Learning Contextual Representations for Semantic Parsing with Generation-Augmented Pre-Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most recently, there has been significant interest in learning contextual representations for various NLP tasks, by leveraging large scale text corpora to train powerful language models with self-supervised learning objectives, such as Masked Language Model (MLM). Based on a pilot study, we observe three issues of existing general-purpose language models when they are applied in the text-to-SQL semantic parsers: fail to detect the column mentions in the utterances, to infer the column mentions from the cell values, and to compose target SQL queries when they are complex. To mitigate these issues, we present a model pretraining framework, Generation-Augmented Pre-training (GAP), that jointly learns representations of natural language utterance and table schemas, by leveraging generation models to generate high-quality pre-train data. GAP Model is trained on 2 million utterance-schema pairs and 30K utterance-schema-SQL triples, whose utterances are generated by generation models. Based on experimental results, neural semantic parsers that leverage GAP Model as a representation encoder obtain new state-of-the-art results on both Spider and Criteria-to-SQL benchmarks.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".