arxiv: 2604.10776 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-12 · 💻 cs.DB

Recognition: unknown

Natural Language to What? A Vision for Intermediate Representations in NL-to-X Querying

Shengqi Li , Amarnath Gupta

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 15:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.DB

keywords natural language queryingintermediate representationsquery translationheterogeneous datasemantic targetsdocument-centric querying

0 comments

The pith

Natural language queries in mixed or document data settings must first determine what answer structure to build before any backend execution begins.

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

The paper claims that standard natural-language-to-SQL framing works only when the target data model is fixed in advance. Many workloads instead involve document collections or heterogeneous sources where the query itself must help decide what kind of structured result to produce. It introduces a classification based on how completely the target is known and treats the intermediate steps in those cases as carriers of semantic decisions rather than temporary translation artifacts. This reframing shifts attention from pure translation to the problems of target formation and answer construction in complex environments.

Core claim

The paper proposes that when a natural-language query operates in an environment where the semantic target is only partially specified or must be constructed, intermediate representations function as first-class semantic objects that participate in deciding the form of the eventual answer, not merely as implementation scaffolding for a predetermined backend language.

What carries the argument

The target-adequacy criterion that sorts query settings into those with a fully known target, a partially known target, or a target that must be formed during processing.

If this is right

Semantic target formation becomes an explicit research problem separate from backend translation.
Intermediate representation design must now address semantic adequacy rather than only syntactic fidelity.
Heterogeneous compilation pipelines gain a new layer that decides answer structure before language-specific code generation.
Answer formation in complex data environments requires mechanisms that can emit results even when the final target shape is discovered mid-query.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Query interfaces could be built that let users refine the intended answer structure through successive natural-language clarifications instead of requiring an upfront schema.
The same lens might apply to data integration tasks where the output format is not known until the sources are examined.
Evaluation benchmarks would need new metrics that score how well a system constructs an appropriate target rather than only how accurately it translates to a fixed language.

Load-bearing premise

A substantial portion of natural language query workloads occur in document-centric, mixed, or heterogeneous environments where the semantic target must itself be constructed rather than given in advance.

What would settle it

A large-scale log analysis of deployed natural-language query systems showing that the overwhelming majority of user sessions target a single, predetermined backend schema with no need for on-the-fly target construction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.10776 by Amarnath Gupta, Shengqi Li.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: A compact view of the three NLIQ regimes. The key distinction is the status of the semantic target, which determines whether the system must translate, complete, or construct that target. also be evaluated by whether they preserve the semantic intent of the original query, support coherent decomposition across the data environment, and construct the answer object the query actually calls for [PITH_FULL_IM… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Natural-language-initiated querying is usually framed as translation into a predetermined backend language such as SQL, Cypher, or SPARQL. That framing is appropriate when the semantic target is known in advance, but it does not cover the full space of natural-language query workloads. In document-centric, mixed, and heterogeneous environments, the first semantic problem may be to determine what target should be constructed before backend-specific execution can begin. This paper proposes the $\textit{NLIQ}~$ lens for this broader space. It introduces target adequacy as the criterion for distinguishing settings in which the target is given, only partially specified, or must itself be constructed, and argues that intermediate representations in the latter regimes are not merely implementation devices but first-class semantic objects. The paper develops a compact framework of $\textit{NLIQ}~$ regimes, illustrates the distinction through representative examples, and identifies a new research terrain around semantic target formation, intermediate representation design, heterogeneous compilation, and answer formation in complex data environments.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper is a vision piece that splits NL querying into cases where the target is fixed versus where it must be figured out first, arguing IRs become semantic objects in the latter.

