Pi-SQL: Enhancing Text-to-SQL with Fine-Grained Guidance from Pivot Programming Languages

Guanhua Chen; Hanqing Wang; Jian Yang; Xiao Yan; Yongdong chi; Yun Chen; Zonghan Yang

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 49 references

Pi-SQL: Enhancing Text-to-SQL with Fine-Grained Guidance from Pivot Programming Languages

T0 review · 5 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Pi-SQL uses Python programs as pivot guidance to improve zero-shot text-to-SQL accuracy and efficiency.

desk verdict Solid prompt-only text-to-SQL method with a new Python-pivot combination; the headline gains are plausible but the evaluation needs cleanup and the cross-verification oracle deserves a direct test. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00912 v2 pith:NPKFGQLS submitted 2025-06-01 cs.CL cs.AI

Yongdong chi , Hanqing Wang , Zonghan Yang , Jian Yang , Xiao Yan , Yun Chen , Guanhua Chen This is my paper

classification cs.CLcs.AI

keywords text-to-SQLpivotprogramminglanguageprogramofthoughtsexecutionaccuracyvalidefficiencycross-verificationzero-shotpromptinglargemodels

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Pi-SQL is a zero-shot, prompt-only method for text-to-SQL that inserts a Python program between the natural-language query and the SQL query. The paper argues that Python, as a high-resource programming language with abundant pretraining data and step-by-step executable code blocks, provides finer-grained guidance than text-based chain-of-thought, and that using Python's execution results as a reference for selecting SQL candidates improves both accuracy and efficiency. On the BIRD dev set the method reports execution accuracy of 64.54, 3.20 points above the best baseline, and a reward-based valid efficiency score of 63.71, 4.55 points above the best baseline; it also reports gains on the Archer benchmark and across difficulty levels. The claim matters because it points to a way to improve SQL generation without few-shot examples, hand-crafted rules, or supervised fine-tuning.

What carries the argument

The central object is the pivot Python program generated under one of three SQL-aligned reasoning strategies: merge-first (join relevant tables before filtering), filter-first (prune data before analysis), and direct (freestyle). The paper also introduces Python-to-SQL adaptation rules that prompt the model to use APIs and functions resembling valid SQL operations, reducing the procedural-to-declarative gap. Algorithm 1 then uses cross-verification: it executes every Python program, takes the most frequent execution result as the reference, executes every SQL candidate, keeps only SQL whose result matches the reference, and returns the valid SQL with the shortest execution time. This machinery does double duty—Python programs supply fine-grained step-by-step guidance during generation, and their executed outputs supply a selection signal during verification.

