Evaluates the reliability of cross-domain text-to-SQL benchmarks by exposing flaws in automated metrics like execution accuracy and exact set match, and by introducing human-in-the-loop validation to handle schema ambiguity and query equivalence. Use when the user wants to benchmark on Spider, Spider-DK, BIRD, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Execution Accuracy.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill cross-domain-text-to-sql-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Cross Domain Text To Sql Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-cross-domain-text-to-sql-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: cross-domain-text-to-sql-eval
description: Evaluates the reliability of cross-domain text-to-SQL benchmarks by exposing flaws in automated metrics like execution accuracy and exact set match, and by introducing human-in-the-loop validation to handle schema ambiguity and query equivalence. Use when the user wants to benchmark on Spider, Spider-DK, BIRD, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Execution Accuracy.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2310.18538
bibtex_key: pourreza2023evaluating
confidence: high
---
# cross-domain-text-to-sql-eval
> Evaluating Cross-Domain Text-to-SQL Models and Benchmarks — Pourreza et al. (2023) (arXiv:2310.18538, 2023)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates the reliability of cross-domain text-to-SQL benchmarks by exposing flaws in automated metrics like execution accuracy and exact set match, and by introducing human-in-the-loop validation to handle schema ambiguity and query equivalence.
## Datasets
- **Spider** — total ?; splits: dev (1034)
- **Spider-DK** — total ?; splits: dev (-1)
- **BIRD** — total ?; splits: dev (-1)
## Metrics
- `Execution Accuracy` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- The percentage of generated SQL queries that produce exactly the same result set as the ground truth query when executed against the database.
- `Exact Set Match Accuracy` — range: [0, 1]
- The percentage of generated queries where the result set matches the ground truth result set exactly, ignoring row order.
- `Human Accuracy` — range: [0, 1]
- The percentage of queries deemed correct by human annotators who evaluate semantic equivalence and schema compliance, resolving ambiguities that automated metrics miss.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Natural language question, database schema, and database content.
**Output**: SQL query string.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def exec_acc(pred, gold, db):
return execute_sql(pred, db) == execute_sql(gold, db)
def exact_set_match(pred, gold, db):
return set(execute_sql(pred, db)) == set(execute_sql(gold, db))
def human_acc(preds, golds, annotators):
correct = sum(1 for p, g in zip(preds, golds) if annotators_agree_correct(p, g))
return correct / len(preds)
```
## Common pitfalls
- Overreliance on strict row ordering or LIMIT 1 causes false negatives when multiple valid rows satisfy the condition.
- SQLite-specific syntax and loose typing mask standard SQL compliance issues, leading to false failures when validated against PostgreSQL.
- Schema ambiguity and incorrect database content assumptions create multiple valid SQL interpretations that automated metrics incorrectly reject.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> Table 2 displays both the execution accuracy and the exact set match accuracy for the reference queries from the BIRD, Spider, and Spider-DK benchmarks after our modifications.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{pourreza2023evaluating,
title={Evaluating Cross-Domain Text-to-SQL Models and Benchmarks},
author={Pourreza et al. (2023)},
year={2023},
note={arXiv:2310.18538}
}
```
- arXiv: 2310.18538
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!