Natural Language Interfaces for Tabular Data Querying and Visualization: A Survey
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emergence of natural language processing has revolutionized the way users interact with tabular data, enabling a shift from traditional query languages and manual plotting to more intuitive, language-based interfaces. The rise of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and its successors has further advanced this field, opening new avenues for natural language processing techniques. This survey presents a comprehensive overview of natural language interfaces for tabular data querying and visualization, which allow users to interact with data using natural language queries. We introduce the fundamental concepts and techniques underlying these interfaces with a particular emphasis on semantic parsing, the key technology facilitating the translation from natural language to SQL queries or data visualization commands. We then delve into the recent advancements in Text-to-SQL and Text-to-Vis problems from the perspectives of datasets, methodologies, metrics, and system designs. This includes a deep dive into the influence of LLMs, highlighting their strengths, limitations, and potential for future improvements. Through this survey, we aim to provide a roadmap for researchers and practitioners interested in developing and applying natural language interfaces for data interaction in the era of large language models.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it