mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Evaluating the Data Model Robustness of Text-to-SQL Systems Based on Real User Queries

arXiv 2402.08349 ↗First posted 13 Feb 2024cs.DB cs.AI cs.CLcited by 12

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Text-to-SQL systems (also known as NL-to-SQL systems) have become an increasingly popular solution for bridging the gap between user capabilities and SQL-based data access. These systems translate user requests in natural language to valid SQL statements for a specific database. Recent Text-to-SQL systems have benefited from the rapid improvement of transformer-based language models. However, while Text-to-SQL systems that incorporate such models continuously reach new high scores on -- often synthetic -- benchmark datasets, a systematic exploration of their robustness towards different data models in a real-world, realistic scenario is notably missing. This paper provides the first in-depth evaluation of the data model robustness of Text-to-SQL systems in practice based on a multi-year international project focused on Text-to-SQL interfaces. Our evaluation is based on a real-world deployment of FootballDB, a system that was deployed over a 9 month period in the context of the FIFA World Cup 2022, during which about 6K natural language questions were asked and executed. All of our data is based on real user questions that were asked live to the system. We manually labeled and translated a subset of these questions for three different data models. For each data model, we explore the performance of representative Text-to-SQL systems and language models. We further quantify the impact of training data size, pre-, and post-processing steps as well as language model inference time. Our comprehensive evaluation sheds light on the design choices of real-world Text-to-SQL systems and their impact on moving from research prototypes to real deployments. Last, we provide a new benchmark dataset to the community, which is the first to enable the evaluation of different data models for the same dataset and is substantially more challenging than most previous datasets in terms of query complexity.

Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 32 of its 66 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Feb 2024.

Builds on

32 of 66 references.

References · 32

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  3. 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,491
  4. 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 13,958
  5. 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,049
  6. 2019BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehensioncited by 5,874
  7. 2018Spider: A Large-Scale Human-Labeled Dataset for Complex and Cross-Domain Semantic Parsing and Text-to-SQL Taskcited by 1,120
  8. 2023Teaching Large Language Models to Self-Debugcited by 963
  9. 2022BERTopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based TF-IDF procedurecited by 779
  10. 2017Seq2SQL: Generating Structured Queries from Natural Language using Reinforcement Learningcited by 679
  11. 2023Can LLM Already Serve as A Database Interface? A BIg Bench for Large-Scale Database Grounded Text-to-SQLscited by 667
  12. 2023DIN-SQL: Decomposed In-Context Learning of Text-to-SQL with Self-Correctioncited by 465
20 more
  1. 2019RAT-SQL: Relation-Aware Schema Encoding and Linking for Text-to-SQL Parserscited by 420
  2. 2021PICARD: Parsing Incrementally for Constrained Auto-Regressive Decoding from Language Modelscited by 402
  3. 20218-bit Optimizers via Block-wise Quantizationcited by 395
  4. 2023Text-to-SQL Empowered by Large Language Models: A Benchmark Evaluationcited by 378
  5. 2019Towards Complex Text-to-SQL in Cross-Domain Database with Intermediate Representationcited by 210
  6. 2023C3: Zero-shot Text-to-SQL with ChatGPTcited by 159
  7. 2018Improving Text-to-SQL Evaluation Methodologycited by 133
  8. 2020Semantic Evaluation for Text-to-SQL with Distilled Test Suitescited by 123
  9. 2021KaggleDBQA: Realistic Evaluation of Text-to-SQL Parserscited by 105
  10. 2023Graphix-T5: Mixing Pre-Trained Transformers with Graph-Aware Layers for Text-to-SQL Parsingcited by 93
  11. 2022RASAT: Integrating Relational Structures into Pretrained Seq2Seq Model for Text-to-SQLcited by 85
  12. 2018TypeSQL: Knowledge-based Type-Aware Neural Text-to-SQL Generationcited by 81
  13. 2019Text-to-SQL Generation for Question Answering on Electronic Medical Recordscited by 76
  14. 2021Natural SQL: Making SQL Easier to Infer from Natural Language Specificationscited by 66
  15. 2021Text-to-SQL in the Wild: A Naturally-Occurring Dataset Based on Stack Exchange Datacited by 43
  16. 2023ScienceBenchmark: A Complex Real-World Benchmark for Evaluating Natural Language to SQL Systemscited by 42
  17. 2019A Comparative Survey of Recent Natural Language Interfaces for Databasescited by 33
  18. 2022Importance of Synthesizing High-quality Data for Text-to-SQL Parsingcited by 27
  19. 2022N-Best Hypotheses Reranking for Text-To-SQL Systemscited by 19
  20. 2020A Methodology for Creating Question Answering Corpora Using Inverse Data Annotationcited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 4; 2025: 2; 2026: 6.

12 papers.