Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 27 references

LLM-Driven Data Generation and a Novel Soft Metric for Evaluating Text-to-SQL in Aviation MRO

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 A soft F1 metric for text-to-SQL rewards queries that retrieve partial, useful information instead of demanding exact result matches.

desk verdict Soft Execution F1 is a clean, useful metric idea, but the empirical claims rest on an unvalidated benchmark and a likely copy-paste error. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.13785 v1 pith:7INRE4UU submitted 2025-06-11 cs.DB cs.IR

Patrick Sutanto , Jonathan Kenrick , Max Lorenz , Joan Santoso This is my paper
classification cs.DBcs.IR
keywords text-to-SQLevaluationsoftexecutionF1LLM-drivendatagenerationaviationMROdomain-specificbenchmarkaccuracyquestion-SQLpairspartialcreditmetric
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

The paper argues that strict execution accuracy, which marks a text-to-SQL prediction right only if its result set exactly matches the ground truth, is too coarse for practical LLM evaluation. It introduces Soft Execution F1, a metric that computes precision and recall between the columns of predicted and ground-truth execution results and awards partial credit for information that overlaps. The paper also claims that an LLM-driven pipeline can synthesize a domain-specific question-SQL-answer benchmark from a database schema when no human-labeled dataset is available. On an authentic aviation maintenance, repair, and operation (MRO) database with 1,079 generated question-SQL pairs, the paper shows the soft score gives a more informative view of model performance than strict accuracy. A reader would care because specialized domains such as aviation MRO lack public text-to-SQL benchmarks, and coarse metrics hide whether an LLM actually answered the user's question.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Soft Execution F1 score, a column-aware variant of precision/recall defined on execution result matrices. For ground-truth result $G$ and predicted result $P$, the metric computes pairwise F1 scores between every column of $G$ and every column of $P$ using value membership, keeps the best match per column, and aggregates these into an overall F1. This design lets the metric penalize both sparse and overly verbose predictions while tolerating reordered rows and columns. The other mechanism is a two-stage generation pipeline that asks a large language model to write a valid SQL query first, then invent a natural language question that the query answers; filtering removes non-executable queries, oversized result sets, and pairs the model itself judges as not sufficiently answered. Together, the metric and the pipeline allow a benchmark and a scoring rule to be produced without hand-labeled data.

What would settle it

If a human expert reviewed, say, 200 randomly sampled triplets and found that a substantial fraction were mis-answered or had multiple accepted SQL answers, the reported model scores and the soft metric's advantage would not transfer to a human-validated benchmark; this is a direct test the generation pipeline's filtering does not guarantee to pass.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that text-to-SQL systems should be scored by the informational overlap between what they retrieve and what the ground-truth query retrieves, not by exact result equality. Concretely, the proposed Soft Execution F1 metric aligns each predicted column with the best-matching ground-truth column using value membership, then combines column-level F1 scores into an overall score between 0 and 1. The authors demonstrate the metric on a comparison where Phi-4's query for the MRO shop with the most tickets correctly identified the shop but omitted the ticket count; the soft metric assigned a partial score near 0.666 while execution accuracy gave 0. The same experiments support the claim that the LLM-driven data generation pipeline is effective: it produced a benchmark whose SQL queries span easy, medium, hard, and extra-hard difficulty, with over 70% using GROUP BY and meaningful diversity across natural language phrasings. The paper's stated conclusion is that the soft metric provides more insightful performance analysis than strict accuracy, and that the generation technique is effective for building domain-specific text-to-SQL benchmarks.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the LLM-generated question-SQL-answer triplets are valid ground truth; the paper concedes in Appendix A.3 that some instances may be suboptimal, and because filtering relies on executability, result-size limits, and the generator's own sufficiency judgment, no independent human check anchors the benchmark.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Evaluation of text-to-SQL in specialized domains no longer requires a large human-labeled dataset; a schema plus a generative model can seed a benchmark.
  • Models that retrieve the right entities but miss an auxiliary column will rank above models that return entirely irrelevant rows, so benchmark rankings better reflect answer utility.
  • The separate execution error count keeps attention on a failure mode the soft metric does not capture: SQL that cannot run at all.
  • Because few-shot prompting helped some models and hurt others, deployment choices should be made per model rather than assuming examples always improve performance.
  • The two-step averaging over identical ground-truth SQL queries gives a per-task estimate that is fairer to varied phrasings of the same question.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The column-membership view generalizes beyond text-to-SQL: any set-valued generation task, such as table-based question answering or retrieval, could reuse the same partial-credit structure, though the paper does not test those settings.
  • Because the benchmark is generated by a single model family, model scores may be inflated for systems that share the generator's dialect; a human-validated subset of a few hundred triplets would provide a calibration check the paper does not run.
  • The metric's order-insensitivity could be extended with an order-sensitive variant for queries where row sequence carries meaning, such as 'top 5' rankings, which the authors acknowledge as future work.
  • A testable deployment: use Soft Execution F1 as a reward signal during preference fine-tuning of text-to-SQL models, which would let partial credit guide learning rather than binary correctness.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper addresses two problems in text-to-SQL evaluation for the aviation MRO domain: the binary, overly strict nature of execution accuracy and the scarcity of domain-specific evaluation data. It proposes a Soft Execution F1 metric that compares ground-truth and predicted SQL execution results by matching columns through maximum pairwise F1 and aggregating with a column-level F1, and it proposes an LLM-driven pipeline that generates question-SQL-answer triplets from database schemas using Gemini-2.0-flash. The authors evaluate DeepSeek-V3, Phi-4, Llama-3.3-70B, and Mistral-Small under zero-shot and few-shot prompting on an authentic MRO database, reporting that the soft metric provides finer-grained performance insights and that the data generation approach is effective.

