PreprintCited by 193Natural Language Processing TechniquesTopic ModelingSpeech and dialogue systems

Spider: A Large-Scale Human-Labeled Dataset for Complex and Cross-Domain Semantic Parsing and Text-to-SQL Task

Open access
Yu, Tao, Zhang, Rui, Yang, Kai, Yasunaga, Michihiro, Wang, Dongxu, Li, Zifan, Ma, James, Li, Irene +4 more·2018·arXiv

Abstract

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1809.08887

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2018
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
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
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