SEED: Enhancing Text-to-SQL Performance and Practical Usability Through Automatic Evidence Generation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Text-to-SQL enables non-experts to retrieve data from databases by converting natural language queries into SQL. However, state-of-the-art text-to-SQL studies rely on the BIRD dataset, which assumes that evidence is provided along with questions. Although BIRD facilitates research advancements, it assumes that users have expertise and domain knowledge, contradicting the fundamental goal of text-to-SQL. In addition, human-generated evidence in BIRD contains defects, including missing or erroneous evidence, which affects model performance. To address this issue, we propose SEED (System for Evidence Extraction and Domain knowledge generation), an approach that automatically generates evidence to improve performance and practical usability in real-world scenarios. SEED systematically analyzes database schema, description files, and values to extract relevant information. We evaluated SEED on BIRD and Spider, demonstrating that it significantly improves SQL generation accuracy in the no-evidence scenario, and in some cases, even outperforms the setting where BIRD evidence is provided. Our results highlight that SEED-generated evidence not only bridges the gap between research and real-world deployment but also improves the adaptability and robustness of text-to-SQL models. Our code is available at https://github.com/felix01189/SEED
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 35 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Jun 2025.
Builds on
35 of 38 references.
References · 35
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
- 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,599
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 13,028
- 2025DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learningcited by 6,330
- 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,708
- 2014Sequence to Sequence Learning with Neural Networkscited by 2,986
- 2017Get To The Point: Summarization with Pointer-Generator Networkscited by 1,292
- 2018Spider: A Large-Scale Human-Labeled Dataset for Complex and Cross-Domain Semantic Parsing and Text-to-SQL Taskcited by 1,139
- 2020MPNet: Masked and Permuted Pre-training for Language Understandingcited by 981
- 2023StarCoder: may the source be with you!cited by 799
23 more
- 2023Can LLM Already Serve as A Database Interface? A BIg Bench for Large-Scale Database Grounded Text-to-SQLscited by 688
- 2017Seq2SQL: Generating Structured Queries from Natural Language using Reinforcement Learningcited by 687
- 2023DIN-SQL: Decomposed In-Context Learning of Text-to-SQL with Self-Correctioncited by 477
- 2023Text-to-SQL Empowered by Large Language Models: A Benchmark Evaluationcited by 385
- 2023RESDSQL: Decoupling Schema Linking and Skeleton Parsing for Text-to-SQLcited by 195
- 2024CodeS: Towards Building Open-source Language Models for Text-to-SQLcited by 187
- 2024CHESS: Contextual Harnessing for Efficient SQL Synthesiscited by 169
- 2023C3: Zero-shot Text-to-SQL with ChatGPTcited by 164
- 2024CHASE-SQL: Multi-Path Reasoning and Preference Optimized Candidate Selection in Text-to-SQLcited by 138
- 2020Bridging Textual and Tabular Data for Cross-Domain Text-to-SQL Semantic Parsingcited by 133
- 2024Next-Generation Database Interfaces: A Survey of LLM-based Text-to-SQLcited by 120
- 2024MCS-SQL: Leveraging Multiple Prompts and Multiple-Choice Selection For Text-to-SQL Generationcited by 105
- 2024The Dawn of Natural Language to SQL: Are We Fully Ready?cited by 79
- 2024A Survey on Employing Large Language Models for Text-to-SQL Taskscited by 67
- 2024The Death of Schema Linking? Text-to-SQL in the Age of Well-Reasoned Language Modelscited by 67
- 2024Synthesizing Text-to-SQL Data from Weak and Strong LLMscited by 54
- 2022A Survey on Text-to-SQL Parsing: Concepts, Methods, and Future Directionscited by 52
- 2024RSL-SQL: Robust Schema Linking in Text-to-SQL Generationcited by 52
- 2024A Preview of XiYan-SQL: A Multi-Generator Ensemble Framework for Text-to-SQLcited by 46
- 2023Self-Polish: Enhance Reasoning in Large Language Models via Problem Refinementcited by 43
- 2024E-SQL: Direct Schema Linking via Question Enrichment in Text-to-SQLcited by 35
- 2024PURPLE: Making a Large Language Model a Better SQL Writercited by 34
- 2024MSc-SQL: Multi-Sample Critiquing Small Language Models For Text-To-SQL Translationcited by 19
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 3.
4 papers.
- 2026Semantic Layers for Reliable LLM-Powered Data Analytics: A Paired Benchmark of Accuracy and Hallucination Across Three Frontier Modelscited by 3
- 2025SteinerSQL: Graph-Guided Mathematical Reasoning for Text-to-SQL Generationcited by 1
- 2026IndicDB -- Benchmarking Multilingual Text-to-SQL Capabilities in Indian Languagescited by 1
- 2026From Test-Time Scaling to Reusable Memory: Measuring Crystallization in Text-to-SQLcited by 0
- 2026From Test-Time Scaling to Reusable Memory: Measuring Crystallization in Text-to-SQL7 Aug 2026
- 2026Semantic Layers for Reliable LLM-Powered Data Analytics: A Paired Benchmark of Accuracy and Hallucination Across Three Frontier Models28 Apr 2026
- 2026IndicDB -- Benchmarking Multilingual Text-to-SQL Capabilities in Indian Languages15 Apr 2026
- 2025SteinerSQL: Graph-Guided Mathematical Reasoning for Text-to-SQL Generation23 Sep 2025