read the letter

This paper is a vision piece that tries to broaden how we think about natural language querying. The main point is that the usual setup of translating NL directly to a backend like SQL works only when the target data model is already fixed. In many real cases with documents, mixed sources, or heterogeneous data, the query has to first help figure out what the target representation should even be. They introduce the NLIQ lens and use target adequacy to split scenarios into those where the target is given, partially known, or must be constructed. In the construction cases, they argue that intermediate representations stop being just technical steps and become key semantic decisions. The framework of regimes and the examples are meant to map out this new territory for research on semantic target formation and heterogeneous compilation. What works is the clean separation of concerns. It highlights a real difference in problem structure that might help organize work on more flexible interfaces. The writing is straightforward and the distinction feels intuitive once laid out. The limitation is that it remains entirely conceptual. There are no formal definitions of the terms, no concrete query examples with before-and-after, and no indication of how one would build or test systems under this view. The paper also doesn't compare its framing to existing work on semantic parsing or multi-model querying in any detail, which makes it harder to gauge the advance. This is for database researchers and semantic web people who deal with NL access to varied data collections. Someone looking for new problems to work on or a way to classify their own projects could find it useful. It doesn't deliver a method or result that I'd cite directly. I would send it to peer review. As a vision paper it is coherent and points to open areas, so referees could give feedback on whether the distinctions hold up or suggest ways to make them more operational.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper claims that natural-language-initiated querying is typically framed as translation to a known backend (SQL, Cypher, SPARQL), but this framing fails to cover document-centric, mixed, and heterogeneous environments where the semantic target itself must first be determined. It introduces the NLIQ lens and target adequacy as the criterion distinguishing cases where the target is given, only partially specified, or must be constructed. The manuscript develops a compact framework of NLIQ regimes, illustrates the distinction with representative examples, argues that intermediate representations become first-class semantic objects in the construction regimes, and identifies new research directions in semantic target formation, IR design, heterogeneous compilation, and answer formation.

Significance. If the proposed distinctions and framework are adopted, the paper could usefully reorient research on natural-language querying toward semantic target construction in complex data settings and elevate intermediate representations from implementation devices to semantic objects. The work is explicitly a vision piece with no formal definitions, machine-checked proofs, reproducible code, or empirical validation; its value therefore lies in the clarity of the programmatic framing rather than in any derived result. Credit is given for the self-contained conceptual structure and for explicitly scoping the proposal beyond conventional NL-to-X translation.

minor comments (3)

The representative examples used to illustrate the regimes and target adequacy would be more effective if each included a short, concrete query scenario showing the input NL, the constructed target, and the role of the IR.
The compact framework of regimes would benefit from an explicit tabular summary (regime, target adequacy level, status of IR, example backend) to make the distinctions immediately scannable.
The acronym NLIQ and the term 'target adequacy' are introduced without a dedicated definitional paragraph; a short boxed definition or enumerated list of the three adequacy levels would improve precision.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive and accurate assessment of our vision paper. The referee's summary correctly captures the core arguments, and we appreciate the recognition of the work's potential to reorient research toward semantic target construction. We agree with the recommendation for minor revision and will incorporate a small clarification to emphasize the vision scope. Below we respond to the key observations in the report.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The paper claims that natural-language-initiated querying is typically framed as translation to a known backend (SQL, Cypher, SPARQL), but this framing fails to cover document-centric, mixed, and heterogeneous environments where the semantic target itself must first be determined. It introduces the NLIQ lens and target adequacy as the criterion distinguishing cases where the target is given, only partially specified, or must be constructed. The manuscript develops a compact framework of NLIQ regimes, illustrates the distinction with representative examples, argues that intermediate representations become first-class semantic objects in the construction regimes, and identifies new research directions in semantic target formation, IR design, heterogeneous compilation, and answer formation.

Authors: We thank the referee for this precise summary, which faithfully reflects the abstract and the structure of the full manuscript. No changes are needed. revision: no
Referee: If the proposed distinctions and framework are adopted, the paper could usefully reorient research on natural-language querying toward semantic target construction in complex data settings and elevate intermediate representations from implementation devices to semantic objects. The work is explicitly a vision piece with no formal definitions, machine-checked proofs, reproducible code, or empirical validation; its value therefore lies in the clarity of the programmatic framing rather than in any derived result. Credit is given for the self-contained conceptual structure and for explicitly scoping the proposal beyond conventional NL-to-X translation.

