Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 52 references

SERL-SQL: Selective Hindsight Distillation for Text-to-SQL Reinforcement Agentic Learning

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read SERL-SQL claims that execution feedback can be turned into bounded token-level credit, lifting Text-to-SQL accuracy to 76.56% on BIRD-Dev and 89.92% on Spider-Test.

desk verdict The training-time credit-reweighting idea is coherent and well-ablated, but the deployment claim rests on an undefined 'reward-based selection' that may be oracle selection. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.00485 v2 pith:64PXN6JV submitted 2026-08-01 cs.CL

Tao Liu , Tao Feng , Xiangheng Li , Jinwang Song , Yifan Li , Xiaoqing Cheng , Dixuan Zhang , Siquan Li
show 4 more authors
Lin Lan Hongying Zan Kunli Zhang Chao Wu
This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords Text-to-SQLreinforcementlearningGRPOcreditassignmentexecutionfeedbackteacher-studentdistillationmulti-turnagentsschemagrounding
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

Text-to-SQL agents receive database feedback when they run queries, but standard reinforcement learning treats that feedback as one coarse score for the whole trajectory. SERL-SQL tries to convert the same feedback into per-token evidence: a training-only teacher, shown the execution result, re-scores each SQL token the student generated, and the teacher–student gap reweights the RL advantage only on SQL and tool-action tokens. The paper reports that this selective reweighting reaches 76.56% execution accuracy on BIRD-Dev and 89.92% on Spider-Test, close to the oracle best-of-N upper bound. The significance would be that execution correctness can do more than pick winners; it can say which decisions were responsible.

What carries the argument

The core mechanism is the masked hindsight advantage. For each token, the method computes the teacher–student log-probability gap under execution-hindsight context; a positive gap means the execution result makes the sampled token more plausible, a negative gap less plausible. That gap is converted into a bounded, sign-aware weight that multiplies the group-relative GRPO advantage only where an action mask marks the token as SQL or tool action. A decaying training coefficient gradually hands control back to plain GRPO, preventing the privileged teacher signal from dominating late training.

What would settle it

Run the same training but replace the hindsight gap with a random bounded weight on the same masked tokens and compare accuracy; if random weights match SERL-SQL, the hindsight signal carries no responsibility information. Alternatively, on held-out trajectories, ablate individual SQL tokens and check whether the tokens the teacher weights most strongly are the ones whose removal changes execution correctness.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that database execution errors, empty results, and returned tables are not just outcome signals but privileged hindsight that can identify responsible SQL decisions. A synchronized teacher policy conditions on that hindsight and re-scores the student's own on-policy tokens; the log-probability gap becomes a bounded, sign-aware multiplier on GRPO advantages, masked so only executable SQL and tool-action tokens are affected. In the authors' terms, task rewards set the optimization direction while execution hindsight sets update locality and magnitude, and this yields a standalone policy that outperforms trajectory-level RL baselines and closely approaches oracle se

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the assumption that the teacher–student log-probability gap under execution hindsight accurately marks the tokens responsible for success or failure; if the gap reflects teacher style or noise instead, the reweighting just perturbs the RL update.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, execution feedback can serve as dense, localized credit assignment without a learned value model.
  • The ablations show that removing execution hindsight or the selective mask drops accuracy by several points, so the mechanism, not just RL, drives the gains.
  • Because reward-based selection closely tracks oracle best-of-N, the trained policy generates candidate sets whose best member can be picked by a lightweight execution-grounded score rather than gold labels.
  • Training only on BIRD transfers to Spider and cross-domain benchmarks, suggesting the credit signal generalizes rather than memorizing one SQL dialect.
  • At inference the teacher is removed and the student operates alone, so the method adds no inference-time cost beyond the normal agent interaction loop.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper reports reward-based selection but never defines that reward; specifying an execution-only score and testing it without gold labels would fully substantiate the claim that oracle information is not needed.
  • If the teacher–student gap genuinely tracks token responsibility, the same bounded reweighting scheme could apply to other tool-augmented agents whose environment returns execution feedback, not just SQL.
  • The decay schedule for the hindsight coefficient is chosen once; it is likely task-dependent, and tuning it on other benchmarks could move the reported numbers.
  • The error analysis suggests that join construction and value filtering remain bottlenecks, so pairing selective credit with stronger value grounding could push beyond the current accuracy.
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 proposes SERL-SQL, a reinforcement learning method for multi-turn text-to-SQL. It samples on-policy interaction trajectories, uses a training-only teacher conditioned on execution hindsight to re-score the student's own actions, and converts the resulting teacher–student log-probability gap into bounded, masked weights that reweight GRPO advantages on SQL and tool-action tokens. The final objective is given in Eq. (20). Experiments are reported on BIRD-Dev, Spider-Test, Spider2.0-lite, and Spider-DK, with headline numbers of 76.56% on BIRD-Dev and 89.92% on Spider-Test. The paper further claims that a 'reward-based selection' strategy over sampled trajectories closely approaches the oracle Best-of-N upper bound, supporting the idea that execution-grounded signals can identify high-quality candidates.

