Replacing Training with Memory: Listwise Selection for Text-to-SQL
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Modern Text-to-SQL systems often follow generate-execute-select pipelines, generating multiple candidate queries then selecting the best one. Listwise selection, by jointly comparing multiple candidates, has been widely adopted, but fine-tuning listwise selectors is costly. We thus propose a fine-tuning-free listwise selector. We replace two major fine-tuning objectives with inference-time strategies: (1) learning selection criteria as ordering and (2) mitigating positional bias. First, we build reusable structured memories instead of learning selection behavior as model parameters. Given a question, MaP-SQL retrieves memories distilled from training data that encode how natural language maps to schema elements, SQL operations, and expected outputs. These memories serve as explicit decision criteria for evaluating candidates in a listwise manner. Second, to mitigate ordering bias of listwise selectors, we aggregate rankings across multiple input permutations, with inference cost optimized by execution results and pointwise scoring. Our approach improves selection accuracy while maintaining efficiency and compatibility with existing large language models. Across Text-to-SQL benchmarks, it produces more stable selection without fine-tuning and fewer unnecessary comparisons than existing methods. On BIRD-dev, it outperforms the previous state-of-the-art selector-based method R^3-SQL by 2.02 execution accuracy points on average using the same candidate sets, with 2.92x fewer tokens.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Sep 2026.
Builds on
19 of 29 references.
References · 19
- 2023Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contextscited by 3,455
- 2023MemGPT: Towards LLMs as Operating Systemscited by 1,389
- 2018Spider: A Large-Scale Human-Labeled Dataset for Complex and Cross-Domain Semantic Parsing and Text-to-SQL Taskcited by 1,139
- 2024M3-Embedding: Multi-Linguality, Multi-Functionality, Multi-Granularity Text Embeddings Through Self-Knowledge Distillationcited by 1,073
- 2023Can LLM Already Serve as A Database Interface? A BIg Bench for Large-Scale Database Grounded Text-to-SQLscited by 688
- 2024CHESS: Contextual Harnessing for Efficient SQL Synthesiscited by 169
- 2024CHASE-SQL: Multi-Path Reasoning and Preference Optimized Candidate Selection in Text-to-SQLcited by 138
- 2024MCS-SQL: Leveraging Multiple Prompts and Multiple-Choice Selection For Text-to-SQL Generationcited by 105
- 2023Dr.Spider: A Diagnostic Evaluation Benchmark towards Text-to-SQL Robustnesscited by 53
- 2022Recent Advances in Text-to-SQL: A Survey of What We Have and What We Expectcited by 47
- 2024TourRank: Utilizing Large Language Models for Documents Ranking with a Tournament-Inspired Strategycited by 47
- 2025XiYan-SQL: A Novel Multi-Generator Framework For Text-to-SQLcited by 40
7 more
- 2025Arctic-Text2SQL-R1: Simple Rewards, Strong Reasoning in Text-to-SQLcited by 38
- 2025Agentar-Scale-SQL: Advancing Text-to-SQL through Orchestrated Test-Time Scalingcited by 24
- 2024LLM-RankFusion: Mitigating Intrinsic Inconsistency in LLM-based Rankingcited by 16
- 2025Cheaper, Better, Faster, Stronger: Robust Text-to-SQL without Chain-of-Thought or Fine-Tuningcited by 13
- 2025Precise Zero-Shot Pointwise Ranking with LLMs through Post-Aggregated Global Context Informationcited by 6
- 2025JudgeSQL: Reasoning over SQL Candidates with Weighted Consensus Tournamentcited by 1
- 2026R3-SQL: Ranking Reward and Resampling for Text-to-SQLcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.