Authors: We are pleased that the referee acknowledges the intended contribution and the deliberate scoping as a vision paper. The absence of formal definitions, proofs, code, and empirical results is by design, as the goal is to propose a new lens and identify research directions rather than to deliver validated artifacts. To prevent misreading by audiences expecting an empirical study, we will add one sentence in the introduction (and a parallel note in the conclusion) explicitly stating the vision nature of the work. This is a minor clarification. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: conceptual vision paper with no derivations or fitted claims

full rationale

The paper is explicitly a vision piece proposing the NLIQ lens, target adequacy criterion, and regime framework for NL-to-X querying in heterogeneous settings. It contains no equations, no derivations, no parameter fitting, and no load-bearing self-citations. All content consists of definitional distinctions, illustrative examples, and programmatic research suggestions. No step reduces a 'prediction' or 'first-principles result' to its own inputs by construction, as there are no technical derivations or empirical assertions present. The argument's validity rests on future utility of the framing rather than any internal reduction or self-referential proof.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central proposal rests on domain assumptions about query workloads and introduces new conceptual entities without independent empirical support.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Natural language query workloads include cases where the semantic target must be constructed rather than predetermined.
Invoked to motivate the NLIQ regimes in the abstract.

invented entities (2)

NLIQ lens no independent evidence
purpose: A framing for NL querying when the target representation is not known in advance.
New conceptual tool proposed to organize the broader space.
target adequacy no independent evidence
purpose: Criterion to distinguish settings where the target is given, partially specified, or must be constructed.
New distinguishing criterion introduced in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5468 in / 1184 out tokens · 50937 ms · 2026-05-10T15:18:45.700752+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

[1]

Sudarshan

Bharat Aditya, Gaurav Bhalotia, Soumen Chakrabarti, Arvind Hulgeri, Charuta Nakhe, Parag, and S. Sudarshan. 2002. BANKS: Browsing and Keyword Searching in Relational Databases. InProceedings of the 28th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB). 1083–1086. doi:10.1016/B978-155860869-6/50114-1

work page doi:10.1016/b978-155860869-6/50114-1 2002
[2]

Sanjay Agrawal, Surajit Chaudhuri, and Gautam Das. 2002. DBXplorer: A System for Keyword-Based Search over Relational Databases. InProceedings of the 18th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE). 5–16

2002
[3]

Laura Banarescu, Claire Bonial, Shu Cai, Madalina Georgescu, Kira Griffitt, Ulf Hermjakob, Kevin Knight, Philipp Koehn, Martha Palmer, and Nathan Schneider
[4]

InProceedings of the 7th Linguistic Annotation Workshop and Interoperability with Discourse

Abstract Meaning Representation for Sembanking. InProceedings of the 7th Linguistic Annotation Workshop and Interoperability with Discourse. Association for Computational Linguistics, 178–186
[5]

Ben Bogin, Shivanshu Gupta, Peter Clark, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2024. Leverag- ing Code to Improve In-Context Learning for Semantic Parsing. InProceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, Me...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.279 2024
[6]

Reiss, and Shivakumar Vaithyanathan

Laura Chiticariu, Rajasekar Krishnamurthy, Yunyao Li, Sriram Raghavan, Fred- erick R. Reiss, and Shivakumar Vaithyanathan. 2010. SystemT: An Algebraic Approach to Declarative Information Extraction. InProceedings of ACL

2010
[7]

Ronald Fagin, Benny Kimelfeld, Frederick Reiss, and Stijn Vansummeren. 2015. A Relational Framework for Information Extraction.SIGMOD Record44, 4 (2015), 9–16

2015
[8]

Franklin, Alon Y

Michael J. Franklin, Alon Y. Halevy, and David Maier. 2005. From Databases to Dataspaces: A New Abstraction for Information Management.SIGMOD Record 34, 4 (2005), 27–33. doi:10.1145/1107499.1107502

work page doi:10.1145/1107499.1107502 2005
[9]

Halevy, Michael J

Alon Y. Halevy, Michael J. Franklin, and David Maier. 2006. Principles of Datas- pace Systems. InProceedings of the Twenty-Fifth ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems. ACM, 1–9. doi:10.1145/1142351. 1142352

work page doi:10.1145/1142351 2006
[10]