What would settle it

Take any text-to-SQL benchmark, compute the majority Python result's own execution accuracy against gold answers, and compare it with the accuracy of the SQL candidates selected by SQL-only self-consistency; if the Python-voted reference is no more accurate than the SQL candidates, Pi-SQL's cross-verification gain should disappear or reverse. The paper's Table 6 already shows Python per-program accuracy is 65.44 for GPT-4o-mini versus 64.54 for the final SQL, so the margin is thin and would be a good place to probe.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, Pi-SQL establishes that a pivot programming language can carry the reasoning load between natural language and SQL. The pipeline first generates several Python programs using three prompting strategies—merge-first, filter-first, and direct—plus adaptation instructions that push Python code toward SQL-like operations. Each Python program is executed on csv versions of the retrieved schema, and the majority result of those executions becomes a reference answer. SQL candidates are then generated, each guided by one Python program; candidates whose execution results match the reference are kept, and the fastest valid candidate is returned. The reported outcomes are EX 64.54 and R-VES 63.71 on BIRD dev, exceeding ten baselines including few-shot methods, and EX 25.00 and R-VES 30.10 on Archer.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the majority of the generated Python programs produce the correct query result more often than the competing SQL candidates, so that cross-verification selects SQL that is right; if Python's vote is wrong, the method faithfully picks an SQL that is also wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A zero-shot text-to-SQL system can surpass few-shot baselines without curated demonstrations, as Pi-SQL's gains come entirely from prompting and execution-based selection.
Because the final candidate is chosen for correctness against the Python reference and then for speed among valid candidates, the method improves valid efficiency as well as execution accuracy, not just accuracy alone.
The method transfers across model families and scales: GPT-4o-mini, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct, QwQ-32B, and Gemma-3-27B all show consistent gains over their vanilla versions.
The same pipeline can be extended by a refinement step: when no SQL matches the Python-voted result, regenerating the SQL adds 0.58 EX and 3.14 R-VES on BIRD dev.
With a 32B open-source model, Pi-SQL reaches 67.40 EX on BIRD dev, a level comparable to leaderboard methods that use larger proprietary models or fine-tuning.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The paper's selection mechanism assumes the majority Python result is a trustworthy reference; its own Table 6 shows Python programs are wrong on roughly a third of queries, so the real test is whether Python errors and SQL errors are independent enough that the majority vote still beats SQL self-consistency—an assumption the paper motivates but does not prove.
A natural extension is a router that sends easy queries straight to SQL generation and only spends extra tokens on Python pivot guidance for hard ones, directly addressing the higher inference cost the paper acknowledges as a limitation.
The pivot-language idea should transfer to other low-resource declarative targets such as SPARQL, GraphQL, or shell pipelines, where a high-resource procedural language could supply the same step-by-step guidance and executable verification signal.
The ablation result that a single strategy already improves over vanilla suggests the guidance signal matters more than strategy diversity; a controlled study varying only the strategy prompt, while holding Python quality constant, would isolate why diversity helps.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a real contribution, not a paradigm shift. What's new is the package: three Python generation strategies (merge/filter/direct) with SQL-adaptation rules, then filtering SQL candidates by matching the Python execution majority and picking the fastest valid SQL. Prior PoT work (R3, Xu et al.) generated Python before SQL but didn't manage the Python-SQL structural gap or use execution-result cross-verification for selection. The ablations are the paper's strength: each component gives a consistent gain, and the cross-verification vs self-consistency comparison is done under a matched token budget. That directly addresses the worry that gains come only from more test-time compute.

The cross-verification circularity concern is real but not disqualifying. The ablation shows CV beats SC by about 0.9 EX and 2.2 R-VES on the same budget, so the Python majority is doing something useful. What's missing is a joint distribution: how often is the Python majority correct when SQL candidates disagree? That would tell you whether the oracle is genuinely better or just a different noise source. Worth asking for in revision, but the mechanism is not circular in a damaging sense — the paper doesn't assume Python equals gold; it selects SQL that matches Python and then measures against gold, so the result is falsifiable.

The evaluation has real documentation gaps. Table 1 has formatting errors (concatenated numbers in the B-Challenging columns). The CHASE-SQL number is from a different backbone, which is fine but should be stated in the caption. The SOTA comparison in Table 3 mixes leaderboard numbers from different settings; acceptable as a secondary result but not for a headline claim. No code or prompts are released, which for a prompt-only method is a genuine reproducibility problem. The citation of R3 in Appendix A.2 as (Qu et al., 2024) is wrong — it's Xia et al. 2024. These are fixable but need fixing.

Bottom line: this is a useful, honest paper with a clear method and mostly convincing ablations. It doesn't resolve a long-open question, but it's a solid step for prompt-only text-to-SQL. I'd send it to review, and let referees push for the joint-oracle analysis and code release. It's also a good reading-group case study in how to ablate a multi-component prompting method.

Referee Report

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Pi-SQL, a zero-shot prompt-based method for text-to-SQL that generates Python programs as intermediate pivot guidance and then generates SQL programs following that guidance. Three Python generation strategies (merge-first, filter-first, direct) are combined, and the final SQL is selected by cross-verification: SQL candidates whose execution output matches the majority execution output of the Python programs are retained, and the fastest such candidate is returned. Experiments on the BIRD and Archer benchmarks report improvements over ten baselines, with up to +3.20 execution accuracy (EX) and +4.55 reward-based valid efficiency score (R-VES) over the best baseline on the BIRD dev set. The paper also reports ablations over the generation strategies, the selection method, and the Python-to-SQL adaptation, and compares against fine-tuned and leaderboard state-of-the-art methods.

