Sparks of Tabular Reasoning via Text2SQL Reinforcement Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work reframes the Text-to-SQL task as a pathway for teaching large language models (LLMs) to reason over and manipulate tabular data-moving beyond the traditional focus on query generation.We propose a twostage framework that leverages SQL supervision to develop transferable table reasoning capabilities.First, we synthesize detailed chainof-thought (CoT) traces from real-world SQL queries, providing step-by-step, clause-level supervision that teaches the model how to traverse, filter, and aggregate table fields.Second, we introduce a Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) reinforcement learning objective that connects SQL execution accuracy to generalizable reasoning by encouraging steps that extend beyond task-specific syntax and transfer across datasets.Empirically, our approach improves performance on standard Text-to-SQL benchmarks and achieves substantial gains on reasoningintensive datasets such as BIRD, CRT-QA and Tablebench, demonstrating enhanced generalization and interpretability.Specifically, the distilled-quantized LLaMA-8B model achieved a 34% relative increase in exact match scores on CRT-QA when trained on Text-to-SQL tasks, while Qwen-2.5-7Bachieved a 10% and Qwen-2.5-14B a 6% relative increase.These results suggest that SQL can serve not only as a target formalism but also as an effective scaffold for learning robust, transferable reasoning over structured data.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".