TraceSQL: Traceable Answerability Estimation for Reference-Free Text-to-SQL Verification
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Text-to-SQL systems are commonly evaluated using ground-truth SQL queries or reference execution results, but such supervision is unavailable at inference time in real-world deployments. This creates a critical verification problem: given only a user question, database context, and generated SQL, can a system estimate whether the generated query is likely to correctly answer the question? Recent approaches use LLMs as judge or specialized agents to inspect generated SQL, but their decisions can be difficult to trace. Outcome Reward Models (ORMs) address this by learning from execution-labeled candidate SQLs and assigning correctness scores to unseen queries, yet they still provide limited visibility into the signals behind each verification. To address this limitation, we propose TraceSQL, a lightweight and traceable verification model built on explicit diagnostic features. TraceSQL combines 67 features capturing question ambiguity, question requirements, question-schema-SQL consistency, SQL structure, and intent alignment. These signals remain available for examining which factors influence each prediction and for tracing decisions back to diagnostic evidence. On BIRD development databases, TraceSQL achieves 66.47% F1 and 64.48% ROC-AUC, compared with 61.87% F1 and 58.26% ROC-AUC for the GradeSQL-7B ORM baseline on the same generated-SQL evaluation. Feature attribution further shows that the model relies on both semantic grounding and deterministic SQL-structure signals. These results show that SQL verification can be performed with a lightweight learned model while retaining feature-level evidence for inspecting and diagnosing its predictions.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 16 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Aug 2026.
Builds on
11 of 16 references.
References · 11
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
- 2018Spider: A Large-Scale Human-Labeled Dataset for Complex and Cross-Domain Semantic Parsing and Text-to-SQL Taskcited by 1,120
- 2023Can LLM Already Serve as A Database Interface? A BIg Bench for Large-Scale Database Grounded Text-to-SQLscited by 667
- 2023DIN-SQL: Decomposed In-Context Learning of Text-to-SQL with Self-Correctioncited by 465
- 2023Text-to-SQL Empowered by Large Language Models: A Benchmark Evaluationcited by 378
- 2023MAC-SQL: A Multi-Agent Collaborative Framework for Text-to-SQLcited by 158
- 2019FLAML: A Fast and Lightweight AutoML Librarycited by 104
- 2024MAGIC: Generating Self-Correction Guideline for In-Context Text-to-SQLcited by 34
- 2026PV-SQL: Synergizing Database Probing and Rule-based Verification for Text-to-SQL Agentscited by 5
- 2026DPC: Training-Free Text-to-SQL Candidate Selection via Dual-Paradigm Consistencycited by 4
- 2026Test-Time Verification for Text-to-SQL via Outcome Reward Modelscited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Trace Integrity for LLM Data Agents: A Vision for Auditable Structured Reasoning in Real-World Systems
- 2025GradeSQL: Test-Time Inference with Outcome Reward Models for Text-to-SQL Generation from Large Language Models
- 2025Arctic-Text2SQL-R1: Simple Rewards, Strong Reasoning in Text-to-SQL
- 2025JudgeSQL: Reasoning over SQL Candidates with Weighted Consensus Tournament
- 2025STaR-SQL: Self-Taught Reasoner for Text-to-SQL
- 2026DecoSearch: Complexity-Aware Routing and Plan-Level Repair for Text-to-SQL
- 2025Text2SQL-Flow: A Robust SQL-Aware Data Augmentation Framework for Text-to-SQL
- 2026What Predicts Correctness in Text-to-SQL? A Selective-Prediction Study