Significance. The idea of using a high-resource programming language as a pivot to guide low-resource SQL generation is interesting and practically appealing, and the paper provides a fairly extensive set of experiments across multiple backbones, difficulty levels, and two benchmarks. The ablation study covers the main design choices, and the paper is transparent about the additional inference cost. However, the central cross-verification mechanism is not rigorously validated: the selection criterion is partly definitional, the experimental protocol contains a temperature inconsistency, and key comparisons lack statistical grounding. If the reported gains are reproducible, the method would be a useful addition to the text-to-SQL toolbox; at present, the evidence is not yet sufficient to support the strongest claims.

major comments (5)

[§3.3, Algorithm 1; Table 2; Table 6] The central mechanism of Algorithm 1 is selection by cross-verification: an SQL candidate is retained only if its execution result equals the Python majority result (MajorityResult). This makes the claim in §3.2 that such selection 'serves as a double-check mechanism' partly definitional: the final SQL is chosen precisely because it matches the Python vote. The paper never reports the joint distribution between Python-voted correctness and SQL candidate correctness, so it does not quantify how often the Python vote is correct when SQL candidates disagree. Table 6 shows that the Python programs are themselves wrong for roughly one third of queries (e.g., GPT-4o-mini Python EX = 65.44), so the oracle is noisy. Without conditional statistics, the ablation in Table 2 comparing Ours(Mixed+CV) with Ours(Mixed+SC) does not establish that cross-verification is superior to SQL self-consistency; it only shows that under one token-matched configuration, a Python-vote oracle outperformed an SQL-vote oracle on this dev set. The paper should report the joint distribution and a breakdown by cases where the Python vote and SQL candidates agree or disagree.
[§4.1 and §4.3] The experimental protocol is internally inconsistent. §4.1 states that 'we use the same LLM backbone with a temperature of 0 and a maximum token limit of 4096 for PI-SQL and all baselines.' However, the method relies on generating N=11 diverse Python programs per query to form a majority vote (§4.3). With temperature 0, sampled outputs are deterministic and no diversity is obtained within a fixed prompt/strategy; the only diversity would come from the three strategies, which would give at most three Python programs, not eleven. If a nonzero sampling temperature is actually used for PI-SQL, then the stated 'temperature 0' comparison is incorrect, and the baselines should also be run under the same sampling conditions. The manuscript must specify the temperature and the number of samples per strategy for the main results and for each ablation row.
[Table 1 and Table 2] All headline numbers are from a single evaluation run on each dev set. For BIRD, the reported advantage over the best baseline is +3.20 EX and +4.55 R-VES; the cross-verification-vs-self-consistency ablation difference is only +0.92 EX and +2.18 R-VES. With a dev set of roughly 1,500 queries, differences of this size can easily lie within run-to-run variability of stochastic LLM generation. The paper reports no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or repeated runs with different seeds. Please provide variability estimates (e.g., multiple runs or bootstrap sampling) for the main comparisons, or explicitly argue why the reported margins are stable.
[§5.1, Table 3; Table 12] The comparison in Table 3 is not a controlled experiment: numbers for Distillery, OpenSearch-SQL, XiYan-SQL, and others are taken from the BIRD leaderboard and use different backbones, prompting methods, and evaluation pipelines. The claim that PI-SQL with Qwen2.5-Coder-32B 'can achieve performance comparable to or even surpassing SOTA methods' is therefore not supported by this table. The same issue appears in Table 12, where fine-tuned baselines are compared using VES from published results while PI-SQL reports R-VES; these are different metrics (R-VES modifies VES to mitigate outliers) and should not be compared without discussion. Please provide head-to-head runs under identical conditions, or soften the claim to a specific, well-defined comparison.
[§A.2 and §4.3] The Vanilla baseline is described as 'the same as PI-SQL, except for the absence of Python guidance' (§A.2). Since PI-SQL selects the final SQL using the Python majority result (Algorithm 1), removing Python guidance must also remove the selection criterion, but the paper does not state what Vanilla does instead (e.g., a single greedy decode, SQL self-consistency, or a different reranker). This ambiguity matters because the ablation in Table 2 reports a 4.83 EX gain over Vanilla and attributes it to the Python guidance; if Vanilla is a single deterministic SQL while PI-SQL benefits from 11-way sampling, part of the gain may be test-time computation rather than guidance. Please specify precisely the selection procedure and number of samples used for the Vanilla baseline in Table 1 and Table 2.

