Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

ErrorLLM: Modeling SQL Errors for Text-to-SQL Refinement

Zijin Hong, Hao Chen, Zheng Yuan, Qinggang Zhang, Luyao Zhuang, Qing Liao, Feiran Huang, Yangqiu Song, Xiao Huang · Mar 4, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Despite the remarkable performance of large language models (LLMs) in text-to-SQL (SQL generation), correctly producing SQL queries remains challenging during initial generation. The SQL refinement task is subsequently introduced to correct syntactic and semantic errors in generated SQL queries. However, existing paradigms face two major limitations: (i) self-debugging becomes increasingly ineffective as modern LLMs rarely produce explicit execution errors that can trigger debugging signals; (ii) self-correction exhibits low detection precision due to the lack of explicit error modeling grounded in the question and schema, and suffers from severe hallucination that frequently corrupts correct SQLs. In this paper, we propose ErrorLLM, a framework that explicitly models text-to-SQL Errors within a dedicated LLM for text-to-SQL refinement. Specifically, we represent the user question and database schema as structural features, employ static detection to identify execution failures and surface mismatches, and extend ErrorLLM's semantic space with dedicated error tokens that capture categorized implicit semantic error types. Through a well-designed training strategy, we explicitly model these errors with structural representations, enabling the LLM to detect complex implicit errors by predicting dedicated error tokens. Guided by the detected errors, we perform error-guided refinement on the SQL structure by prompting LLMs. Extensive experiments demonstrate that ErrorLLM achieves the most significant improvements over backbone initial generation. Further analysis reveals that detection quality directly determines refinement effectiveness, and ErrorLLM addresses both sides by high detection F1 score while maintain refinement effectiveness.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 35%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Despite the remarkable performance of large language models (LLMs) in text-to-SQL (SQL generation), correctly producing SQL queries remains challenging during initial generation."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Despite the remarkable performance of large language models (LLMs) in text-to-SQL (SQL generation), correctly producing SQL queries remains challenging during initial generation."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Despite the remarkable performance of large language models (LLMs) in text-to-SQL (SQL generation), correctly producing SQL queries remains challenging during initial generation."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Despite the remarkable performance of large language models (LLMs) in text-to-SQL (SQL generation), correctly producing SQL queries remains challenging during initial generation."

Reported Metrics

partial

F1, Precision

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"However, existing paradigms face two major limitations: (i) self-debugging becomes increasingly ineffective as modern LLMs rarely produce explicit execution errors that can trigger debugging signals; (ii) self-correction exhibits low detection precision due to the lack of explicit error modeling grounded in the question and schema, and suffers from severe hallucination that frequently corrupts correct SQLs."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

f1precision

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Despite the remarkable performance of large language models (LLMs) in text-to-SQL (SQL generation), correctly producing SQL queries remains challenging during initial generation.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Despite the remarkable performance of large language models (LLMs) in text-to-SQL (SQL generation), correctly producing SQL queries remains challenging during initial generation.
  • The SQL refinement task is subsequently introduced to correct syntactic and semantic errors in generated SQL queries.
  • However, existing paradigms face two major limitations: (i) self-debugging becomes increasingly ineffective as modern LLMs rarely produce explicit execution errors that can trigger debugging signals; (ii) self-correction exhibits low detection precision due to the lack of explicit error modeling grounded in the question and schema, and suffers from severe hallucination that frequently corrupts correct SQLs.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

F1

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • In this paper, we propose ErrorLLM, a framework that explicitly models text-to-SQL Errors within a dedicated LLM for text-to-SQL refinement.
  • Further analysis reveals that detection quality directly determines refinement effectiveness, and ErrorLLM addresses both sides by high detection F1 score while maintain refinement effectiveness.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Abstract shows limited direct human-feedback or evaluation-protocol detail; use as adjacent methodological context.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: f1, precision

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.