LLM NL2SQL Robustness: Surface Noise vs. Linguistic Variation in Traditional and Agentic Settings

Natural Language to SQL (NL2SQL) technology empowers non-expert users to query relational databases without requiring SQL expertise. While large language models (LLMs) have greatly improved NL2SQL algorithms, their rapid development outpaces systematic evaluation, leaving a critical gap in understanding their effectiveness, efficiency, and limitations. To this end, we present NL2SQLBench, the first modular evaluation and benchmarking framework for LLM-enabled NL2SQL approaches. Specifically, we dissect NL2SQL systems into three core modules: Schema Selection, Candidate Generation, and Query Revision. For each module, we comprehensively review existing strategies and propose novel fine-grained metrics that systematically quantify module-level effectiveness and efficiency. We further implement these metrics in a flexible multi-agent framework, allowing configurable benchmarking across diverse NL2SQL approaches. Leveraging NL2SQLBench, we rigorously evaluate ten representative open-source methods on two datasets, the BIRD development set and the ScienceBenchmark development set, using two LLMs, DeepSeek-V3 and GPT-4o mini. We systematically assess each approach across the three core modules and evaluate multiple critical performance dimensions. Our evaluation reveals significant gaps in existing NL2SQL methods, highlighting not only substantial room for accuracy improvements but also the significant computational inefficiency, which severely hampers real-world adoption. Furthermore, our analysis identifies critical shortcomings in current benchmark datasets and evaluation rules, emphasizing issues such as inaccurate gold SQL annotations and limitations in existing evaluation rules. By synthesizing these insights into a unified benchmarking, our study establishes a clear reference point for fair comparison and serves as essential guidance for future targeted innovation in NL2SQL technology.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance on natural language to SQL (NL2SQL) benchmarks, yet their reported accuracy may be inflated by contamination from benchmark queries or structurally similar patterns seen during training. We introduce SPENCE (Syntactic Probing and Evaluation of NL2SQL Contamination Effects), a controlled syntactic probing framework for detecting and quantifying such contamination. SPENCE systematically generates syntactic variants of test queries for four widely used NL2SQL datasets-Spider, SParC, CoSQL, and the newer BIRD benchmark. We use SPENCE to evaluate multiple high-capacity LLMs under execution-based scoring. For each model, we measure changes in execution accuracy across increasing levels of syntactic divergence and quantify rank sensitivity using Kendall's tau with bootstrap confidence intervals. By aligning these robustness trends with benchmark release dates, we observe a clear temporal gradient: older benchmarks such as Spider exhibit the strongest negative values and thus the highest likelihood of training leakage, whereas the more recent BIRD dataset shows minimal sensitivity and appears largely uncontaminated. Together, these findings highlight the importance of temporally contextualized, syntactic-probing evaluation for trustworthy NL2SQL benchmarking.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have substantially improved Text-to-SQL performance, yet existing NL2SQL systems largely assume that user queries are valid and answerable. As a result, models often generate executable SQL even for queries with flawed premises. We introduce premise critique ability in NL2SQL, namely the ability to recognize flawed queries and abstain from generating misleading SQL. To evaluate this capability, we propose PremiseSQL, a benchmark containing 1,800 flawed NL2SQL queries across four categories of premise failures, along with their 1,800 original queries. We further design an evaluation framework to measure intrinsic and prompt-induced premise-aware behavior across three prompting settings. Experiments on frontier LLMs show that current models are strongly premise-trusting by default and rarely critique flawed premises. Stronger critique-oriented prompting improves detection and abstention on flawed queries, but also increases false invalid judgments and suppresses SQL generation on originals. The code is available at https://github.com/vegeet/PremiseSQL.