Significance. The core idea—using execution feedback as training-time hindsight for selective token-level credit assignment rather than as a coarse trajectory reward—is timely and potentially useful for agentic text-to-SQL. The equations are internally consistent, the ablations in Table 2 show coherent and roughly monotone drops when components are removed, and the evaluation covers several benchmarks. If the empirical results hold, the method would be a credible improvement in credit assignment for multi-turn SQL agents. However, the paper's main verification hinges on an underspecified selection mechanism, and the reported gains lack variance estimates, so the empirical contribution is currently difficult to assess.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2 (Analysis by Selection Methods), Fig. 5, Eq. (12)] The reward-based selection method ('reward_max') is never formally defined. The only trajectory reward defined in the paper is Eq. (12), which requires comparing the execution result of the predicted SQL with the gold query's result. At inference time the gold result is unavailable. If reward_max uses Eq. (12), it is an oracle selector and the claimed 76.56% is not a deployable result; the comparison with Best-of-N is then partly circular and the abstract's 'lightweight execution-grounded rewards' claim is unsupported. If reward_max uses a different learned or execution-only reward, its architecture, training data, inputs, and how it is applied at inference must be specified. This is load-bearing because every headline number depends on this selector.
  2. [Table 1, §4] The main results do not state which selection strategy was used for each reported number. The abstract gives 76.56% on BIRD-Dev and 89.92% on Spider-Test, but Table 1 simply reports 'SERL-SQL (Ours)' without indicating whether these are greedy single-rollout results, reward_max, consistency, or Best-of-N. Since selection is a core component of the method, the table must be explicit; otherwise the reader cannot tell what is being compared with the baselines.
  3. [§4 (Experimental Setup / Evaluation Metrics), Fig. 5] No error bars or multiple-seed results are reported anywhere. The method samples N=16 trajectories and selection-based metrics are inherently stochastic; the differences between model sizes (e.g., 75.55 vs. 74.95 on BIRD-Dev, or 14.47 vs. 25.64 on Spider2.0-SQLite) may be within noise. The paper should report standard deviations over at least three independent runs or bootstrap confidence intervals, especially for the selection-method comparison in Fig. 5.
  4. [§3.3 (Selective Execution-Hindsight Teacher), Eq. (16)] The paper treats the teacher–student log-probability gap Δ_t,i as a token-level responsibility signal, but no direct evidence is provided that the teacher's re-scoring under hindsight isolates causal responsibility. A teacher conditioned on the final execution observation could assign high likelihood to tokens that are merely consistent with the outcome rather than causally responsible. A concrete validation would be to correlate Δ-weighted updates with token-level ablations (e.g., perturbing SQL tokens and measuring execution changes) or to show that negative-Δ tokens correspond to tokens that are actually revised in successful recovery trajectories. Without such evidence, the central credit-assignment mechanism is plausible but not empirically established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix references] The text repeatedly refers to the Appendix for hyperparameters, prompts, and implementation details, but no appendix is present in the manuscript. This is a reproducibility gap that should be fixed.
  2. [Naming conventions] The benchmark is called both 'Spider 2.0-lite' and 'Spider2.0-SQLite' in different places; unify the terminology.
  3. [Eq. (17) / Eq. (19)] When A_n = 0, w_t,i can still be >1 or <1, but Eq. (19) multiplies by A_n so the final advantage is zero. Consider stating explicitly that the reweighting factor has no effect when the trajectory advantage is zero.
  4. [Related Work] The sentence 'But they lack real interaction with database, further many works exploit database feedback...' is grammatically unclear and appears to contradict the preceding discussion of SQL-Trail, which uses interleaved feedback. Please revise.
  5. [Figure 4] The inner/outer ring labels in Figure 4 are difficult to parse; please make the categories and the selection strategy used for this analysis explicit in the caption.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Reward-based selection is defined via the gold-labeled trajectory reward (Eq. 12), making reward_max coincide with oracle Best-of-N by construction; the core training objective is otherwise empirically grounded.