minor comments (7)

[Table 1] Several entries in Table 1 are typeset without separating columns (e.g., '48.9744.81', '25.9628.70', '52.8052.11'), making the values unreadable; please fix the formatting.
[§4.3] The temperature for the vanilla+self-consistency baseline is said to be 'determined on a validation set', but the validation set and the tuning procedure are not described; please provide details.
[Title and throughout] The paper alternates between 'Pi-SQL' in the title and 'PI-SQL' in the body; please use one consistent spelling.
[References] The reference list contains duplicate entries for Li et al. (2024c) and (2024d), which refer to the same NeurIPS paper; also, R3 is cited as 'Qu et al., 2024' in Appendix A.2, but the reference list attributes it to Xia et al. (2024).
[Tables 5 and 10] Table 10 uses 'VanS' for the vanilla baseline while Table 5 uses 'Vanilla'; please unify the terminology across tables and captions.
[Table 3 caption] The column headings 'Finetuned' and 'With Refinement' are ambiguous because the checkmarks are concatenated with the EX numbers in the text; please reformat the table.
[§1 and §3.2] The claim 'without requiring few-shot examples or supervised fine-tuning with labeled data' should be clarified: the method uses a schema-linking module taken from RSL-SQL, and the paper should state whether that module involves any few-shot examples or trained parameters.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Pi-SQL's gains are empirical and judged against gold SQL; the Python-majority selection is an algorithmic constraint, not a fitted input disguised as a prediction.

full rationale

Pi-SQL's derivation chain is not circular. The method fixes a Python majority result and retains SQL candidates whose execution output equals it (Algorithm 1; Section 3.3), but the headline EX and R-VES numbers are measured against gold SQL on BIRD and Archer, not against the Python reference. The Python-majority oracle is a design assumption; its reliability is an empirical premise that the paper partially tests in Table 6 and in the CV-vs-SC ablation (Table 2), not a result derived from itself. There are no fitted parameters renamed as predictions, no self-citation chain, and no imported uniqueness theorem. The analogies to multilingual pretraining and triangular MT in Section 3.1 are motivating analogies, not derivation steps. The strongest available critique is that the Python oracle's joint accuracy with gold is not reported, so the selection mechanism's contribution is not fully isolated; that is a missing-evidence concern, not a circularity. The Section 3.2 statement that selecting SQL based on Python results is a 'double-check mechanism' is a rhetorical overclaim because the only check performed is consistency with Python, but the paper's central results stand on external gold-based evaluation rather than on that statement.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Pi-SQL introduces no new entity, force, or parameterized model. All free choices are experimental hyperparameters. The main unstated assumption is that Python execution results are a trustworthy oracle for SQL correctness.

free parameters (3)

Number of Python programs per query (11) = 11
The paper says the self-consistency baseline uses N = 11 to match Pi-SQL's token cost, implying Pi-SQL also generates 11 programs. This is a capacity/cost choice not independently justified.
Sampling temperature for generation = not reported for Pi-SQL, 0.5 for vanilla+SC
The main results use temperature 0 (stated in implementation details), but the ablation's self-consistency baseline uses 0.5 tuned on a validation set. The effect of temperature on Pi-SQL is not reported.
Majority threshold for Python result voting = simple majority, not reported
The selection rule 'FindMostFrequent' is a modeling choice. The paper does not report how many queries have no majority or how ties are broken.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption LLMs are more proficient at Python than at SQL, and Python guidance transfers to SQL generation.
This is the motivating assumption in Section 3.1. The ablation results support it empirically for the tested backbones, but it is not proven and may not hold for future models.
domain assumption The Python-voted execution result is a reliable reference for selecting correct SQL.
The whole cross-verification mechanism in Algorithm 1 assumes that most Python programs converge on the correct answer. The paper's own Table 6 shows Python selection rates around 31 to 35 percent per strategy, which suggests substantial diversity or instability in Python outputs.
domain assumption Execution tokens and cost scale linearly with token counts.
Inference cost tables in Appendix B.1 assume input/output tokens are priced linearly at GPT-4o-mini rates, which is true for the API but not necessarily for other deployment stacks.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pi-SQL: Enhancing Text-to-SQL with Fine-Grained Guidance from Pivot Programming Languages." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NPKFGQLS

