Human-Level Text-to-SQL via Reinforcement Learning on Verified Data, Without Pipeline Engineering
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Translating natural language questions to SQL queries (Text-to-SQL) is a long-standing problem in database research. Recent efforts have focused on improving accuracy by building increasingly complex multi-stage large LLM pipelines, layering task decomposition, schema linking, and model-based query selection on top of an LLM. Despite this growing complexity, a substantial gap (>10%) between such systems and human experts persists on benchmarks, suggesting that pipeline engineering alone has hit a ceiling. We show that human-level Text-to-SQL performance is achievable by fine-tuning an LLM using RLVR on clean data, without pipeline components. In this paper, we identified the dominant bottleneck for RLVR on Text-to-SQL: existing training data contains pervasive annotation errors that mislead optimization. To address this, we developed a multi-round, expert-driven verification pipeline and used it to curate BIRD-Platinum, a dataset of 2.5k verified instances sampled from BIRD Train, with errors corrected in 61% of instances. We show that fine-tuning Qwen3-235B on BIRD-Platinum yields consistent improvements (11-16%) over BIRD Train on Arcwise-Plat (an expert-verified version of BIRD) and Spider2, outperforming SOTA open-source systems by 0.6-16%. Furthermore, we diagnosed two failure modes of standard RLVR on Text-to-SQL. We find that (1) result-based rewards have non-trivial false positive rates, and (2) models systematically ignore the external knowledge in BIRD-style problems. To address them, we propose ReViSQL-BIRD, a specialized reward shaping method that combines result-based rewards with SQL equivalence verification and leverages process rewards for incentivizing external-knowledge use. We fine-tuned Kimi-K2.6 with ReViSQL-BIRD. On Arcwise-Plat, ReViSQL-BIRD-K2.6 is the first method to achieve human-level accuracy (92.96%), outperforming top five open-source systems by 10-22%.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 31 of its 103 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Mar 2026.
Builds on
31 of 103 references.
References · 31
- 2023Can LLM Already Serve as A Database Interface? A BIg Bench for Large-Scale Database Grounded Text-to-SQLscited by 667
- 2025Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?cited by 559
- 2023Text-to-SQL Empowered by Large Language Models: A Benchmark Evaluationcited by 378
- 2025MiniMax-M1: Scaling Test-Time Compute Efficiently with Lightning Attentioncited by 248
- 2024Spider 2.0: Evaluating Language Models on Real-World Enterprise Text-to-SQL Workflowscited by 223
- 2024CodeS: Towards Building Open-source Language Models for Text-to-SQLcited by 183
- 2024CHESS: Contextual Harnessing for Efficient SQL Synthesiscited by 164
- 2023C3: Zero-shot Text-to-SQL with ChatGPTcited by 159
- 2024CHASE-SQL: Multi-Path Reasoning and Preference Optimized Candidate Selection in Text-to-SQLcited by 132
- 2024The Death of Schema Linking? Text-to-SQL in the Age of Well-Reasoned Language Modelscited by 67
- 2025Reasoning-SQL: Reinforcement Learning with SQL Tailored Partial Rewards for Reasoning-Enhanced Text-to-SQLcited by 59
- 2025OpenSearch-SQL: Enhancing Text-to-SQL with Dynamic Few-shot and Consistency Alignmentcited by 51
19 more
- 2025XiYan-SQL: A Novel Multi-Generator Framework For Text-to-SQLcited by 40
- 2025Arctic-Text2SQL-R1: Simple Rewards, Strong Reasoning in Text-to-SQLcited by 38
- 2025ReFoRCE: A Text-to-SQL Agent with Self-Refinement, Consensus Enforcement, and Column Explorationcited by 34
- 2019A Comparative Survey of Recent Natural Language Interfaces for Databasescited by 33
- 2024Understanding the Effects of Noise in Text-to-SQL: An Examination of the BIRD-Bench Benchmarkcited by 33
- 2025Alpha-SQL: Zero-Shot Text-to-SQL using Monte Carlo Tree Searchcited by 33
- 2023Evaluating Cross-Domain Text-to-SQL Models and Benchmarkscited by 32
- 2025NL2SQL-BUGs: A Benchmark for Detecting Semantic Errors in NL2SQL Translationcited by 31
- 2025Automatic Metadata Extraction for Text-to-SQLcited by 25
- 2025ExCoT: Optimizing Reasoning for Text-to-SQL with Execution Feedbackcited by 23
- 2025Agentar-Scale-SQL: Advancing Text-to-SQL through Orchestrated Test-Time Scalingcited by 20
- 2025Reliable Text-to-SQL with Adaptive Abstentioncited by 19
- 2025SHARE: An SLM-based Hierarchical Action CorREction Assistant for Text-to-SQLcited by 15
- 2025Cheaper, Better, Faster, Stronger: Robust Text-to-SQL without Chain-of-Thought or Fine-Tuningcited by 13
- 2026Pervasive Annotation Errors Break Text-to-SQL Benchmarks and Leaderboardscited by 12
- 2024SiriusBI: A Comprehensive LLM-Powered Solution for Data Analytics in Business Intelligencecited by 11
- 2025SLM-SQL: An Exploration of Small Language Models for Text-to-SQLcited by 10
- 2024VeriEQL: Bounded Equivalence Verification for Complex SQL Queries with Integrity Constraintscited by 8
- 2025SQaLe: A Large Text-to-SQL Corpus Grounded in Real Schemascited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.