REVIEW 1 cited by
DBTagger: Multi-Task Learning for Keyword Mapping in NLIDBs Using Bi-Directional Recurrent Neural Networks
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
DBTagger: Multi-Task Learning for Keyword Mapping in NLIDBs Using Bi-Directional Recurrent Neural Networks
read the original abstract
Translating Natural Language Queries (NLQs) to Structured Query Language (SQL) in interfaces deployed in relational databases is a challenging task, which has been widely studied in database community recently. Conventional rule based systems utilize series of solutions as a pipeline to deal with each step of this task, namely stop word filtering, tokenization, stemming/lemmatization, parsing, tagging, and translation. Recent works have mostly focused on the translation step overlooking the earlier steps by using ad-hoc solutions. In the pipeline, one of the most critical and challenging problems is keyword mapping; constructing a mapping between tokens in the query and relational database elements (tables, attributes, values, etc.). We define the keyword mapping problem as a sequence tagging problem, and propose a novel deep learning based supervised approach that utilizes POS tags of NLQs. Our proposed approach, called \textit{DBTagger} (DataBase Tagger), is an end-to-end and schema independent solution, which makes it practical for various relational databases. We evaluate our approach on eight different datasets, and report new state-of-the-art accuracy results, $92.4\%$ on the average. Our results also indicate that DBTagger is faster than its counterparts up to $10000$ times and scalable for bigger databases.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
RAG Strategies for Natural Language-Based SQL Query and REST API Call Generation
In a 631-case enterprise benchmark, iterative retrieval (CoRAG) achieved 10.29% exact match vs 7.45% for standard RAG on combined SQL/API generation with hybrid documentation, while no-RAG gives 0% exact match.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.