mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

SEED: Enhancing Text-to-SQL Performance and Practical Usability Through Automatic Evidence Generation

arXiv 2506.07423 ↗First posted 9 Jun 2025cs.CLcited by 4

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

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
  2. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
  3. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
  4. 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,599
  5. 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 13,028
  6. 2025DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learningcited by 6,330
  7. 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,708
  8. 2014Sequence to Sequence Learning with Neural Networkscited by 2,986
  9. 2017Get To The Point: Summarization with Pointer-Generator Networkscited by 1,292
  10. 2018Spider: A Large-Scale Human-Labeled Dataset for Complex and Cross-Domain Semantic Parsing and Text-to-SQL Taskcited by 1,139
  11. 2020MPNet: Masked and Permuted Pre-training for Language Understandingcited by 981
  12. 2023StarCoder: may the source be with you!cited by 799
23 more
  1. 2023Can LLM Already Serve as A Database Interface? A BIg Bench for Large-Scale Database Grounded Text-to-SQLscited by 688
  2. 2017Seq2SQL: Generating Structured Queries from Natural Language using Reinforcement Learningcited by 687
  3. 2023DIN-SQL: Decomposed In-Context Learning of Text-to-SQL with Self-Correctioncited by 477
  4. 2023Text-to-SQL Empowered by Large Language Models: A Benchmark Evaluationcited by 385
  5. 2023RESDSQL: Decoupling Schema Linking and Skeleton Parsing for Text-to-SQLcited by 195
  6. 2024CodeS: Towards Building Open-source Language Models for Text-to-SQLcited by 187
  7. 2024CHESS: Contextual Harnessing for Efficient SQL Synthesiscited by 169
  8. 2023C3: Zero-shot Text-to-SQL with ChatGPTcited by 164
  9. 2024CHASE-SQL: Multi-Path Reasoning and Preference Optimized Candidate Selection in Text-to-SQLcited by 138
  10. 2020Bridging Textual and Tabular Data for Cross-Domain Text-to-SQL Semantic Parsingcited by 133
  11. 2024Next-Generation Database Interfaces: A Survey of LLM-based Text-to-SQLcited by 120
  12. 2024MCS-SQL: Leveraging Multiple Prompts and Multiple-Choice Selection For Text-to-SQL Generationcited by 105
  13. 2024The Dawn of Natural Language to SQL: Are We Fully Ready?cited by 79
  14. 2024A Survey on Employing Large Language Models for Text-to-SQL Taskscited by 67
  15. 2024The Death of Schema Linking? Text-to-SQL in the Age of Well-Reasoned Language Modelscited by 67
  16. 2024Synthesizing Text-to-SQL Data from Weak and Strong LLMscited by 54
  17. 2022A Survey on Text-to-SQL Parsing: Concepts, Methods, and Future Directionscited by 52
  18. 2024RSL-SQL: Robust Schema Linking in Text-to-SQL Generationcited by 52
  19. 2024A Preview of XiYan-SQL: A Multi-Generator Ensemble Framework for Text-to-SQLcited by 46
  20. 2023Self-Polish: Enhance Reasoning in Large Language Models via Problem Refinementcited by 43
  21. 2024E-SQL: Direct Schema Linking via Question Enrichment in Text-to-SQLcited by 35
  22. 2024PURPLE: Making a Large Language Model a Better SQL Writercited by 34
  23. 2024MSc-SQL: Multi-Sample Critiquing Small Language Models For Text-To-SQL Translationcited by 19

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 3.

4 papers.