# Integrating Reasoning and Generalization in Text-to-SQL via Self-Enhanced Fine-Tuning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.15598 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.15598/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Knowledge- and tool-augmented reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 18 of its 52 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 14 Jun 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Knowledge- and tool-augmented reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/knowledge-and-tool-augmented-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 18 of 18)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12948/) (2025)
- [Qwen2.5 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15115/) (2024)
- [Next-Generation Database Interfaces: A Survey of LLM-based Text-to-SQL](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.08426/) (2024)
- [Reasoning-SQL: Reinforcement Learning with SQL Tailored Partial Rewards for Reasoning-Enhanced Text-to-SQL](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.23157/) (2025)
- [A Survey of Text-to-SQL in the Era of LLMs: Where are we, and where are we going?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.05109/) (2024)
- [NL2SQL-BUGs: A Benchmark for Detecting Semantic Errors in NL2SQL Translation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.11984/) (2025)
- [ExCoT: Optimizing Reasoning for Text-to-SQL with Execution Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.19988/) (2025)
- [MSc-SQL: Multi-Sample Critiquing Small Language Models For Text-To-SQL Translation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.12916/) (2024)
- [Improving Retrieval-augmented Text-to-SQL with AST-based Ranking and Schema Pruning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.03227/) (2024)
- [CSC-SQL: Corrective Self-Consistency in Text-to-SQL via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.13271/) (2025)
- [Grounding Natural Language to SQL Translation with Data-Based Self-Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.02948/) (2024)
- [PTD-SQL: Partitioning and Targeted Drilling with LLMs in Text-to-SQL](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.14082/) (2024)
- [DAC: Decomposed Automation Correction for Text-to-SQL](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.08779/) (2024)
- [IQuest-Coder-V1 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.16733/) (2026)
- [SelECT-SQL: Self-correcting ensemble Chain-of-Thought for Text-to-SQL](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.10007/) (2024)
- [Enhancing LLM Fine-tuning for Text-to-SQLs by SQL Quality Measurement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.01869/) (2024)
- [Rationalization Models for Text-to-SQL](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.06759/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Text-to-SQL aims to translate natural language questions into executable SQL queries over structured databases, enabling non-expert users to access data intuitively. While recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in this task, existing LLM-based approaches often struggle to strike a balance between strong reasoning capabilities and robust generalization. To address these limitations, we propose CoTE-SQL to enhance the LLM-based text-to-SQL generation with three key innovations: (i) self-enhanced reasoning traces distilled from LLMs without human annotation, (ii) structured chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting with modular decomposition and examples retrieval, and (iii) error-aware revision based on SQL execution feedback. Extensive experiments on the Spider and Bird benchmarks demonstrate that CoTE-SQL achieves new state-of-the-art performance among methods built on open-source LLMs with comparable model sizes on Bird (53.39% EX / 59.02 VES) and strong results on Spider (79.60% EX / 77.19 VES), with especially significant gains on complex queries. Results highlight the effectiveness of combining self-enhancement, structured reasoning, and execution-time feedback within an LLM-based framework for text-to-SQL design.