The DOI matches its DataCite record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Semantic Evaluation for Text-to-SQL with Distilled Test Suites
Open accessAbstract
We propose test suite accuracy to approximate semantic accuracy for Text-to-SQL models. Our method distills a small test suite of databases that achieves high code coverage for the gold query from a large number of randomly generated databases. At evaluation time, it computes the denotation accuracy of the predicted queries on the distilled test suite, hence calculating a tight upper-bound for semantic accuracy efficiently. We use our proposed method to evaluate 21 models submitted to the Spider leader board and manually verify that our method is always correct on 100 examples. In contrast, the current Spider metric leads to a 2.5% false negative rate on average and 8.1% in the worst case, indicating that test suite accuracy is needed. Our implementation, along with distilled test suites for eleven Text-to-SQL datasets, is publicly available.
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 44 · Cited by 124
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhong, R., Yu, T., & Klein, D.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Yale University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Zhong, Ruiqi
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2020
- Pages
- 396-411
- arXiv
- 2010.02840
- OpenAlex
- W3102020135
- Cited by
- 124
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2026: 32 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 3.65
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
- Keywords
- text-to-SQL, semantic evaluation, code coverage, Spider benchmark, query processing, evaluation metrics
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
