mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Jackal: A Real-World Execution-Based Benchmark Evaluating Large Language Models on Text-to-JQL Tasks

arXiv 2509.23579 ↗First posted 28 Sep 2025cs.CLcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Enterprise teams rely on the Jira Query Language (JQL) to retrieve and filter issues from Jira. Yet, to our knowledge, there is no open, real-world, execution-based benchmark for mapping natural language queries to JQL. We introduce Jackal, a novel, large-scale text-to-JQL benchmark comprising 100,000 natural language (NL) requests paired with validated JQL queries and execution-based results on a live Jira instance with over 200,000 issues. To reflect real-world usage, each JQL query is associated with four types of user requests: (i) Long NL, (ii) Short NL, (iii) Semantically Similar, and (iv) Semantically Exact. We release Jackal, a corpus of 100,000 text-to-JQL pairs, together with an execution-based scoring toolkit, and a static snapshot of the evaluated Jira instance for reproducibility. We report text-to-JQL results on 23 Large Language Models (LLMs) spanning parameter sizes, open and closed source models, across execution accuracy, exact match, and canonical exact match. In this paper, we report results on Jackal-5K, a 5,000-pair subset of Jackal. On Jackal-5K, the best overall model (Gemini 2.5 Pro) achieves only 60.3% execution accuracy averaged equally across four user request types. Performance varies significantly across user request types: (i) Long NL (86.0%), (ii) Short NL (35.7%), (iii) Semantically Similar (22.7%), and (iv) Semantically Exact (99.3%). By benchmarking LLMs on their ability to produce correct and executable JQL queries, Jackal exposes the limitations of current state-of-the-art LLMs and sets a new, execution-based challenge for future research in Jira enterprise data.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Sep 2025.

Builds on

16 of 30 references.

References · 16

  1. 2018Spider: A Large-Scale Human-Labeled Dataset for Complex and Cross-Domain Semantic Parsing and Text-to-SQL Taskcited by 1,139
  2. 2023Can LLM Already Serve as A Database Interface? A BIg Bench for Large-Scale Database Grounded Text-to-SQLscited by 688
  3. 2017Seq2SQL: Generating Structured Queries from Natural Language using Reinforcement Learningcited by 687
  4. 2019RAT-SQL: Relation-Aware Schema Encoding and Linking for Text-to-SQL Parserscited by 424
  5. 2021PICARD: Parsing Incrementally for Constrained Auto-Regressive Decoding from Language Modelscited by 411
  6. 2019Measuring Compositional Generalization: A Comprehensive Method on Realistic Datacited by 284
  7. 2024Spider 2.0: Evaluating Language Models on Real-World Enterprise Text-to-SQL Workflowscited by 232
  8. 2019CoSQL: A Conversational Text-to-SQL Challenge Towards Cross-Domain Natural Language Interfaces to Databasescited by 185
  9. 2019SParC: Cross-Domain Semantic Parsing in Contextcited by 144
  10. 2018Improving Text-to-SQL Evaluation Methodologycited by 135
  11. 2020Semantic Evaluation for Text-to-SQL with Distilled Test Suitescited by 126
  12. 2020Task-Oriented Dialogue as Dataflow Synthesiscited by 122
4 more
  1. 2022Evaluating the Text-to-SQL Capabilities of Large Language Modelscited by 101
  2. 2017From Language to Programs: Bridging Reinforcement Learning and Maximum Marginal Likelihoodcited by 41
  3. 2019A Comparative Survey of Recent Natural Language Interfaces for Databasescited by 33
  4. 2016Learning Executable Semantic Parsers for Natural Language Understandingcited by 21

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.