# On the Structural Generalization in Text-to-SQL

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.04790 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.04790/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 20 of its 39 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 12 Jan 2023.

## Builds on (most cited first, 20 of 20)

- [Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.10683/) (2019)
- [BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehension](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.13461/) (2019)
- [Spider: A Large-Scale Human-Labeled Dataset for Complex and Cross-Domain Semantic Parsing and Text-to-SQL Task](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1809.08887/) (2018)
- [Stanza: A Python Natural Language Processing Toolkit for Many Human Languages](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2003.07082/) (2020)
- [RAT-SQL: Relation-Aware Schema Encoding and Linking for Text-to-SQL Parsers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.04942/) (2019)
- [PICARD: Parsing Incrementally for Constrained Auto-Regressive Decoding from Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.05093/) (2021)
- [Towards Complex Text-to-SQL in Cross-Domain Database with Intermediate Representation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.08205/) (2019)
- [CoSQL: A Conversational Text-to-SQL Challenge Towards Cross-Domain Natural Language Interfaces to Databases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.05378/) (2019)
- [SParC: Cross-Domain Semantic Parsing in Context](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.02285/) (2019)
- [Improving Text-to-SQL Evaluation Methodology](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.09029/) (2018)
- [Bridging Textual and Tabular Data for Cross-Domain Text-to-SQL Semantic Parsing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.12627/) (2020)
- [LGESQL: Line Graph Enhanced Text-to-SQL Model with Mixed Local and Non-Local Relations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.01093/) (2021)
- [Towards Robustness of Text-to-SQL Models against Synonym Substitution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.01065/) (2021)
- [Learning a Neural Semantic Parser from User Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1704.08760/) (2017)
- [SmBoP: Semi-autoregressive Bottom-up Semantic Parsing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.12412/) (2020)
- [Natural SQL: Making SQL Easier to Infer from Natural Language Specifications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.05153/) (2021)
- [Global Reasoning over Database Structures for Text-to-SQL Parsing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.11214/) (2019)
- [S2SQL: Injecting Syntax to Question-Schema Interaction Graph Encoder for Text-to-SQL Parsers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.06958/) (2022)
- [ShadowGNN: Graph Projection Neural Network for Text-to-SQL Parser](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.04689/) (2021)
- [Towards Robustness of Text-to-SQL Models Against Natural and Realistic Adversarial Table Perturbation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.09994/) (2022)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [CSS: A Large-scale Cross-schema Chinese Text-to-SQL Medical Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.15891/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Exploring the generalization of a text-to-SQL parser is essential for a system to automatically adapt the real-world databases. Previous works provided investigations focusing on lexical diversity, including the influence of the synonym and perturbations in both natural language questions and databases. However, research on the structure variety of database schema~(DS) is deficient. Specifically, confronted with the same input question, the target SQL is probably represented in different ways when the DS comes to a different structure. In this work, we provide in-deep discussions about the structural generalization of text-to-SQL tasks. We observe that current datasets are too templated to study structural generalization. To collect eligible test data, we propose a framework to generate novel text-to-SQL data via automatic and synchronous (DS, SQL) pair altering. In the experiments, significant performance reduction when evaluating well-trained text-to-SQL models on the synthetic samples demonstrates the limitation of current research regarding structural generalization. According to comprehensive analysis, we suggest the practical reason is the overfitting of (NL, SQL) patterns.