Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

How Far Do On-Prem Open LLMs Get on Text-to-SQL? A Cross-Family Size x Technique Frontier on BIRD

Vladimir Beskorovainyi · Jun 29, 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

Organizations that cannot send data to a cloud API increasingly ask: how good is Text-to-SQL if the model must run on-premises on open weights, and which popular accuracy "recipes" are worth their compute? We answer with an honest, fully reproducible benchmark on the BIRD development split (n=1534, Execution Accuracy), evaluating three open model families across two generations -- Qwen2.5-Coder (7B/14B/32B), CodeLlama-Instruct (7B/13B/34B), and Llama-3.x (8B, 70B) -- under one matched protocol, ablating a model-agnostic recipe (schema linking, self-correction, self-consistency) component by component, with every difference tested by the paired McNemar test. Four findings stand out. (i) Generation matters more than raw size, and the recipe is family-robust: Qwen2.5-Coder dominates the older CodeLlama at matched size (39.1 vs 20.9 at 7B), but a modern non-Qwen model (Llama-3.3-70B, 49.2 on a matched serving) is competitive, so CodeLlama's weakness reflects its 2023 generation, not "non-Qwen = weak". (ii) Self-correction is a robust, near-free win, significant on all three families where there is room to improve. (iii) Schema linking does not help, and a stronger linker does not rescue it: a retrieval/embedding linker with 96.5% gold-table recall is statistically indistinguishable from no linking, ruling out the "weak lexical strawman" objection across three families. (iv) Self-consistency is poor value (+0.13 pp for ~5x tokens, not significant). We report real per-stage cost ($/1k queries) and release all code, predictions, and summaries; archived code and data: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20952794

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 benchmark-and-metrics comparison anchor.

Main weakness

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

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

5/100 • 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 45%

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.

"Organizations that cannot send data to a cloud API increasingly ask: how good is Text-to-SQL if the model must run on-premises on open weights, and which popular accuracy "recipes" are worth their compute?"

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Organizations that cannot send data to a cloud API increasingly ask: how good is Text-to-SQL if the model must run on-premises on open weights, and which popular accuracy "recipes" are worth their compute?"

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Organizations that cannot send data to a cloud API increasingly ask: how good is Text-to-SQL if the model must run on-premises on open weights, and which popular accuracy "recipes" are worth their compute?"

Benchmarks / Datasets

partial

BIRD

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"We answer with an honest, fully reproducible benchmark on the BIRD development split (n=1534, Execution Accuracy), evaluating three open model families across two generations -- Qwen2.5-Coder (7B/14B/32B), CodeLlama-Instruct (7B/13B/34B), and Llama-3.x (8B, 70B) -- under one matched protocol, ablating a model-agnostic recipe (schema linking, self-correction, self-consistency) component by component, with every difference tested by the paired McNemar test."

Reported Metrics

partial

Accuracy, Recall

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"Organizations that cannot send data to a cloud API increasingly ask: how good is Text-to-SQL if the model must run on-premises on open weights, and which popular accuracy "recipes" are worth their compute?"

Human Feedback Details

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

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

BIRD

Reported Metrics

accuracyrecall

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Organizations that cannot send data to a cloud API increasingly ask: how good is Text-to-SQL if the model must run on-premises on open weights, and which popular accuracy "recipes" are worth their compute?

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

Key Takeaways

  • Organizations that cannot send data to a cloud API increasingly ask: how good is Text-to-SQL if the model must run on-premises on open weights, and which popular accuracy "recipes" are worth their compute?
  • We answer with an honest, fully reproducible benchmark on the BIRD development split (n=1534, Execution Accuracy), evaluating three open model families across two generations -- Qwen2.5-Coder (7B/14B/32B), CodeLlama-Instruct (7B/13B/34B), and Llama-3.x (8B, 70B) -- under one matched protocol, ablating a model-agnostic recipe (schema linking, self-correction, self-consistency) component by component, with every difference tested by the paired McNemar test.
  • (i) Generation matters more than raw size, and the recipe is family-robust: Qwen2.5-Coder dominates the older CodeLlama at matched size (39.1 vs 20.9 at 7B), but a modern non-Qwen model (Llama-3.3-70B, 49.2 on a matched serving) is competitive, so CodeLlama's weakness reflects its 2023 generation, not "non-Qwen = weak".

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, Tool-use evaluation) 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

Accuracy

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • Organizations that cannot send data to a cloud API increasingly ask: how good is Text-to-SQL if the model must run on-premises on open weights, and which popular accuracy "recipes" are worth their compute?
  • We answer with an honest, fully reproducible benchmark on the BIRD development split (n=1534, Execution Accuracy), evaluating three open model families across two generations -- Qwen2.5-Coder (7B/14B/32B), CodeLlama-Instruct (7B/13B/34B),…
  • (iii) Schema linking does not help, and a stronger linker does not rescue it: a retrieval/embedding linker with 96.5% gold-table recall is statistically indistinguishable from no linking, ruling out the "weak lexical strawman" objection…

Why It Matters For Eval

  • We answer with an honest, fully reproducible benchmark on the BIRD development split (n=1534, Execution Accuracy), evaluating three open model families across two generations -- Qwen2.5-Coder (7B/14B/32B), CodeLlama-Instruct (7B/13B/34B),…

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.

  • Pass: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    Detected: BIRD

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy, recall

Related Papers

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