XRICL: Cross-lingual Retrieval-Augmented In-Context Learning for Cross-lingual Text-to-SQL Semantic Parsing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In-context learning using large language models has recently shown surprising results for semantic parsing tasks such as Text-to-SQL translation.Prompting GPT-3 or Codex using several examples of question-SQL pairs can produce excellent results, comparable to state-of-the-art finetuning-based models.However, existing work primarily focuses on English datasets, and it is unknown whether large language models can serve as competitive semantic parsers for other languages.To bridge this gap, our work focuses on cross-lingual Text-to-SQL semantic parsing for translating non-English utterances into SQL queries based on an English schema.We consider a zero-shot transfer learning setting with the assumption that we do not have any labeled examples in the target language (but have annotated examples in English).This work introduces the XRICL framework, which learns to retrieve relevant English exemplars for a given query to construct prompts.We also include global translation exemplars for a target language to facilitate the translation process for large language models.To systematically evaluate our model, we construct two new benchmark datasets, XSPI-DER and XKAGGLE-DBQA, which include questions in Chinese, Vietnamese, Farsi, and Hindi.Our experiments show that XRICL effectively leverages large pre-trained language models to outperform existing baselines.Data and code are publicly available at https:// github.com/Impavidity/XRICL.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.010 |
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".