mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Tytan: Interactive Neurosymbolic Construction of Analytic Semantic Schemas from Relational Data

arXiv 2608.06331 ↗First posted 6 Aug 2026cs.DB cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

From natural-language query interfaces to automated report generation, data analysis tools need a description of the data: the real-world entities it contains, which columns function as measures or identifiers, and how tables connect into units of analysis. Today, this semantic layer is usually written by hand. This is a knowledge-acquisition bottleneck that limits the scalability of analytic systems, keeps non-technical users dependent on experts, and is itself error-prone. We present TYTAN, a system for automatically constructing an analytic semantic schema from a relational database and, when available, a short user-provided description. TYTAN combines symbolic analysis of the database with LLM-based semantic inference for entity proposal, role assignment, and naming. When the evidence leaves a decision ambiguous, TYTAN asks the user a targeted natural-language question. We evaluate TYTAN on eight databases spanning real-world and benchmark domains along the three axes that define a schema's functional utility: (i) coverage, are all important entities and features captured?; (ii) retrieval correctness, do the schema's instructions actually reach the data; and (iii) characterization accuracy, are semantic types correct? Across the seven reference domains, TYTAN reaches every entity, attribute, and aggregable feature of the expert-corrected reference schemas (100% coverage). Additionally, 100% of its retrieval instructions execute correctly (1,678 of 1,678 self-generated claims), and semantic roles agree with the reference on 92-100% of matched attributes. Checking the underlying data showed the small disagreement is in the reference, not in TYTAN. On a held-out blind test (a live, ten-table database with no declared keys), TYTAN recovers the full entity structure with verified keys and satisfies 100% of the satisfiable expectations of five independent blind annotators.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 9 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Aug 2026.

Builds on

9 of 42 references.

References · 9

  1. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
  2. 2018Spider: A Large-Scale Human-Labeled Dataset for Complex and Cross-Domain Semantic Parsing and Text-to-SQL Taskcited by 1,120
  3. 2023Can LLM Already Serve as A Database Interface? A BIg Bench for Large-Scale Database Grounded Text-to-SQLscited by 667
  4. 2024LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generationscited by 651
  5. 2022Can Foundation Models Wrangle Your Data?cited by 173
  6. 2019Sherlock: A Deep Learning Approach to Semantic Data Type Detectioncited by 73
  7. 2023CHORUS: Foundation Models for Unified Data Discovery and Explorationcited by 24
  8. 2023Lightweight Knowledge Representations for Automating Data Analysiscited by 2
  9. 2024Satyrn: A Platform for Analytics Augmented Generationcited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.