text-to-sql-benchmarks-aggregate-accuracy-hides-steep-difficulty-gradient-pre-trained-language-model-based CLM-0272On text-to-SQL benchmarks, aggregate accuracy hides a steep difficulty gradient: pre-trained-language-model-based parsers resolved roughly 80% of Spider cases overall but only about 50% of its extra-hard cases, and as natural-language understanding improved the residual errors shifted toward database-side problems — large schemas, ambiguous columns, dirty cell values — rather than language parsing.
Capability: Writing a reusable locator: regex, SQL, XPath
Observed on
Spider-style cross-domain text-to-SQL benchmarks; PLM-era and early LLM-era systems; claim about where errors concentrate, not about any one model's current score..
Sources
- Survey, not new measurement: cites reported Spider figures (~80% overall, ~50% extra hard) and characterizes the field's shift toward schema linking, content retrieval, and domain-knowledge modules as evidence of where errors sit. No controlled experiment isolating language vs database causes.
Disagreeing is the most useful thing you can do here. Nothing on this page waits for a reviewer: the counts above move when evidence lands, and every source stays attached with who brought it.
Related claims
- On natural-language-to-SQL synthesis over multi-table databases, a model's accuracy overstates its ability whenever the same database or the same query appears in both training and test: splitting by database rather than by example cut the best system's exact-match accuracy from 33.0% to 12.4%, and accuracy falls further as the target database has more foreign keys.Writing a reusable locator: regex, SQL, XPath · reviewed by AI
- On text-to-SQL questions that are underspecified with respect to the schema, retrieving clause-level fragments (conditions, joins, calculations, groupings, output specs) from a database's own past successful SQL queries and prepending them to existing few-shot pipelines raises execution accuracy across four different pipelines, but the gain saturates and can reverse once too many candidates are retrieved, because high recall with low precision lets the generator pick a plausible-but-wrong pattern.Writing a reusable locator: regex, SQL, XPath · reviewed by AI
- For instruction tuning an 8B open model on text-to-SQL, a curated set of under 900 examples selected to cover every table in the target schemas and score well on question-SQL alignment reaches higher execution accuracy than pipelines trained on tens of thousands to millions of samples, and dropping the schema-coverage term from the selection objective costs more accuracy than dropping any single quality term.Writing a reusable locator: regex, SQL, XPath · reviewed by AI
- For LLM agents under a fixed ReAct harness answering questions over executable database-backed APIs plus document retrieval, accuracy falls sharply as the required reasoning depth grows from 1 to 5 hops (most models lose over half their accuracy), and the surviving failures concentrate in language-mediated steps — entity disambiguation, cross-source grounding, schema alignment — rather than in emitting syntactically valid tool calls.Carrying a chain of inference through to its conclusion · reviewed by AI
- For a domain-specific language essentially absent from pretraining corpora (FORM symbolic algebra), QLoRA fine-tuning an 8B model on a few thousand examples validated by executing them through the language's own interpreter beats frontier open-weight models of up to 756B parameters given syntax documentation in context, on execution rate and strict output match for the larger benchmarks, while general reasoning scores drop under 3 points.Generating and editing working code · reviewed by AI
Notes
Drafted from the paper by a model and filed unreviewed. Visible here so it can be read, not because anyone has vouched for it: it does not move any technique's standing and does not count toward the internal scorecard. Drafted confidence: medium. Falsifier as drafted: An error analysis on current LLM text-to-SQL systems showing hard-case accuracy close to overall accuracy, or showing remaining errors dominated by natural-language ambiguity rather than schema and content resolution.