MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Talk to your data: Enhancing Business Intelligence and Inventory Management with LLM-Driven Semantic Parsing and Text-to-SQL for Database Querying

2023· article· en· W4401608896 on OpenAlexaff
Jerry Zhu, Saad Ahmed Bazaz, Srimonti Dutta, Bhavaraju Anuraag, Imran Haider, Srijita Bandopadhyay

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of Bahrain
KeywordsComputer scienceBusiness intelligenceSQLParsingInformation retrievalDatabaseStored procedureNatural language processingQuery by ExampleSearch engine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper delves into the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) in revolutionizing business intelligence and inventory management through semantic parsing and text-to-SQL methodologies. It assesses various LLM models, such as DIN-SQL, DSP, NSQL, GPT, CoPilot, and LLaMa, elucidating their capabilities and contributions. Two critical analyses are presented here. The first compares cutting-edge LLM models using cosine similarity and cost efficiency metrics. The second analysis enhances GPT’s precision through prompt engineerings, like few-shot techniques, and explores frameworks like DIN-SQL, NSQL, and DSP. DIN-SQL substantially boosts accuracy, and NSQL demonstrates potential in specific scenarios. This research underscores the transformative potential of LLM-driven models in business intelligence and inventory management. DIN-SQL, in particular, emerges as a game-changer with the potential to reshape inventory management practices. GPT showcases its versatility through fine-tuning for tasks beyond conventional programming, while CoPilot offers a cost-effective alternative. This study emphasizes the importance of cost-effectiveness in real-world applications, with LLaMa and CoPilot being practical choices. NSQL, with its budget-friendly and semi-accurate solution, holds promise for semantic parsing in growing companies. These insights are a foundation for further innovation, promising unmatched efficiency and competitiveness across industries in the evolving Artificial intelligence landscape.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.010
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Database Systems and QueriesFrench-language works237,207