UNITE: A Unified Benchmark for Text-to-SQL Evaluation
Reviewed by Pithpith:HCHOFL7Iopen to challenge →
read the original abstract
A practical text-to-SQL system should generalize well on a wide variety of natural language questions, unseen database schemas, and novel SQL query structures. To comprehensively evaluate text-to-SQL systems, we introduce a UNIfied benchmark for Text-to-SQL Evaluation (UNITE). It is composed of publicly available text-to-SQL datasets, containing natural language questions from more than 12 domains, SQL queries from more than 3.9K patterns, and 29K databases. Compared to the widely used Spider benchmark, we introduce $\sim$120K additional examples and a threefold increase in SQL patterns, such as comparative and boolean questions. We conduct a systematic study of six state-of-the-art (SOTA) text-to-SQL parsers on our new benchmark and show that: 1) Codex performs surprisingly well on out-of-domain datasets; 2) specially designed decoding methods (e.g. constrained beam search) can improve performance for both in-domain and out-of-domain settings; 3) explicitly modeling the relationship between questions and schemas further improves the Seq2Seq models. More importantly, our benchmark presents key challenges towards compositional generalization and robustness issues -- which these SOTA models cannot address well. Our code and data processing script are available at https://github.com/awslabs/unified-text2sql-benchmark
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
BEAVER: An Enterprise Benchmark for Text-to-SQL
BEAVER is the first text-to-SQL benchmark from private enterprise data warehouses, revealing SOTA agentic frameworks achieve only 10.8% accuracy on complex real-world queries.
-
BADGER: Bridging Agentic and Deterministic Evaluation for Generative Enterprise Reasoning
BADGER is a new enterprise evaluation framework that adds LLM-assisted SQL component extraction and a Hybrid-EX metric validated on 150 human-annotated queries to existing text-to-SQL and agentic assessment methods.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.