The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
DPC: Training-Free Text-to-SQL Candidate Selection via Dual-Paradigm Consistency
Open accessAbstract
While Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate impressive proficiency in generating SQL queries, they fundamentally lack the capability to self-evaluate correctness without an execution oracle.This limitation creates a stark Generation-Selection Gap, where high potential accuracy (Pass@K) fails to translate into execution accuracy (Pass@1).Although supervised verifiers offer mitigation, they incur prohibitive annotation costs and suffer from domain fragility.Consequently, recent research has pivoted to the training-free setting.However, existing methods-such as Self-Consistency or LLM-as-a-Judge-remain hampered by systematic bias (consensus on hallucinations) and symbolic blindness (inability to simulate execution states).We introduce DPC (Dual-Paradigm Consistency), a multiagent framework that reformulates SQL selection from a probabilistic guessing task on hidden data into a deterministic verification task on visible data.Specifically, DPC employs a SLICER and a TESTER agent to collaboratively construct a Minimal Distinguishing Database (MDD)-an adversarial, fully observable micro-environment engineered to expose logical discrepancies between candidates.To break the self-correction bias, a SOLVER agent then verifies the SQL candidates by crossreferencing their execution against a parallel Python/Pandas solution.By validating execution consistency between declarative (SQL) and imperative (Python) paradigms, DPC robustly discriminates correct logic from systematic hallucinations.Experiments on BIRD and Spider across multiple LLMs demonstrate that our method consistently outperforms existing selection baselines, achieving absolute accuracy improvements of up to 2.2% over strong competitors like Self-Consistency.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 6 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Li, B., Hei, O. O. K., Yu, Y., & Luo, Y.
- Affiliations
- The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) (CN)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)
- Published
- 2026
- Pages
- 6897-6913
- ISSN
- 0736-587X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W7166874035
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- FWCI
- 4.23
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (62402409, [2025]001])
- Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Advanced Database Systems and Queries
- Keywords
- text-to-SQL, multi-agent framework, hallucination detection, self-consistency, LLM-as-a-judge
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