mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Metadata Reconstruction from Values Alone: Recovering Column Semantics in Undocumented Warehouses

arXiv 2608.07946 ↗First posted 8 Aug 2026cs.DB cs.AIcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Text-to-SQL benchmarks ship schemas whose column names already say what the columns mean. Production warehouses are the inverse: cryptic identifiers, partial or absent documentation. We address the problem they pose first: recovering what columns and values mean from the data itself. Rosetta places a language model inside a verification harness: a deterministic profiler extracts structural evidence (value fingerprints, a 26-pattern library, checksum verdicts), the model proposes semantics conditioned on that evidence, and every fact carries provenance and a confidence bounded by its evidence class. Against human documentation on 680 paired columns across eleven BIRD databases, identifiers destroyed, the harness delivers metadata that is 0.475 accurate on the 42% of columns it commits to, against 0.223 on 94% for the same model used directly. Restricted to the 283 columns where both arms speak, the harness writes no better prose than the model alone; the gain is selection: deterministic evidence governs whether the system speaks (coverage +0.257 [0.128, 0.378]), not how well. The deterministic layer is a competence detector, not a competence amplifier. A backbone swap bounds the claim: the prose finding reproduces, but prompt-requested abstention does not transfer; a code-enforced commit gate (predictions registered first; measured on a third backbone and held-out databases) makes no-evidence coverage 0.000 on every backbone. On a blind i2b2 clinical warehouse Rosetta decodes 95.5% of 134 real ICD-9 codes from values alone and abstains on all 44 NDC drug codes. The catalog supports calibrated abstention at query time: under full schema opacity a naive translator falls from 0.92 to 0.42 execution accuracy while our gate answers at 86% accuracy over 59% coverage. Negative results are reported plainly, including that our own authority ladder is not the mechanism behind the headline.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Aug 2026.

Builds on

12 of 32 references.

References · 12

  1. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,960
  2. 2022Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Knowcited by 1,856
  3. 2018Spider: A Large-Scale Human-Labeled Dataset for Complex and Cross-Domain Semantic Parsing and Text-to-SQL Taskcited by 1,139
  4. 2017Selective Classification for Deep Neural Networkscited by 852
  5. 2017Seq2SQL: Generating Structured Queries from Natural Language using Reinforcement Learningcited by 687
  6. 2023DIN-SQL: Decomposed In-Context Learning of Text-to-SQL with Self-Correctioncited by 477
  7. 2019RAT-SQL: Relation-Aware Schema Encoding and Linking for Text-to-SQL Parserscited by 424
  8. 2019SelectiveNet: A Deep Neural Network with an Integrated Reject Optioncited by 350
  9. 2017SQLNet: Generating Structured Queries From Natural Language Without Reinforcement Learningcited by 135
  10. 2019Sherlock: A Deep Learning Approach to Semantic Data Type Detectioncited by 74
  11. 2025Reliable Text-to-SQL with Adaptive Abstentioncited by 20
  12. 2025Calibrating LLMs for Text-to-SQL Parsing by Leveraging Sub-clause Frequenciescited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.