@misc{pith2026250600912,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pi-SQL: Enhancing Text-to-SQL with Fine-Grained Guidance from Pivot Programming Languages},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NPKFGQLS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00912}
}

read the original abstract

Text-to-SQL transforms the user queries from natural language to executable SQL programs, enabling non-experts to interact with complex databases. Existing prompt-based methods craft meticulous text guidelines and examples to facilitate SQL generation, but their accuracy is hindered by the large semantic gap between the texts and the low-resource SQL programs. In this work, we propose Pi-SQL, which incorporates the high-resource Python program as a pivot to bridge between the natural language query and SQL program. In particular, Pi-SQL first generates Python programs that provide fine-grained step-by-step guidelines in their code blocks or comments, and then produces an SQL program following the guidance of each Python program. The final SQL program matches the reference Python program's query results and, through selection from candidates generated by different strategies, achieves superior execution speed, with a reward-based valid efficiency score up to 4.55 higher than the best-performing baseline. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of Pi-SQL, which improves the execution accuracy of the best-performing baseline by up to 3.20.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00912 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Overview of our PI-SQL method. (a) The workflow of PI-SQL. It incorporates high-resource programming languages like Python to provide step-by-step fine-grained guidance and verification to enhance LLM-based text-to-SQL. (b) The difference between PI-SQL and existing text-based CoT approaches. neural machine translation model (Zhang et al., 2022). The PI-SQL framework is motivated by the advancements achieved throug… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** A merge code generation case. The merge code merges all tables first, filters districts in "South Bohemia," [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: A filter code generation case. The filter code filters districts and isolates the target district, and then filters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: A direct code generation case. The direct code filters districts in "south Bohemia," identifies the most [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Case study of a specific query and its corre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[1]

Ion Androutsopoulos, Graeme D Ritchie, and Peter Thanisch. 1995. Natural language interfaces to databases--an introduction. Natural language engineering, 1(1):29--81

work page 1995
[2]

Hasan Alp Caferoğlu and Özgür Ulusoy. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.16751 E-sql: Direct schema linking via question enrichment in text-to-sql . Preprint, arXiv:2409.16751

arXiv 2024
[3]

Ruichu Cai, Boyan Xu, Zhenjie Zhang, Xiaoyan Yang, Zijian Li, and Zhihao Liang. 2018. An encoder-decoder framework translating natural language to database queries. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2018, July 13-19, 2018, Stockholm, Sweden

work page 2018
[4]

Ruisheng Cao, Lu Chen, Zhi Chen, Yanbin Zhao, Su Zhu, and Kai Yu. 2021. Lgesql: line graph enhanced text-to-sql model with mixed local and non-local relations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.01093

arXiv 2021
[5]

Zhenbiao Cao, Yuanlei Zheng, Zhihao Fan, Xiaojin Zhang, Wei Chen, and Xiang Bai. 2024. Rsl-sql: Robust schema linking in text-to-sql generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.00073

arXiv 2024
[6]

Xinyun Chen, Maxwell Lin, Nathanael Sch \"a rli, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Teaching large language models to self-debug. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05128

arXiv 2023
[7]

Xuemei Dong, Chao Zhang, Yuhang Ge, Yuren Mao, Yunjun Gao, Jinshu Lin, Dongfang Lou, et al. 2023. C3: Zero-shot text-to-sql with chatgpt. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.07306

arXiv 2023
[8]

