Spider: A Large-Scale Human-Labeled Dataset for Complex and Cross-Domain Semantic Parsing and Text-to-SQL Task
Open accessAbstract
We present Spider, a large-scale, complex and cross-domain semantic parsing and text-to-SQL dataset annotated by 11 college students. It consists of 10,181 questions and 5,693 unique complex SQL queries on 200 databases with multiple tables, covering 138 different domains. We define a new complex and cross-domain semantic parsing and text-to-SQL task where different complex SQL queries and databases appear in train and test sets. In this way, the task requires the model to generalize well to both new SQL queries and new database schemas. Spider is distinct from most of the previous semantic parsing tasks because they all use a single database and the exact same programs in the train set and the test set. We experiment with various state-of-the-art models and the best model achieves only 12.4% exact matching accuracy on a database split setting. This shows that Spider presents a strong challenge for future research. Our dataset and task are publicly available at https://yale-lily.github.io/spider
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The authors of Spider categorized queries into four levels of difficulty (EASY, MEDIUM, HARD, XHARD), based on the syntax complexity of a reference SQL query.
“The authors of Spider categorized queries into four levels of difficulty (EASY, MEDIUM, HARD, XHARD), based on the syntax complexity of a reference SQL query.”
From LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation (2025) · cites this paper as [86]
Each original instruction in Spider is paired with a reference SQL solution.
“Each original instruction in Spider is paired with a reference SQL solution.”
From LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation (2025) · cites this paper as [86]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 42 · Cited by 193
- Authors
- Yu, T., Zhang, R., Yang, K., Yasunaga, M., Wang, D., Li, Z., Ma, J., Li, I., Yao, Q., Roman, S., Zhang, Z., & Radev, D.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2018
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1809.08887
- OpenAlex
- W2952380375
- Cited by
- 193
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Keywords
- text-to-SQL, semantic parsing, Spider dataset, domain generalization, human-annotated dataset, natural language question answering
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