TasksSotADatasetsPapersMethodsSubmitAbout
Papers With Code 2

A community resource for machine learning research: papers, code, benchmarks, and state-of-the-art results.

Explore

Notable BenchmarksAll SotADatasetsPapersMethods

Community

Submit ResultsAbout

Data sourced from the PWC Archive (CC-BY-SA 4.0). Built by the community, for the community.

Papers/Can LLM Already Serve as A Database Interface? A BIg Bench...

Can LLM Already Serve as A Database Interface? A BIg Bench for Large-Scale Database Grounded Text-to-SQLs

Jinyang Li, Binyuan Hui, Ge Qu, Jiaxi Yang, Binhua Li, Bowen Li, Bailin Wang, Bowen Qin, Rongyu Cao, Ruiying Geng, Nan Huo, Xuanhe Zhou, Chenhao Ma, Guoliang Li, Kevin C. C. Chang, Fei Huang, Reynold Cheng, Yongbin Li

2023-05-04NeurIPS 2023 11Semantic ParsingText-To-SQLSQL Parsing
PaperPDFCode

Abstract

Text-to-SQL parsing, which aims at converting natural language instructions into executable SQLs, has gained increasing attention in recent years. In particular, Codex and ChatGPT have shown impressive results in this task. However, most of the prevalent benchmarks, i.e., Spider, and WikiSQL, focus on database schema with few rows of database contents leaving the gap between academic study and real-world applications. To mitigate this gap, we present Bird, a big benchmark for large-scale database grounded in text-to-SQL tasks, containing 12,751 pairs of text-to-SQL data and 95 databases with a total size of 33.4 GB, spanning 37 professional domains. Our emphasis on database values highlights the new challenges of dirty database contents, external knowledge between NL questions and database contents, and SQL efficiency, particularly in the context of massive databases. To solve these problems, text-to-SQL models must feature database value comprehension in addition to semantic parsing. The experimental results demonstrate the significance of database values in generating accurate text-to-SQLs for big databases. Furthermore, even the most effective text-to-SQL models, i.e. ChatGPT, only achieves 40.08% in execution accuracy, which is still far from the human result of 92.96%, proving that challenges still stand. Besides, we also provide an efficiency analysis to offer insights into generating text-to-efficient-SQLs that are beneficial to industries. We believe that BIRD will contribute to advancing real-world applications of text-to-SQL research. The leaderboard and source code are available: https://bird-bench.github.io/.

Results

TaskDatasetMetricValueModel
Semantic ParsingBIRD (BIg Bench for LaRge-scale Database Grounded Text-to-SQL Evaluation)Execution Accuracy % (Dev)36.64CoT + ChatGPT
Semantic ParsingBIRD (BIg Bench for LaRge-scale Database Grounded Text-to-SQL Evaluation)Execution Accuracy % (Test)40.08CoT + ChatGPT
Semantic ParsingBIRD (BIg Bench for LaRge-scale Database Grounded Text-to-SQL Evaluation)Execution Accuracy % (Dev)37.22ChatGPT (Baseline)
Semantic ParsingBIRD (BIg Bench for LaRge-scale Database Grounded Text-to-SQL Evaluation)Execution Accuracy % (Test)39.3ChatGPT (Baseline)
Semantic ParsingBIRD (BIg Bench for LaRge-scale Database Grounded Text-to-SQL Evaluation)Execution Accuracy % (Dev)34.35Codex (Baseline)
Semantic ParsingBIRD (BIg Bench for LaRge-scale Database Grounded Text-to-SQL Evaluation)Execution Accuracy % (Test)36.47Codex (Baseline)
Semantic ParsingBIRD (BIg Bench for LaRge-scale Database Grounded Text-to-SQL Evaluation)Execution Accuracy % (Dev)27.38Palm-2 (Baseline)
Semantic ParsingBIRD (BIg Bench for LaRge-scale Database Grounded Text-to-SQL Evaluation)Execution Accuracy % (Test)33.04Palm-2 (Baseline)
Semantic ParsingBIRD (BIg Bench for LaRge-scale Database Grounded Text-to-SQL Evaluation)Execution Accurarcy (Human)92.96Human Performance
Text-To-SQLBIRD (BIg Bench for LaRge-scale Database Grounded Text-to-SQL Evaluation)Execution Accuracy % (Dev)36.64CoT + ChatGPT
Text-To-SQLBIRD (BIg Bench for LaRge-scale Database Grounded Text-to-SQL Evaluation)Execution Accuracy % (Test)40.08CoT + ChatGPT
Text-To-SQLBIRD (BIg Bench for LaRge-scale Database Grounded Text-to-SQL Evaluation)Execution Accuracy % (Dev)37.22ChatGPT (Baseline)
Text-To-SQLBIRD (BIg Bench for LaRge-scale Database Grounded Text-to-SQL Evaluation)Execution Accuracy % (Test)39.3ChatGPT (Baseline)
Text-To-SQLBIRD (BIg Bench for LaRge-scale Database Grounded Text-to-SQL Evaluation)Execution Accuracy % (Dev)34.35Codex (Baseline)
Text-To-SQLBIRD (BIg Bench for LaRge-scale Database Grounded Text-to-SQL Evaluation)Execution Accuracy % (Test)36.47Codex (Baseline)
Text-To-SQLBIRD (BIg Bench for LaRge-scale Database Grounded Text-to-SQL Evaluation)Execution Accuracy % (Dev)27.38Palm-2 (Baseline)
Text-To-SQLBIRD (BIg Bench for LaRge-scale Database Grounded Text-to-SQL Evaluation)Execution Accuracy % (Test)33.04Palm-2 (Baseline)
Text-To-SQLBIRD (BIg Bench for LaRge-scale Database Grounded Text-to-SQL Evaluation)Execution Accurarcy (Human)92.96Human Performance

Related Papers

CogniSQL-R1-Zero: Lightweight Reinforced Reasoning for Efficient SQL Generation2025-07-08XiYan-SQL: A Novel Multi-Generator Framework For Text-to-SQL2025-07-07Where, What, Why: Towards Explainable Driver Attention Prediction2025-06-29SWE-SQL: Illuminating LLM Pathways to Solve User SQL Issues in Real-World Applications2025-06-23Schema-R1: A reasoning training approach for schema linking in Text-to-SQL Task2025-06-13Bridging the Gap Between Open-Source and Proprietary LLMs in Table QA2025-06-11LLM-Driven Data Generation and a Novel Soft Metric for Evaluating Text-to-SQL in Aviation MRO2025-06-11HI-SQL: Optimizing Text-to-SQL Systems through Dynamic Hint Integration2025-06-11