  1. self definitional [Trajectory Reward (Eq. 12); Experiments, 'Analysis by Selection Methods', Figure 5 caption]
    "The trajectory reward is defined as Rn = R_ex(τn) = +1, if τn valid and yn correct, ... (12) ... Best-of-N denotes oracle selection, reward_max selects the highest-reward trajectory"

    The only reward formally defined in the paper is R_ex, which is computed by comparing the predicted SQL's execution result with the gold query's result. Figure 5's reward_max is defined as selecting the highest-reward trajectory; substituting the only defined reward makes reward_max choose trajectories by gold execution correctness, which is exactly what Best-of-N oracle selection does. The claimed 'small gap' between reward_max and the oracle upper bound is then a self-comparison rather than evidence that a deployable, lightweight execution-grounded reward can identify good candidates. No alternative inference-time reward is defined in the paper, so the headline 76.56% via 'reward-based selection' is, on the paper's own definitions, oracle selection in disguise. The training objective (Eq

full rationale

SERL-SQL's training recipe—teacher re-scoring with execution hindsight, masked bounded reweighting of GRPO advantages—is an independent methodological derivation evaluated on external BIRD/Spider benchmarks, and no step in Eqs. 1–20 feeds a target result back as an input. The paper does rely on a self-cited 'Selective Hindsight Distillation' framing, but that citation is contextual rather than load-bearing. The serious circularity is the selection analysis: reward_max is never given its own definition, and the sole reward in the paper (Eq. 12) is gold-execution correctness. Under that definition, reward_max and oracle Best-of-N are the same selector by construction, so the abstract's 'lightweight execution-grounded rewards' claim and the 76.56% headline are not supported as a deployable-selection result. This is a partial, central circularity rather than a fully circular derivation, hence score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the unproven assumption that teacher-student likelihood gaps under execution feedback localize credit correctly. The method also depends on several tuned hyperparameters (epsilon_w, alpha_k, N, hindsight source) and on the feasibility of inference-time reward selection, which is not defined.

free parameters (4)
  • epsilon_w = not reported
    Bound width for weight clipping in Eq. 17 (w_min=1-epsilon_w, w_max=1+epsilon_w). Chosen by hand; no value given.
  • alpha_k = not reported
    Hindsight decay schedule in Eq. 19, gradually reduced during training. A training hyperparameter with no specified schedule.
  • N (number of sampled trajectories) = 16
    Used for inference-time selection in Figure 5; chosen by the authors.
  • hindsight source choice = Immediate Observation
    Table 3 shows different hindsight sources; the best one (Immediate Observation) is selected for the full model.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The teacher-student log-probability gap under execution hindsight is a valid credit assignment signal.
    Eq. 16-17 convert the gap into reweighting weights; if this gap is noise, the whole method fails.
  • domain assumption The action mask m_{t,i} reliably identifies executable SQL and tool tokens.
    Eq. 18 applies reweighting only to masked tokens; incorrect masking would distort credit.
  • domain assumption Execution hindsight context c_ex_t can be derived from immediate observations without leaking to the student.
    The teacher conditions on c_ex_t=H_ex(o_t), the outcome of the action being scored; the student does not see this at decision time.
  • domain assumption Reward-based selection at inference can be performed using a lightweight execution-grounded reward.
    The paper never defines this inference-time reward; if it requires gold labels, the selection is not deployable.
invented entities (1)
  • Execution hindsight context c_ex_t
    purpose: Teacher-side privileged context for re-scoring student actions during training
    Introduced as a training-time construct; it has no falsifiable handle outside the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SERL-SQL: Selective Hindsight Distillation for Text-to-SQL Reinforcement Agentic Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/64PXN6JV

@misc{pith2026260800485,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SERL-SQL: Selective Hindsight Distillation for Text-to-SQL Reinforcement Agentic Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/64PXN6JV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00485}
}
read the original abstract

