Reliable Text-to-SQL with Adaptive Abstention
Open accessAbstract
Large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language interfaces for databases, particularly in text-to-SQL conversion. However, current approaches often generate unreliable outputs when faced with ambiguity or insufficient context. We present Reliable Text-to-SQL (RTS), a novel framework that enhances query generation reliability by incorporating abstention and human-in-the-loop mechanisms. RTS focuses on the critical schema linking phase, which aims to identify the key database elements needed for generating SQL queries. It autonomously detects potential errors during the answer generation process and responds by either abstaining or engaging in user interaction. A vital component of RTS is the Branching Point Prediction (BPP) which utilizes statistical conformal techniques on the hidden layers of the LLM model for schema linking, providing probabilistic guarantees on schema linking accuracy. We validate our approach through comprehensive experiments on the BIRD benchmark, demonstrating significant improvements in robustness and reliability. Our findings highlight the potential of combining transparent-box LLMs with human-in-the-loop processes to create more robust natural language interfaces for databases. For the BIRD benchmark, our approach achieves near-perfect schema linking accuracy, autonomously involving a human when needed. Combined with query generation, we demonstrate that near-perfect schema linking and a small query generation model can almost match SOTA accuracy achieved with a model orders of magnitude larger than the one we use.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer
Raffel, C., Shazeer, N., Roberts, A., Lee, K., Narang, S., Matena, M., Zhou, Y., Li, W., & Liu, P. J. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1910.10683 · Cited by 10,929 · see citing works
Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation
Ji, Z., Lee, N., Frieske, R., Yu, T., Su, D., Xu, Y., Ishii, E., Bang, Y. J., Madotto, A., & Fung, P. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3571730 · Cited by 5,025 · see citing works
Liu, P., Yuan, W., Fu, J., Jiang, Z., Hayashi, H., & Neubig, G. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3560815 · Cited by 4,361 · see citing works
A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models
Chang, Y., Wang, X., Wang, J., Wu, Y., Yang, L., Zhu, K., Chen, H., Yi, X., Wang, C., Wang, Y., et al. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/3641289 · Cited by 2,842 · see citing works
A review of uncertainty quantification in deep learning: Techniques, applications and challenges
Abdar, M., Pourpanah, F., Hussain, S., Rezazadegan, D., Liu, L., Ghavamzadeh, M., Fieguth, P., Cao, X., Khosravi, A., Acharya, U. R., et al. (2021) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2021.05.008 · Cited by 2,720 · see citing works
A tutorial on conformal prediction
Shafer, G., & Vovk, V. (2007) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.0706.3188 · Cited by 655 · see citing works
SelfCheckGPT: Zero-Resource Black-Box Hallucination Detection for Generative Large Language Models
Manakul, P., Liusie, A., & Gales, M. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.557 · Cited by 557 · see citing works
TaBERT: Pretraining for Joint Understanding of Textual and Tabular Data
Yin, P., Neubig, G., Yih, W.-T., & Riedel, S. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.745 · Cited by 487 · see citing works
Inductive Confidence Machines for Regression
Papadopoulos, H., Proedrou, K., Vovk, V., & Gammerman, A. (2002) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/3-540-36755-1_29 · Cited by 346 · see citing works
Text-to-SQL Empowered by Large Language Models: A Benchmark Evaluation
Gao, D., Wang, H., Li, Y., Sun, X., Qian, Y., Ding, B., & Zhou, J. (2024) · Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment · doi:10.14778/3641204.3641221 · Cited by 342 · see citing works
Calibration of Pre-trained Transformers
Desai, S., & Durrett, G. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.21 · Cited by 209 · see citing works
The Internal State of an LLM Knows When It's Lying
Azaria, A., & Mitchell, T. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.13734 · Cited by 179 · see citing works
The Internal State of an LLM Knows When It’s Lying
Azaria, A., & Mitchell, T. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.68 · Cited by 175 · see citing works
Correcting Length Bias in Neural Machine Translation
Murray, K., & Chiang, D. (2018) · Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Research Papers · doi:10.18653/v1/w18-6322 · Cited by 133 · see citing works
A Survey of Confidence Estimation and Calibration in Large Language Models . -
Geng, J., Cai, F., Wang, Y., Koeppl, H., Nakov, P., & Gurevych, I. (2024) · Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.366 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
Reducing conversational agents' overconfidence through linguistic calibration
Mielke, S. J., Szlam, A., Dinan, E., & Boureau, Y.-L. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2012.14983 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Reducing Conversational Agents’ Overconfidence Through Linguistic Calibration
Mielke, S. J., Szlam, A., Dinan, E., & Boureau, Y.-L. (2022) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00494 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Chen, K., Chen, Y., Koudas, N., & Yu, X.
- Affiliations
- University of Toronto (CA)
- Seattle University (US)
- York University (CA)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data
- Published
- 2025-02-10
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-30
- ISSN
- 2836-6573 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4407356147
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 5
- FWCI
- 3.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Advanced Database Systems and Queries
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- text-to-SQL, schema linking, natural language interfaces to databases, large language models, human-in-the-loop, BIRD benchmark
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