Significance. If its empirical claims are supported, the paper offers two practically useful, parameter-free contributions: a partial-credit evaluation metric that can distinguish "almost correct" SQL from entirely wrong SQL, and a low-cost, schema-driven method for constructing domain-specific text-to-SQL benchmarks. The metric is clearly specified, has no fitted parameters, and is easy to reimplement; the prompt details in Appendix A.1 make the data generation pipeline reproducible. However, the significance is currently bounded by the absence of human validation of the generated ground truth and by several inconsistencies in the reported dataset statistics, which together put the main empirical conclusions on shaky ground.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2.2] The benchmark ground truth is generated and validated entirely by a single LLM, Gemini-2.0-flash, using only executability, a result-size threshold, and the generator's own self-assessment of whether the retrieved context is sufficient to answer the question. There is no human validation, no independent SQL verification, and no cross-model agreement check. The manuscript itself concedes in Appendix A.3 that "some generated ground truth instances (questions, SQL queries, or natural language answers) may occasionally be suboptimal." Because every reported model score in Section 3.2 and the conclusion that the soft metric is more insightful are computed against this unverified benchmark, this is a load-bearing validity concern. I would ask the authors to add a human-validated sample of the dataset with inter-annotator agreement, or an independent verification method, and to report the impact of filtering out questionable instances.
  2. [Table 4] The exact-match statistics for SQL Query (519 matches, 48.1%) and Answer (222 matches, 20.57%) in Table 4 are numerically identical to the ORDER BY (519, 48.1%) and JOIN (222, 20.57%) counts in Table 2. This strongly suggests a copy-paste error and invalidates the duplication and diversity analysis in Section 3.1.3, including the claim that a high percentage of duplicate SQL queries justifies retaining them. The table must be corrected and the subsequent diversity conclusions recomputed.
  3. [Section 2.1.2] The per-row precision and recall definitions use set-membership indicators that do not account for the multiplicity of values. For example, if the ground-truth column G is [A] and the predicted column P is [A, A], then Precision = 1 (both rows of P are members of G), Recall = 1 (the single ground-truth value appears in P), and the column F1 is 1. Thus the metric gives full credit for predictions that are twice as long as the ground truth, which contradicts the paper's stated intent to penalize results that are "too verbose" or contain excessive data. The formulas should be made frequency-aware, or the paper should explicitly state that cardinality differences are deliberately ignored.
  4. [Section 3.2.1] The claim that the soft metric provides "more insightful performance analysis than strict accuracy" is supported primarily by one anecdotal example (the MRO shop / ticket count case) and by the fact that the metric assigns partial credit by construction to such cases. No systematic evidence is provided that the soft metric better captures practical utility, such as correlation with human judgments, comparison with existing partial-credit metrics, or analysis of cases where the two metrics disagree beyond a single anecdote. I would request a more rigorous validation of the metric's added value, or a more carefully scoped claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.4.1 / Table 1] The difficulty classification rules in Table 1 are difficult to parse: the "Medium" and "Hard" rows contain multiple conditions without clear logical grouping, and the "Extra" row says only "Other conditions." Please rewrite the table with explicit inequalities and Boolean combinations.
  2. [Tables 6 and 7] The captions of Tables 6 and 7 both read "Dataset Difficulty Distributions," but the tables contain average model performance per difficulty category, not difficulty distributions. Please retitle them to reflect their content.
  3. [Section 3.1.3] The conclusion that high average maximum semantic similarity "suggest[s] that the dataset possesses sufficient diversity" is not supported by any threshold or comparison baseline. Consider reporting the similarity distribution or comparing with an existing text-to-SQL benchmark such as Spider.
  4. [Appendix A.3] The sentence "we plan to explore more sophisticated prompt engineering approaches to handling various data types within the comparison logic" appears in the Future Works section but seems to relate to the metric rather than to prompt engineering for data generation; this may be a copy-paste artifact and should be clarified.
  5. [Section 2.1.2] Minor wording: "we averaged the results over all data point in the dataset" should be "we average the results over all data points in the dataset." Also, the metric's limitation to presence-and-frequency rather than row order is acknowledged in Appendix A.2, but the frequency issue is not fully captured by the formulas, as noted in the major comment.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Self-validation loop in dataset generation: Gemini generates SQL, questions, and answers and then judges sufficiency; the data-generation effectiveness claim is therefore partly true by construction.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.2.2 (Answer Generation and Filtering Process)]
    "Crucially, the LLM was also tasked with assessing the sufficiency of the SQL query’s results for answering the question; pairs deemed insufficient by the LLM were filtered out. This served as a further quality control measure, ensuring that each question in the dataset was clearly answerable by its corresponding ground-truth SQL execution results."

