQL Parsing: Concepts, Methods, and Future Directionscited by 51
  21. 2019Global Reasoning over Database Structures for Text-to-SQL Parsingcited by 43
  22. 2022S2SQL: Injecting Syntax to Question-Schema Interaction Graph Encoder for Text-to-SQL Parserscited by 41
  23. 2022Sub-Task Decomposition Enables Learning in Sequence to Sequence Taskscited by 41
  24. 2021Data Augmentation with Hierarchical SQL-to-Question Generation for Cross-domain Text-to-SQL Parsingcited by 32
  25. 2022Proton: Probing Schema Linking Information from Pre-trained Language Models for Text-to-SQL Parsingcited by 30
  26. 2020IGSQL: Database Schema Interaction Graph Based Neural Model for Context-Dependent Text-to-SQL Generationcited by 29
  27. 2022HIE-SQL: History Information Enhanced Network for Context-Dependent Text-to-SQL Semantic Parsingcited by 26
  28. 2021Improving Text-to-SQL with Schema Dependency Learningcited by 25
  29. 2022UniGDD: A Unified Generative Framework for Goal-Oriented Document-Grounded Dialoguecited by 8
  30. 2022SUN: Exploring Intrinsic Uncertainties in Text-to-SQL Parserscited by 7

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 4; 2024: 1; 2025: 0; 2026: 2.

7 papers.