Towards a Natural Language Query Processing System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tackling the information retrieval gap between non-technical database end-users and those with the knowledge of formal query languages has been an interesting area of data management and analytics research. The use of natural language interfaces to query information from databases offers the opportunity to bridge the communication challenges between endusers and systems that use formal query languages. Previous research efforts mainly focused on developing structured query interfaces to relational databases. However, the evolution of unstructured big data such as text, images, and video has exposed the limitations of traditional structured query interfaces. While the existing web search tools prove the popularity and usability of natural language query, they return complete documents and web pages instead of focused query responses and are not applicable to database systems. This paper reports our study on the design and development of a natural language query interface to a backend relational database. The novelty in the study lies in defining a graph database as a middle layer to store necessary metadata needed to transform a natural language query into structured query language that can be executed on backend databases. We implemented and evaluated our approach using a restaurant dataset. The translation results for some sample queries yielded a 90% accuracy rate.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".