    The pipeline defines a valid ground-truth instance as one that the same Gemini model considers sufficient. The paper then reports this filtered dataset as evidence that the generation technique is 'effective in creating a domain-specific benchmark' (abstract) and that the dataset is 'high-quality' (end of Section 2.2.2). By construction, every surviving pair is one Gemini deemed sufficient, so this observation is tautological and provides no independent confirmation that the SQL-question-answer triplets are actually correct. Any systematic hallucination by Gemini that still executes and yields a non-empty result passes the filter and enters the benchmark, so downstream model scores are computed against self-endorsed labels.

full rationale

The Soft Execution F1 metric itself is a parameter-free definition and does not reduce to its inputs; its behavior (e.g., partial credit 0.666) follows directly from the stated formulas and is not circular. No load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems are present. The only substantive circularity is in the evaluation of the data-generation contribution: the same LLM (Gemini-2.0-flash) writes the SQL, derives the question, generates the answer, and judges whether the executed results are sufficient, and filtering is based on executability, a result-size threshold, and that same self-assessment. Thus the claim that the generated benchmark is valid and that the data-generation technique is effective rests on the generator's own opinion. Appendix A.3 even concedes that 'some generated ground truth instances (questions, SQL queries, or natural language answers) may occasionally be suboptimal.' This is a validity/self-validation loop rather than a derivation that equates predicted and fitted quantities, so the paper is only moderately circular overall.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central metric has no fitted parameters. The load-bearing assumptions are the validity of AI-generated ground truth, the semantic meaning of the max-F1 matching, and the transferability of Spider difficulty rules. All three are partially acknowledged as limitations or left unvalidated.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Execution results can be compared as unordered sets of values; row order is not important for the metric.
    Appendix A.2 explicitly acknowledges the metric is order-insensitive, which may miss queries where row order is semantically meaningful.
  • domain assumption LLM-generated SQL-question pairs, after executability and self-assessed sufficiency filtering, are valid ground truth.
    Section 2.2.2 relies on Gemini's self-assessment for filtering; no human verification is performed. Appendix A.3 concedes some instances are suboptimal.
  • ad hoc to paper Column matching by maximum pairwise F1 captures informational overlap.
    Section 2.1.2 defines the metric with max operations; this matching is not derived from an external standard and can use different column pairings for precision and recall.
  • domain assumption Spider's keyword-based difficulty classification transfers to MRO queries.
    Section 2.4.1 adopts Spider's difficulty rules without revalidation for the aviation MRO domain, yet performance is reported per difficulty category.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LLM-Driven Data Generation and a Novel Soft Metric for Evaluating Text-to-SQL in Aviation MRO." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7INRE4UU