Recent Text-to-SQL systems increasingly rely on multi-turn interaction, execution feedback, and reinforcement learning. However, most existing methods use execution correctness only as a trajectory-level reward, which provides limited guidance for identifying the SQL decisions responsible for success or failure. We propose SERL-SQL, a selective execution-grounded reinforcement learning framework for multi-turn Text-to-SQL agents. SERL-SQL samples on-policy SQL interaction trajectories and uses a training-only teacher to re-score student actions with execution feedback. The resulting teacher--student likelihood gap is converted into bounded, masked weights that reweight GRPO advantages only on SQL and tool-action tokens. In this way, task rewards preserve the optimization direction, while execution hindsight provides localized credit assignment. Experiments on BIRD, Spider, and cross-domain benchmarks show that SERL-SQL achieves competitive performance, reaching 76.56% execution accuracy on BIRD-Dev and 89.92% on Spider-Test. Moreover, our reward-based selection strategy closely approaches the oracle Best-of-N upper bound and consistently outperforms consistency-based selection, showing that SERL-SQL produces high-quality candidates that can be reliably identified by lightweight execution-grounded rewards. Our code will be released at https://github.com/Ffunkytao/SERL-SQL.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00485 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. SERL-SQL uses execution hindsight to convert [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the SERL-SQL pipeline. (1) schema grounding; (2) multi-turn SQL agent rollout with hierarchical reward [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Re-scoring SQL tokens with execution hindsight [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Trajectory quality on BIRD-dev. Inner ring: final outcome under selection for direct exec-correct, recovered, wrong exec, invalid format, Outer ring: observation feed￾back types aggregated over all interaction steps. baselines such as Reasoning-SQL, Arctic-Text2SQL-R1,…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Selection method comparison with 16 sampled trajectories. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Error distribution and representative failure Case. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2018 , publisher =

    Yu, Tao and Zhang, Rui and Yang, Kai and Yasunaga, Michihiro and Wang, Dongxu and Li, Zifan and Ma, James and Li, Irene and Yao, Qingning and Roman, Shanelle and Zhang, Zilin and Radev, Dragomir , booktitle =. 2018 , publisher =. doi:10.18653/v1/D18-1425 , url =

    doi:10.18653/v1/d18-1425 2018

  2. [2]

    Li, Jinyang and Hui, Binyuan and Qu, Ge and Yang, Jiaxi and Li, Binhua and Li, Bowen and Wang, Bailin and Qin, Bowen and Cao, Rongyu and Geng, Ruiying and Huo, Nan and Zhou, Xuanhe and Ma, Chenhao and Li, Guoliang and Chang, Kevin C. C. and Huang, Fei and Cheng, Reynold and Li, Yongbin , journal =. Can. 2023 , url =

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    2021 , publisher =

    Scholak, Torsten and Schucher, Nathan and Bahdanau, Dzmitry , booktitle =. 2021 , publisher =. doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.779 , url =

    doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.779 2021

  4. [4]

    Text-to-

    Gao, Dawei and Wang, Haibin and Li, Yaliang and Sun, Xiuyu and Qian, Yichen and Ding, Bolin and Zhou, Jingren , journal =. Text-to-. 2023 , url =

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    2023 , url =

    Pourreza, Mohammadreza and Rafiei, Davood , journal =. 2023 , url =

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    2024 , url =

    Talaei, Shayan and Pourreza, Mohammadreza and Chang, Yu-Chen and Mirhoseini, Azalia and Saberi, Amin , journal =. 2024 , url =

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    2025 , url =

    Li, Boyan and Chen, Chong and Xue, Zhujun and Mei, Yinan and Luo, Yuyu , journal =. 2025 , url =

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    , journal =

    Yang, Haolin and Zhang, Jipeng and He, Zhitao and Zhou, Alexander and Fung, Yi R. , journal =. 2025 , url =

    work page 2025

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    A Preview of

    Gao, Yingqi and Liu, Yifu and Li, Xiaoxia and Shi, Xiaorong and Zhu, Yin and Wang, Yiming and Li, Shiqi and Li, Wei and Hong, Yuntao and Luo, Zhiling and Gao, Jinyang and Mou, Liyu and Li, Yu , journal =. A Preview of. 2024 , url =

    2024

  2. [10]

    2024 , doi =

    Li, Haoyang and Zhang, Jing and Liu, Hanbing and Fan, Ju and Zhang, Xiaokang and Zhu, Jun and Wei, Renjie and Pan, Hongyan and Li, Cuiping and Chen, Hong , journal =. 2024 , doi =

    2024

  3. [11]