Dawei Gao, Haibin Wang, Yaliang Li, Xiuyu Sun, Yichen Qian, Bolin Ding, and Jingren Zhou. 2024 a . Text-to-sql empowered by large language models: A benchmark evaluation. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 17(5):1132--1145

work page 2024

Show all 49 references

[9]

Yingqi Gao, Yifu Liu, Xiaoxia Li, Xiaorong Shi, Yin Zhu, Yiming Wang, Shiqi Li, Wei Li, Yuntao Hong, Zhiling Luo, Jinyang Gao, Liyu Mou, and Yu Li. 2024 b . https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.08599 Xiyan-sql: A multi-generator ensemble framework for text-to-sql . Preprint, arXiv:2411.08599

2024 arXiv
[10]

Zijin Hong, Zheng Yuan, Qinggang Zhang, Hao Chen, Junnan Dong, Feiran Huang, and Xiao Huang. 2024. Next-generation database interfaces: A survey of llm-based text-to-sql. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08426

2024
[11]

Haoyang Huang, Yaobo Liang, Nan Duan, Ming Gong, Linjun Shou, Daxin Jiang, and M. Zhou. 2019. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:202541545 Unicoder: A universal language encoder by pre-training with multiple cross-lingual tasks . In Conference on Empirical Methods in Nat...

2019
[12]

Binyuan Hui, Jian Yang, Zeyu Cui, Jiaxi Yang, Dayiheng Liu, Lei Zhang, Tianyu Liu, Jiajun Zhang, Bowen Yu, Keming Lu, et al. 2024. Qwen2. 5-coder technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12186

2024 arXiv
[13]

Aaron Hurst, Adam Lerer, Adam P Goucher, Adam Perelman, Aditya Ramesh, Aidan Clark, AJ Ostrow, Akila Welihinda, Alan Hayes, Alec Radford, et al. 2024. Gpt-4o system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276

2024 arXiv
[14]

Yunsu Kim, Petre Petrov, Pavel Petrushkov, Shahram Khadivi, and Hermann Ney. 2019. Pivot-based transfer learning for neural machine translation between non- E nglish languages. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9t...

2019
[15]

G Lample. 2019. Cross-lingual language model pretraining. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.07291

2019 arXiv
[16]

Dongjun Lee, Choongwon Park, Jaehyuk Kim, and Heesoo Park. 2024. Mcs-sql: Leveraging multiple prompts and multiple-choice selection for text-to-sql generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.07467

2024 arXiv
[17]

Boyan Li, Yuyu Luo, Chengliang Chai, Guoliang Li, and Nan Tang. 2024 a . The dawn of natural language to sql: Are we fully ready? arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01265

2024 arXiv
[18]

Fei Li and Hosagrahar V Jagadish. 2014. Constructing an interactive natural language interface for relational databases. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 8(1):73--84

2014
[19]

Haoyang Li, Jing Zhang, Cuiping Li, and Hong Chen. 2023 a . https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.05965 Resdsql: Decoupling schema linking and skeleton parsing for text-to-sql . Preprint, arXiv:2302.05965

2023 arXiv
[20]

Haoyang Li, Jing Zhang, Cuiping Li, and Hong Chen. 2023 b . RESDSQL: decoupling schema linking and skeleton parsing for text-to-sql. In Thirty-Seventh AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2023, Thirty-Fifth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intell...

2023
[21]

Haoyang Li, Jing Zhang, Hanbing Liu, Ju Fan, Xiaokang Zhang, Jun Zhu, Renjie Wei, Hongyan Pan, Cuiping Li, and Hong Chen. 2024 b . CODES: towards building open-source language models for text-to-sql. Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data , 2(3):1--28

2024
[22]

Jinyang Li, Binyuan Hui, Ge Qu, Jiaxi Yang, Binhua Li, Bowen Li, Bailin Wang, Bowen Qin, Ruiying Geng, Nan Huo, et al. 2024 c . Can llm already serve as a database interface? a big bench for large-scale database grounded text-to-sqls. Advances in Neural Information Processing ...