@misc{pith2026250613785,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LLM-Driven Data Generation and a Novel Soft Metric for Evaluating Text-to-SQL in Aviation MRO},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7INRE4UU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.13785}
}
read the original abstract

The application of Large Language Models (LLMs) to text-to-SQL tasks promises to democratize data access, particularly in critical industries like aviation Maintenance, Repair, and Operation (MRO). However, progress is hindered by two key challenges: the rigidity of conventional evaluation metrics such as execution accuracy, which offer coarse, binary feedback, and the scarcity of domain-specific evaluation datasets. This paper addresses these gaps. To enable more nuanced assessment, we introduce a novel F1-score-based 'soft' metric that quantifies the informational overlap between generated and ground-truth SQL results. To address data scarcity, we propose an LLM-driven pipeline that synthesizes realistic question-SQL pairs from database schemas. We demonstrate our contributions through an empirical evaluation on an authentic MRO database. Our experiments show that the proposed soft metric provides more insightful performance analysis than strict accuracy, and our data generation technique is effective in creating a domain-specific benchmark. Together, these contributions offer a robust framework for evaluating and advancing text-to-SQL systems in specialized environments.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    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 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in ":" * " " * FUNCTION f...

  2. [2]

    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 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in ":" * " " * FUNCTION f...

  3. [3]

    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 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in ":" * " " * FUNCTION f...

  4. [4]

    , author Adler, S

    author Achiam, J. , author Adler, S. , author Agarwal, S. , author Ahmad, L. , author Akkaya, I. , author Aleman, F.L. , author Almeida, D. , author Altenschmidt, J. , author Altman, S. , author Anadkat, S. , et al., year 2023 . title Gpt-4 technical report . journal arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    , author Johnson, B

    author Avers, K.B. , author Johnson, B. , author Banks, J.O. , author Wenzel, B.M. , et al., year 2012 . title Technical documentation challenges in aviation maintenance: A proceedings report . type Technical Report . United States. Office of Aerospace Medicine

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    , author De Bruecker, P

    author Van den Bergh, J. , author De Bruecker, P. , author Beli \"e n, J. , author Peeters, J. , year 2013 . title Aircraft maintenance operations: state of the art . journal HUB Research Paper 2013/09

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    , author Mann, B

    author Brown, T. , author Mann, B. , author Ryder, N. , author Subbiah, M. , author Kaplan, J.D. , author Dhariwal, P. , author Neelakantan, A. , author Shyam, P. , author Sastry, G. , author Askell, A. , et al., year 2020 . title Language models are few-shot learners . journal Advances in neural information processing systems volume 33 , pages 1877--1901

    2020

  8. [8]

    , author Zhang, J

    author Chang, M. , author Zhang, J. , author Zhu, Z. , author Yang, C. , author Yang, Y. , author Jin, Y. , author Lan, Z. , author Kong, L. , author He, J. , year 2024 . title Agentboard: An analytical evaluation board of multi-turn llm agents . journal Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems volume 37 , pages 74325--74362

    work page 2024

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    , author Jeng, K.Y

    author Feng, C.M. , author Jeng, K.Y. , year 2005 . title Analyzing airline service improvement strategy through importance and performance analysis . journal Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies volume 6 , pages 782--797

    2005

  2. [10]

    , author Chen, S

    author Huang, Y. , author Chen, S. , author Cai, H. , author Dhingra, B. , year 2025 . title To trust or not to trust? enhancing large language models' situated faithfulness to external contexts . https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.14675, http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.14675 arXiv:2410.14675

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    , author Gu, S.S

    author Kojima, T. , author Gu, S.S. , author Reid, M. , author Matsuo, Y. , author Iwasawa, Y. , year 2022 . title Large language models are zero-shot reasoners . journal Advances in neural information processing systems volume 35 , pages 22199--22213

    2022

  4. [12]

    , author Hui, B

    author Li, J. , author Hui, B. , author Qu, G. , author Li, B. , author Yang, J. , author Li, B. , author Wang, B. , author Qin, B. , author Geng, R. , author Huo, N. , author Zhou, X. , author Ma, C. , author Li, G. , author Chang, K.C.C. , author Huang, F. , author Cheng, R....