    2023 , url =

    Yao, Shunyu and Zhao, Jeffrey and Yu, Dian and Du, Nan and Shafran, Izhak and Narasimhan, Karthik and Cao, Yuan , booktitle =. 2023 , url =

    2023

  4. [12]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347 , year =

    Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347 , year =

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    Shao, Zhihong and Wang, Peiyi and Zhu, Qihao and Xu, Runxin and Song, Junxiao and Bi, Xiao and Zhang, Haowei and Zhang, Mingchuan and Li, Y. K. and Wu, Y. and Guo, Daya , journal =. 2024 , url =

    2024

  6. [14]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.18734 , year =

    Self-Distilled Reasoner: On-Policy Self-Distillation for Large Language Models , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.18734 , year =

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.19447 , year =

    What and When to Distill: Selective Hindsight Distillation for Multi-Turn Agents , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.19447 , year =

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.15155 , year =

    Self-Distilled Agentic Reinforcement Learning , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.15155 , year =

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.01943 , year =

    CHASE-SQL: Multi-Path Reasoning and Preference Optimized Candidate Selection in Text-to-SQL , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.01943 , year =

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.11741 , year =

    SQL-o1: A Self-Reward Heuristic Dynamic Search Method for Text-to-SQL , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.11741 , year =

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.24403 , year =

    Agentar-Scale-SQL: Advancing Text-to-SQL through Orchestrated Test-Time Scaling , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.24403 , year =

  12. [20]

    Li, Haoyang and Zhang, Jing and Liu, Hanbing and Fan, Ju and Zhang, Xiaokang and Zhu, Jun and Wei, Renjie and Pan, Hongyan and Li, Cuiping and Chen, Hong , title =. Proc. ACM Manag. Data , month = may, articleno =. 2024 , issue_date =. doi:10.1145/3654930 , abstract =

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    2025 , eprint=

    SQL-R1: Training Natural Language to SQL Reasoning Model By Reinforcement Learning , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  14. [22]

    2025 , eprint=

    PaVeRL-SQL: Text-to-SQL via Partial-Match Rewards and Verbal Reinforcement Learning , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  15. [23]

    2026 , eprint=

    Progress-SQL: Improving Reinforcement Learning for Text-to-SQL via Progressive Rewards , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  16. [24]

    Reasoning-

    Mohammadreza Pourreza and Shayan Talaei and Ruoxi Sun and Xingchen Wan and Hailong Li and Azalia Mirhoseini and Amin Saberi and Sercan O Arik , booktitle=. Reasoning-. 2025 , url=

    2025

  17. [25]

    2026 , eprint=

    Arctic-Text2SQL-R1: Simple Rewards, Strong Reasoning in Text-to-SQL , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  18. [26]

    Li, Haoyang and Wu, Shang and Zhang, Xiaokang and Huang, Xinmei and Zhang, Jing and Jiang, Fuxin and Wang, Shuai and Zhang, Tieying and Chen, Jianjun and Shi, Rui and Chen, Hong and Li, Cuiping , title =. Proc. VLDB Endow. , month = jul, pages =. 2025 , issue_date =. doi:10.14...

    2025

  19. [27]

    The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

    On-Policy Distillation of Language Models: Learning from Self-Generated Mistakes , author=. The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

  20. [28]

    2026 , eprint=

    Self-Supervised On-Policy Distillation for Reasoning Language Models , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  21. [29]

    2026 , eprint=

    Rethinking On-Policy Distillation of Large Language Models: Phenomenology, Mechanism, and Recipe , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  22. [30]

    2026 , eprint=

    Revisiting On-Policy Distillation: Empirical Failure Modes and Simple Fixes , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  23. [31]

    2026 , eprint=

    Trust Region On-Policy Distillation , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  24. [32]

    Gao, Dawei and Wang, Haibin and Li, Yaliang and Sun, Xiuyu and Qian, Yichen and Ding, Bolin and Zhou, Jingren , title =. Proc. VLDB Endow. , month = jan, pages =. 2024 , issue_date =. doi:10.14778/3641204.3641221 , abstract =

    2024

  25. [33]

    2026 , eprint=

    DOPD: Dual On-policy Distillation , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  26. [34]

    2026 , eprint=

    On-Policy Distillation with Curriculum Turn-level Guidance for Multi-turn Agents , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  27. [35]

    2026 , eprint=

    ATOD: Annealed Turn-aware On-policy Distillation for Multi-turn Autonomous Agents , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  28. [36]

