FERN: Cross-Benchmark Table Retrieval for Text-to-SQL with Frozen Retrievers and Learned Ranking
Abstract
Domain fit: AI-adjacent · Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
Text-to-SQL systems over large pooled catalogs must first retrieve the tables a question needs. We compare against the published table recall of RASL, which uses Claude 3.5 models to extract keywords and select tables, on pooled BIRD, Spider, and Fiben catalogs. FERN (Feature-Engineered Ranking with No generative LLM) instead fuses three frozen retrievers into 100 candidates, describes each with up to 120 features, and reorders them with LightGBM rankers fitted once on BIRD's training questions. On Spider, where it was not fitted, its candidate pool alone reaches RASL's published recall at fifteen tables (98.0), and the ranker raises the share of questions with every gold table in the top five (complete@5) from 83.9% to 95.6%. At five tables, FERN's recall is within one point of RASL's on Spider (96.7 vs 97.0) and on BIRD with its evidence hints (96.6 vs 97.5), and 8.2 points below on BIRD without them (89.3). On 121 real BEAVER questions, without BEAVER fitting, its recall at fifteen (82.1) falls between two BEAVER-trained retrievers (80.8, 84.5), but its complete@15 is below both (49.6 vs 54.5 and 62.0). On Fiben, it falls far short at fifteen tables (54.2 vs 69.2, different question sets), although its recall at fifty is numerically close to RASL's question-only retrieval result (80.7 vs 79.4). On BIRD dev with evidence, non-retrieval features raise complete@5 by 7.7 points over retrieval signals alone. On BIRD dev, median latency is 208 ms per question on one A100, without hosted model calls.
Results and benchmarks
Text-to-SQL systems over large pooled catalogs must first retrieve the tables a question needs.
| Task | Dataset | Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Retrieval / indexing | BIRD, evidence | Recall@5 | 50.1 | paper-derived |
| Retrieval / indexing | FERN-ev | Recall@5 | 98.5 | paper-derived |
Audit each benchmark finding before selecting an implementation path. Evidence refs map to the disclosure below.
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 95/100, grounding 68/100, status medium.
Implementation
No direct implementation yet
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Time to first repro: a few days
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hardware requirements
- On BIRD dev, median latency is 208 ms per question on one A100, without hosted model calls.
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Models
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Tasks
Retrieval / indexing, Scientific computing
Methods
Transformer, Retrieval-augmented generation
Domains
Large Language Models, Information Retrieval
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXJump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.