# DAC: Decomposed Automation Correction for Text-to-SQL

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.08779 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.08779/

## Key facts

- Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 56 of its 66 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 16 Aug 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 56)

- [BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.04805/) (2018)
- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehension](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.13461/) (2019)
- [DeepSeek-Coder: When the Large Language Model Meets Programming -- The Rise of Code Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.14196/) (2024)
- [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)
- [Teaching Large Language Models to Self-Debug](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.05128/) (2023)
- [Can LLM Already Serve as A Database Interface? A BIg Bench for Large-Scale Database Grounded Text-to-SQLs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.03111/) (2023)
- [Decomposed Prompting: A Modular Approach for Solving Complex Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.02406/) (2022)
- [DIN-SQL: Decomposed In-Context Learning of Text-to-SQL with Self-Correction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.11015/) (2023)
- [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)
- [Text-to-SQL Empowered by Large Language Models: A Benchmark Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.15363/) (2023)
- [CodeT: Code Generation with Generated Tests](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.10397/) (2022)
- [Chain-of-Verification Reduces Hallucination in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.11495/) (2023)
- [A Comprehensive Capability Analysis of GPT-3 and GPT-3.5 Series Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.10420/) (2023)
- [When Can LLMs Actually Correct Their Own Mistakes? A Critical Survey of Self-Correction of LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01297/) (2024)
- [LEVER: Learning to Verify Language-to-Code Generation with Execution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.08468/) (2023)
- [Towards Complex Text-to-SQL in Cross-Domain Database with Intermediate Representation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.08205/) (2019)
- [RESDSQL: Decoupling Schema Linking and Skeleton Parsing for Text-to-SQL](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.05965/) (2023)
- [CodeS: Towards Building Open-source Language Models for Text-to-SQL](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.16347/) (2024)
- [MAC-SQL: A Multi-Agent Collaborative Framework for Text-to-SQL](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.11242/) (2023)
- [LLM Critics Help Catch LLM Bugs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.00215/) (2024)
- [Next-Generation Database Interfaces: A Survey of LLM-based Text-to-SQL](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.08426/) (2024)
- [KaggleDBQA: Realistic Evaluation of Text-to-SQL Parsers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.11455/) (2021)
- [MCS-SQL: Leveraging Multiple Prompts and Multiple-Choice Selection For Text-to-SQL Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.07467/) (2024)
- [The Dawn of Natural Language to SQL: Are We Fully Ready?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01265/) (2024)
- [LLMs Accelerate Annotation for Medical Information Extraction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.02296/) (2023)
- [Self-Contrast: Better Reflection Through Inconsistent Solving Perspectives](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.02009/) (2024)
- [CodeIE: Large Code Generation Models are Better Few-Shot Information Extractors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.05711/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [Understanding, Detecting, and Repairing Real-World In-Context-Learning-Based Text-to-SQL Errors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.09310/) (2025)
- [Uncovering the Impact of Chain-of-Thought Reasoning for Direct Preference Optimization: Lessons from Text-to-SQL](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.11656/) (2025)
- [Exploring the Landscape of Text-to-SQL with Large Language Models: Progresses, Challenges and Opportunities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.23838/) (2025)
- [LEAF-SQL: Level-wise Exploration with Adaptive Fine-graining for Text-to-SQL Skeleton Prediction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.09295/) (2026)
- [Integrating Reasoning and Generalization in Text-to-SQL via Self-Enhanced Fine-Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.15598/) (2026)
- [ACTS-SQL: Agentic and Critic-Oriented Tree-Structured SQL Correctness with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.15145/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Text-to-SQL is an important task that helps people obtain information from databases by automatically generating SQL queries. Considering the brilliant performance, approaches based on Large Language Models (LLMs) become the mainstream for text-to-SQL. Among these approaches, automated correction is an effective approach that further enhances performance by correcting the mistakes in the generated results. The existing correction methods require LLMs to directly correct with generated SQL, while previous research shows that LLMs do not know how to detect mistakes, leading to poor performance. Therefore, in this paper, we propose to employ the decomposed correction to enhance text-to-SQL performance. We first demonstrate that decomposed correction outperforms direct correction since detecting and fixing mistakes with the results of the decomposed sub-tasks is easier than with SQL. Based on this analysis, we introduce Decomposed Automation Correction (DAC), which corrects SQL by decomposing text-to-SQL into entity linking and skeleton parsing. DAC first generates the entity and skeleton corresponding to the question and then compares the differences between the initial SQL and the generated entities and skeleton as feedback for correction. Experimental results show that our method improves performance by 3.7% on average of Spider, Bird, and KaggleDBQA compared with the baseline method, demonstrating the effectiveness of DAC.