MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3202137189 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2109.13066

Prefix-to-SQL: Text-to-SQL Generation from Incomplete User Questions

2021· preprint· en· W3202137189 on OpenAlexaff
Naihao Deng, Shuaichen Chang, Peng Shi, Tao Yu, Rui Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSQLPrefixTask (project management)Data definition languageBenchmark (surveying)Construct (python library)SQL injectionStored procedureMetric (unit)SQL/PSMProgramming languageDatabaseQuery by ExampleInformation retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Existing text-to-SQL research only considers complete questions as the input, but lay-users might strive to formulate a complete question. To build a smarter natural language interface to database systems (NLIDB) that also processes incomplete questions, we propose a new task, prefix-to-SQL which takes question prefix from users as the input and predicts the intended SQL. We construct a new benchmark called PAGSAS that contains 124K user question prefixes and the intended SQL for 5 sub-tasks Advising, GeoQuery, Scholar, ATIS, and Spider. Additionally, we propose a new metric SAVE to measure how much effort can be saved by users. Experimental results show that PAGSAS is challenging even for strong baseline models such as T5. As we observe the difficulty of prefix-to-SQL is related to the number of omitted tokens, we incorporate curriculum learning of feeding examples with an increasing number of omitted tokens. This improves scores on various sub-tasks by as much as 9% recall scores on sub-task GeoQuery in PAGSAS.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.530
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.114
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.088 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207