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    , author He, J

    author M \"u ndler, N. , author He, J. , author Jenko, S. , author Vechev, M. , year 2023 . title Self-contradictory hallucinations of large language models: Evaluation, detection and mitigation . journal arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15852

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    , author Wu, J

    author Ouyang, L. , author Wu, J. , author Jiang, X. , author Almeida, D. , author Wainwright, C. , author Mishkin, P. , author Zhang, C. , author Agarwal, S. , author Slama, K. , author Ray, A. , et al., year 2022 . title Training language models to follow instructions with h...

    2022

  7. [15]

    , author Bowman, S

    author Panickssery, A. , author Bowman, S. , author Feng, S. , year 2024 . title Llm evaluators recognize and favor their own generations . journal Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems volume 37 , pages 68772--68802

    2024

  8. [16]

    , author Li, H

    author Pourreza, M. , author Li, H. , author Sun, R. , author Chung, Y. , author Talaei, S. , author Kakkar, G.T. , author Gan, Y. , author Saberi, A. , author Ozcan, F. , author Arik, S.O. , year 2024 . title Chase-sql: Multi-path reasoning and preference optimized candidate ...

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    , author Hui, B

    author Qin, B. , author Hui, B. , author Wang, L. , author Yang, M. , author Li, J. , author Li, B. , author Geng, R. , author Cao, R. , author Sun, J. , author Si, L. , et al., year 2022 . title A survey on text-to-sql parsing: Concepts, methods, and future directions . journ...

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    , author Zhou, K

    author Ramnath, K. , author Zhou, K. , author Guan, S. , author Mishra, S.S. , author Qi, X. , author Shen, Z. , author Wang, S. , author Woo, S. , author Jeoung, S. , author Wang, Y. , et al., year 2025 . title A systematic survey of automatic prompt optimization techniques ....

    2025

  11. [19]

    , author Gurevych, I

    author Reimers, N. , author Gurevych, I. , year 2019 . title Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks , in: booktitle Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , publisher Association for Computational Linguist...

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    , author Zheng, C

    author Sun, X. , author Zheng, C. , author Wandelt, S. , author Zhang, A. , year 2024 a. title Airline competition: A comprehensive review of recent research . journal Journal of the Air Transport Research Society volume 2 , pages 100013 . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science...

    2024

  13. [21]

    , author Zang, X

    author Sun, Z. , author Zang, X. , author Zheng, K. , author Song, Y. , author Xu, J. , author Zhang, X. , author Yu, W. , author Li, H. , year 2024 b. title Redeep: Detecting hallucination in retrieval-augmented generation via mechanistic interpretability . journal arXiv prep...

    2024

  14. [22]

    , author Anil, R

    author Team, G. , author Anil, R. , author Borgeaud, S. , author Alayrac, J.B. , author Yu, J. , author Soricut, R. , author Schalkwyk, J. , author Dai, A.M. , author Hauth, A. , author Millican, K. , et al., year 2023 . title Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal mode...

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    , author Mesnard, T

    author Team, G. , author Mesnard, T. , author Hardin, C. , author Dadashi, R. , author Bhupatiraju, S. , author Pathak, S. , author Sifre, L. , author Rivière, M. , author Kale, M.S. , author Love, J. , author Tafti, P. , author Hussenot, L. , author Sessa, P.G. , author Chowd...

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    , author Loures, P.L

    author Vieira, D.R. , author Loures, P.L. , year 2016 . title Maintenance, repair and overhaul (mro) fundamentals and strategies: An aeronautical industry overview . journal International Journal of Computer Applications volume 135 , pages 21--29

    2016

  17. [25]

    , author Zhang, R

    author Yu, T. , author Zhang, R. , author Yang, K. , author Yasunaga, M. , author Wang, D. , author Li, Z. , author Ma, J. , author Li, I. , author Yao, Q. , author Roman, S. , et al., year 2018 . title Spider: A large-scale human-labeled dataset for complex and cross-domain s...

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    , year 2024

    author Zhou, W. , year 2024 . title Competition and development in the aviation industry: An analysis of strategic adaptability and challenges

    2024

  19. [27]

    , author Chen, J

    author Zhu, D. , author Chen, J. , author Shen, X. , author Li, X. , author Elhoseiny, M. , year 2023 . title Minigpt-4: Enhancing vision-language understanding with advanced large language models . journal arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10592

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

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