The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
CHESS: Contextual Harnessing for Efficient SQL Synthesis
Open accessAbstract
Translating natural language questions into SQL queries, known as text-to-SQL, is a long-standing research problem. Effective text-to-SQL synthesis can become very challenging due to (i) the extensive size of database catalogs (descriptions of tables and their columns) and database values, (ii) reasoning over large database schemas, (iii) ensuring the functional validity of the generated queries, and (iv) navigating the ambiguities of natural language questions. We introduce CHESS, a Large Language Model (LLM) based multi-agent framework for efficient and scalable SQL synthesis, comprising four specialized agents, each targeting one of the aforementioned challenges: the Information Retriever (IR) extracts relevant data, the Schema Selector (SS) prunes large schemas, the Candidate Generator (CG) generates high-quality candidates and refines queries iteratively, and the Unit Tester (UT) validates queries through LLM-based natural language unit tests. Our framework offers configurable features that adapt to various deployment constraints, including 1) Supporting industrial-scale databases: leveraging the Schema Selector agent, CHESS efficiently narrows down very large database schemas into manageable sub-schemas, boosting system accuracy by approximately $2\%$ and reducing the number of LLM tokens by $\times 5$. 2) State-of-the-Art privacy-preserving performance: Among the methods using open-source models, CHESS achieves state-of-the-art performance, resulting in a high-performing, privacy-preserving system suitable for industrial deployment. 3) Scalablity with additional compute budget: In settings with high computational budgets, CHESS achieves $71.10\%$ accuracy on the BIRD test set, within $2\%$ of the leading proprietary method, while requiring approximately $83\%$ fewer LLM calls.
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
Cites
RULER: What's the Real Context Size of Your Long-Context Language Models?
Hsieh, C.-P., Sun, S., Kriman, S., Acharya, S., Rekesh, D., Jia, F., Zhang, Y., & Ginsburg, B. (2024) · arXiv · Cited by 1,068 · cited 1×
“Even if feasible, it can negatively impact the LLM’s reasoning capabilities, as demonstrated in [Hsieh et al., 2024] and our own ablation studies in Section 4.5.”
BackgroundInfluential
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Spider 2.0: Evaluating Language Models on Real-World Enterprise Text-to-SQL Workflows
Lei, F., Chen, J., Ye, Y., Cao, R., Shin, D., Su, H., Suo, Z., Gao, H., Hu, W., Yin, P., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.07763 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Talaei, S., Pourreza, M., Chang, Y.-C., Mirhoseini, A., & Saberi, A.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2405.16755
- OpenAlex
- W4399115971
- Cited by
- 119
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 72 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 4
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- 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 › Information Systems › Advanced Database Systems and Queries
- Keywords
- text-to-SQL, multi-agent framework, large language models, information retrieval, query validation, privacy-preserving inference, 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