    2026 , eprint=

    Self-Distilled Agentic Reinforcement Learning , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  29. [37]

    2026 , eprint=

    What and When to Distill: Selective Hindsight Distillation for Multi-Turn Agents , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  30. [38]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11242 , year=

    Mac-sql: A multi-agent collaborative framework for text-to-sql , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11242 , year=

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    MTSQL -R1: Towards Long-Horizon Multi-Turn Text-to- SQL via Agentic Training

    Guo, Taicheng and Wang, Hai and Liu, Chaochun and Golalikhani, Mohsen and Chen, Xin and Zhang, Xiangliang and Reddy, Chandan K. MTSQL -R1: Towards Long-Horizon Multi-Turn Text-to- SQL via Agentic Training. Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the A ssociation for C omputa...

    2026 doi

  32. [40]

    R e E x- SQL : Reasoning with Execution-Aware Reinforcement Learning for Text-to- SQL

    Dai, Yaxun and Xie, Wenxuan and Zhuang, Xialie and Yang, Tianyu and Liu, Ziyi and Yang, Haiqin and Yang, Yiying and Zhao, Yuhang and Chao, Pingfu and Jiang, Wenhao. R e E x- SQL : Reasoning with Execution-Aware Reinforcement Learning for Text-to- SQL. Proceedings of the 64th A...

    2026 doi

  33. [41]

    and Rangwala, Huzefa

    Hua, Harper and Han, Zhen and Shen, Zhengyuan and Lee, Meng-Chieh and Guan, Sheng and Zhu, Qi and Jeoung, Sullam and Chen, Yueyan and Bai, Yunfei and Wang, Shuai and Ioannidis, Vassilis N. and Rangwala, Huzefa. SQL -Trail: Multi-Turn Reinforcement Learning with Interleaved Fee...

    2026 doi

  34. [42]

    SQL - ASTRA : Alleviating Sparse Feedback in Agentic SQL via Column-Set Matching and Trajectory Aggregation

    Li, Long and Zhou, Zhijian and Long, Jiangxuan and Liu, Peiyang and Xu, Weidi and Wang, Zhe and Pan, Shirui and Qu, Chao. SQL - ASTRA : Alleviating Sparse Feedback in Agentic SQL via Column-Set Matching and Trajectory Aggregation. Findings of the A ssociation for C omputationa...

    2026 doi

  35. [43]

    2026 , eprint=

    Every Step Counts: Step-Level Credit Assignment for Tool-Integrated Text-to-SQL , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  36. [44]

    2021 , eprint=

    Exploring Underexplored Limitations of Cross-Domain Text-to-SQL Generalization , author=. 2021 , eprint=

    2021

  37. [45]

    Spider 2.0: Evaluating Language Models on Real-World Enterprise Text-to-

    Fangyu Lei and Jixuan Chen and Yuxiao Ye and Ruisheng Cao and Dongchan Shin and Hongjin SU and ZHAOQING SUO and Hongcheng Gao and Wenjing Hu and Pengcheng Yin and Victor Zhong and Caiming Xiong and Ruoxi Sun and Qian Liu and Sida Wang and Tao Yu , booktitle=. Spider 2.0: Evalu...

    2025

  38. [46]

    2024 , eprint=

    Qwen2.5-Coder Technical Report , author=. 2024 , eprint=

    2024

  39. [47]

    ACM Comput

    Shi, Liang and Tang, Zhengju and Zhang, Nan and Zhang, Xiaotong and Yang, Zhi , title =. ACM Comput. Surv. , month = sep, articleno =. 2025 , issue_date =. doi:10.1145/3737873 , abstract =

    2025 doi

  40. [48]

    2025 , eprint=

    A Survey of Text-to-SQL in the Era of LLMs: Where are we, and where are we going? , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  41. [49]

    2025 , eprint=

    Next-Generation Database Interfaces: A Survey of LLM-based Text-to-SQL , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  42. [50]

    2026 , eprint=

    TRUST-SQL: Tool-Integrated Multi-Turn Reinforcement Learning for Text-to-SQL over Unknown Schemas , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  43. [51]

    2026 , eprint=

    ReViSQL: Achieving Human-Level Text-to-SQL , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  44. [52]

    2025 , eprint=

    MTIR-SQL: Multi-turn Tool-Integrated Reasoning Reinforcement Learning for Text-to-SQL , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.