2024
[23]

Jinyang Li, Binyuan Hui, Ge Qu, Jiaxi Yang, Binhua Li, Bowen Li, Bailin Wang, Bowen Qin, Ruiying Geng, Nan Huo, et al. 2024 d . Can llm already serve as a database interface? a big bench for large-scale database grounded text-to-sqls. Advances in Neural Information Processing ...

2024
[24]

Karime Maamari, Fadhil Abubaker, Daniel Jaroslawicz, and Amine Mhedhbi. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=fglyh5pa7d The death of schema linking? text-to- SQL in the age of well-reasoned language models . In NeurIPS 2024 Third Table Representation Learning Workshop

2024
[25]

OpenAI . 2024. https://platform.openai.com/docs/models#gpt-4o-mini Models Documentation: GPT-4o mini . https://platform.openai.com/docs/models#gpt-4o-mini. Accessed: 2025-02-10

2024
[26]

Patomporn Payoungkhamdee, Pume Tuchinda, Jinheon Baek, Samuel Cahyawijaya, Can Udomcharoenchaikit, Potsawee Manakul, Peerat Limkonchotiwat, Ekapol Chuangsuwanich, and Sarana Nutanong. 2025. Towards better understanding of program-of-thought reasoning in cross-lingual and multi...

2025 arXiv
[27]

Mohammadreza Pourreza, Hailong Li, Ruoxi Sun, Yeounoh Chung, Shayan Talaei, Gaurav Tarlok Kakkar, Yu Gan, Amin Saberi, Fatma Ozcan, and Sercan O Arik. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:2410.01943 Chase-SQL: multi-path reasoning and preference optimized candidate selection in t...

2024 arXiv
[28]

Mohammadreza Pourreza and Davood Rafiei. 2024. Din-SQL: decomposed in-context learning of text-to-sql with self-correction. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 36

2024
[29]

Ge Qu, Jinyang Li, Bowen Li, Bowen Qin, Nan Huo, Chenhao Ma, and Reynold Cheng. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.15307 Before generation, align it! a novel and effective strategy for mitigating hallucinations in text-to-sql generation . Preprint, arXiv:2405.15307

2024 arXiv
[30]

Pritish Sahu, Karan Sikka, and Ajay Divakaran. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.470 Pelican: Correcting hallucination in vision- LLM s via claim decomposition and program of thought verification . In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in N...

2024 doi
[31]

Gabriel Sarch, Lawrence Jang, Michael Tarr, William W Cohen, Kenneth Marino, and Katerina Fragkiadaki. 2024. Vlm agents generate their own memories: Distilling experience into embodied programs of thought. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:75942--75985

2024
[32]

Ruoxi Sun, Sercan \"O Arik, Alex Muzio, Lesly Miculicich, Satya Gundabathula, Pengcheng Yin, Hanjun Dai, Hootan Nakhost, Rajarishi Sinha, Zifeng Wang, et al. 2023. Sql-palm: Improved large language model adaptation for text-to-sql (extended). arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.00739

2023 arXiv
[33]

Shayan Talaei, Mohammadreza Pourreza, Yu-Chen Chang, Azalia Mirhoseini, and Amin Saberi. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.16755 Chess: Contextual harnessing for efficient sql synthesis . Preprint, arXiv:2405.16755

2024 arXiv
[34]

Gemma Team. 2025 a . https://goo.gle/Gemma3Report Gemma 3

2025
[35]

Qwen Team. 2025 b . https://qwenlm.github.io/blog/qwq-32b/ Qwq-32b: Embracing the power of reinforcement learning

2025
[36]

Bailin Wang, Richard Shin, Xiaodong Liu, Oleksandr Polozov, and Matthew Richardson. 2020. RAT-SQL: relation-aware schema encoding and linking for text-to-sql parsers. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, ...

2020
[37]

Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou

Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc V Le, Ed H. Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. 2023. https://openreview.net/forum?id=1PL1NIMMrw Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models . In The Eleventh International Conferenc...

2023
[38]

Website. 2023. https://www.iso.org/standard/76583.html Iso/iec 9075-1:2023 information technology — database languages sql

2023
[39]

this is my sql, are you with me?