Ullman, and Jennifer Widom

Joachim Hammer, Héctor García-Molina, Kelly Ireland, Yannis Papakonstantinou, Jeffrey D. Ullman, and Jennifer Widom. 1995. Information Translation, Mediation, and Mosaic-Based Browsing in the TSIMMIS System. InProceedings of the 1995 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. ACM, 483. doi:10. 1145/223784.223903

work page arXiv 1995
[11]

Vagelis Hristidis and Yannis Papakonstantinou. 2002. DISCOVER: Keyword Search in Relational Databases. InProceedings of the 28th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB). 670–681. doi:10.1016/B978-155860869-6/50065- 2

work page doi:10.1016/b978-155860869-6/50065- 2002
[12]

1993.From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Modelthe- oretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory

Hans Kamp and Uwe Reyle. 1993.From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Modelthe- oretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

1993
[13]

Hyeonji Kim, Byeong-Hoon So, Wook-Shin Han, and Hongrae Lee. 2020. Natural language to SQL: Where are we today?Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment13, 10 (2020), 1737–1750

2020
[14]

Rajasekar Krishnamurthy, Yunyao Li, Sriram Raghavan, Frederick Reiss, Shivaku- mar Vaithyanathan, and Huaiyu Zhu. 2008. SystemT: A System for Declarative Information Extraction.SIGMOD Record37, 4 (2008), 7–13

2008
[15]

Fei Li and H. V. Jagadish. 2014. Constructing an Interactive Natural Language Interface for Relational Databases.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment8, 1 (2014), 73–84. doi:10.14778/2735461.2735468

work page doi:10.14778/2735461.2735468 2014
[16]

Yunyao Li, Huahai Yang, and H. V. Jagadish. 2005. NaLIX: an interactive natural language interface for querying XML.Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data(2005), 900–902. doi:10.1145/ 1066157.1066287

work page arXiv 2005
[17]

Percy Liang. 2013. Lambda Dependency-Based Compositional Semantics.arXiv preprint arXiv:1309.4408(2013)

work page arXiv 2013
[18]

Yuanyuan Liang, Keren Tan, Tingyu Xie, Wenbiao Tao, Siyuan Wang, Yunshi Lan, and Weining Qian. 2024. Aligning large language models to a domain- specific graph database for NL2GQL. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM international conference on information and knowledge management. 1367–1377

2024
[19]

Fatma Özcan, Abdul Quamar, Jaydeep Sen, Chuan Lei, and Vasilis Efthymiou
[20]

InProceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data

State of the Art and Open Challenges in Natural Language Interfaces to Data. InProceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data

2020
[21]

Liana Patel, Siddharth Jha, Parth Asawa, Melissa Zhiyang Pan, Carlos Guestrin, and Matei Zaharia. 2024. LOTUS: Enabling Semantic Queries with LLMs Over Tables of Unstructured and Structured Data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.11418 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024
[22]

Ioannis Tsampos and Emmanouil Marakakis. 2025. Domain-and Language- Adaptable Natural Language Interface for Property Graphs.Computers14, 5 (2025), 183

2025
[23]

Yunjia Xi, Jinyang Li, Miguel Romero, Arindam Paul, AnHai Doan, and Christo- pher Ré. 2023. Symphony: Towards Natural Language Query Answering over Multi-Modal Data Lakes. InProceedings of CIDR

2023
[24]

Guorui Xiao, Enhao Zhang, Nicole Sullivan, Will Hansen, and Magdalena Bal- azinska. 2026. KathDB: Explainable Multimodal Database Management System with Human-AI Collaboration. InProceedings of CIDR. arXiv preprint, 2025

2026
[25]

Navid Yaghmazadeh, Yuepeng Wang, Isil Dillig, and Thomas Dillig. 2017. SQLizer: Query Synthesis from Natural Language.Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages1, OOPSLA (2017), 63:1–63:26. doi:10.1145/3133887

work page doi:10.1145/3133887 2017