Hanchen Xia, Feng Jiang, Naihao Deng, Cunxiang Wang, Guojiang Zhao, Rada Mihalcea, and Yue Zhang. 2024. r^3 : "this is my sql, are you with me?" a consensus-based multi-agent system for text-to-sql tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14851

2024 arXiv
[40]

Xiangjin Xie, Guangwei Xu, Lingyan Zhao, and Ruijie Guo. 2025. Opensearch-sql: Enhancing text-to-sql with dynamic few-shot and consistency alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14913

2025 arXiv
[41]

Bo Xu, Shufei Li, Yifei Wu, Shouang Wei, Ming Du, Hongya Wang, and Hui Song. 2024. Chain-of-program prompting with open-source large language models for text-to-sql. In 2024 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), pages 1--8. IEEE

2024
[42]

L Xue. 2020. mt5: A massively multilingual pre-trained text-to-text transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11934

2020 arXiv
[43]

Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Kai Yang, Michihiro Yasunaga, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, James Ma, Irene Li, Qingning Yao, Shanelle Roman, et al. 2018. Spider: A large-scale human-labeled dataset for complex and cross-domain semantic parsing and text-to-sql task. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.08887

2018 arXiv
[44]

Liang Zhang, Anwen Hu, Haiyang Xu, Ming Yan, Yichen Xu, Qin Jin, Ji Zhang, and Fei Huang. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.112 T iny C hart: Efficient chart understanding with program-of-thoughts learning and visual token merging . In Proceedings of the 2024 C...

2024 doi
[45]

Meng Zhang, Liangyou Li, and Qun Liu. 2022. Triangular transfer: Freezing the pivot for triangular machine translation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 644--650, Dublin, Ireland

2022
[46]

Danna Zheng, Mirella Lapata, and Jeff Pan. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.eacl-long.6/ Archer: A human-labeled text-to- SQL dataset with arithmetic, commonsense and hypothetical reasoning . In Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association f...

2024
[47]

Ruiqi Zhong, Charlie Snell, Dan Klein, and Jason Eisner. 2023. Non-programmers can label programs indirectly via active examples: A case study with text-to- SQL . In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 5126--5152, Singapore

2023
[48]

online" 'onlinestring :=

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...
[49]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Ion Androutsopoulos, Graeme D Ritchie, and Peter Thanisch. 1995. Natural language interfaces to databases--an introduction. Natural language engineering, 1(1):29--81

work page 1995

[2] [2]

Hasan Alp Caferoğlu and Özgür Ulusoy. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.16751 E-sql: Direct schema linking via question enrichment in text-to-sql . Preprint, arXiv:2409.16751

arXiv 2024

[3] [3]

Ruichu Cai, Boyan Xu, Zhenjie Zhang, Xiaoyan Yang, Zijian Li, and Zhihao Liang. 2018. An encoder-decoder framework translating natural language to database queries. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2018, July 13-19, 2018, Stockholm, Sweden

work page 2018

[4] [4]

Ruisheng Cao, Lu Chen, Zhi Chen, Yanbin Zhao, Su Zhu, and Kai Yu. 2021. Lgesql: line graph enhanced text-to-sql model with mixed local and non-local relations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.01093

arXiv 2021

[5] [5]

Zhenbiao Cao, Yuanlei Zheng, Zhihao Fan, Xiaojin Zhang, Wei Chen, and Xiang Bai. 2024. Rsl-sql: Robust schema linking in text-to-sql generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.00073

arXiv 2024

[6] [6]

Xinyun Chen, Maxwell Lin, Nathanael Sch \"a rli, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Teaching large language models to self-debug. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05128

arXiv 2023

[7] [7]

Xuemei Dong, Chao Zhang, Yuhang Ge, Yuren Mao, Yunjun Gao, Jinshu Lin, Dongfang Lou, et al. 2023. C3: Zero-shot text-to-sql with chatgpt. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.07306

arXiv 2023

[8] [8]

Dawei Gao, Haibin Wang, Yaliang Li, Xiuyu Sun, Yichen Qian, Bolin Ding, and Jingren Zhou. 2024 a . Text-to-sql empowered by large language models: A benchmark evaluation. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 17(5):1132--1145

work page 2024