Execution Accuracy (EX), the widely used metric for evaluating the effectiveness of Natural Language to SQL (NL2SQL) solutions, is becoming increasingly unreliable. It is sensitive to syntactic variation, ignores that questions may admit multiple interpretations, and is easily misled by erroneous ground-truth SQL. To address this, we introduce ROSE, an intent-centered metric that focuses on whether the predicted SQL answers the question, rather than consistency with the ground-truth SQL under the reference-dependent paradigm. ROSE employs an adversarial Prover-Refuter cascade: SQL Prover assesses the semantic correctness of a predicted SQL against the user's intent independently, while Adversarial Refuter uses the ground-truth SQL as evidence to challenge and refine this judgment. On our expert-aligned validation set ROSE-VEC, ROSE achieves the best agreement with human experts, outperforming the next-best metric by nearly 24% in Cohen's Kappa. We also conduct a largescale re-evaluation of 19 NL2SQL methods, revealing four valuable insights. We release ROSE and ROSE-VEC to facilitate more reliable NL2SQL research.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: ROSE Scoring Cascade. The red path indicates the workflow when execution results do not match, while the blue path is followed when they do.
Backbone
Metric
κ (%)
Acc (%)
MCC (%)
F1 (%)
Deterministic
EM
0.51
27.86
5.07
1.86
ETM
6.60
35.56
18.47
20.63
EX
25.56
55.90
37.23
57.00
OpenAI o3
LLM-SQL-Solver
12.24
42.05
25.54
33.92
FLEX
56.70
78.97
62.01
83.31
ROSE w/o Refuter
60.74
85.47
61.46
90.40
Table 1: Performance of NL2SQL metrics on ROSE-VEC. Within each block, Bold indicates the best metric, Underline indicates the second best. Open-source models are represented with , while closed-source models are represented with . Separate results on the BIRD and Spider splits are in Appendix J.1 .
Label
Model
Count
Precision (%)
GoldX
OpenAI o3
51
84.32
Gemini-2.5 Pro
76
68.42
DeepSeek-R1
76
61.84
AmbQ
OpenAI o3
57
91.23
Gemini-2.5 Pro
63
73.02
DeepSeek-R1
108
51.85
Table 2: Precision of ROSE diagnostic labelling for GoldX and AmbQ on ROSE-VEC. Separate results on the BIRD and Spider splits are in Appendix J.2 .
Method
Date
Model
Simple
Moderate
Challenge
Overall
EX
ROSE
EX
ROSE
EX
ROSE
EX
ROSE
Prompting Methods
GPT-5
Aug 2025
–
69.86
91.10
51.03
87.24
46.46
89.90
55.74
88.93
Alpha-SQL-32B
Feb 2025
Qwen2.5-Coder
81.02
91.24
69.47
79.65
52.58
70.10
69.35
81.09
OpenSearch-SQL
Sep 2024
DeepSeek-Chat
77.94
91.18
69.78
80.44
56.25
67.71
69.37
80.96
RSL-SQL
Oct 2024
DeepSeek-Chat
74.29
86.43
59.83
71.79
52.04
62.24
62.50
74.15
Table 3: Benchmarking results of NL2SQL methods on BIRD mini-Dev with EX and ROSE o3-2504 . Underlined methods denote base models. The score gap is illustrated in Appendix L .
Figure 2: ROSE vs. EX scores for NL2SQL methods grouped by base model.
Figure 3: The growing divergence between ROSE and EX over time for prompting-based systems.
Method
GoldX
AmbQ
GoldX ∪ AmbQ
Avg.
OpenSearch-SQL
86.00
58.33
77.14
20.35
Alpha-SQL-32B
90.00
47.62
76.12
19.13
RSL-SQL
84.62
68.18
77.94
18.08
OmniSQL-32B
82.61
60.00
74.60
18.18
Table 4: Discordance rate (%) between EX and ROSE on GoldX, AmbQ.
Figure 4: Share of discordant cases by question type.
Figure 5: Average gap between ROSE and EX across difficulty levels for prompting and fine-tuned methods.
Appendix figures & tables13 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Aspect
EX
LLM-SQL-Solver
FLEX
ROSE
Basis for Judgment
Match
Match
Comparison
Independent and Comparison
Role of Ground-truth SQL
Reference
Reference
Reference
Challenge Evidence
Robust to Ambiguity
No
No
Partially
Yes
Robust to Ground-truth Error
No
No
Partially
Yes
Diagnostic Output
No
No
No
Yes ( AmbQ , GoldX )
Appendix
Table 5: Key differences between our proposed metric, ROSE, and prior evaluation metrics.
Backbone
Metric
κ (%)
Acc (%)
MCC (%)
F1 (%)
Deterministic
EX
43.56
69.57
51.36
71.18
Qwen3-235B -A22B-Thinking
FLEX
53.59
76.71
54.89
74.40
ROSE
65.11
83.85
65.71
87.38
Qwen3-30B -A3B-Thinking
FLEX
47.74
72.98
52.78
75.90
ROSE
62.63
81.99
64.59
85.28
DeepSeek-R1-Distill -Qwen-32B
FLEX
43.01
72.36
43.33
66.16
Appendix
Table 6: Performance on ROSE-VEC-BIRD with other open-source backbones.
Backbone
Metric
κ (%)
Acc (%)
MCC (%)
F1 (%)
OpenAI o3
Unified w/o GT
53.35
80.43
54.00
86.09
Unified
66.35
83.85
68.22
86.87
ROSE w/o GT
71.01
86.34
72.25
89.11
ROSE
80.68
90.99
81.64
92.91
Gemini-2.5 Pro
Unified w/o GT
45.06
78.88
50.07
86.01
Unified
59.90
81.06
61.02
84.86
Appendix
Table 7: Ablation studies of ROSE on ROSE-VEC-BIRD. “w/o GT” indicates removing ground-truth supervision.
Threads
Wall-clock Time
1
120min37s
2
64min59s
4
42min41s
8
18min
Appendix
Table 8: Wall-clock time under different threads.
Metric
Avg. Time
EX
1.22s
FLEX o3-2504 (thread-1)
18.19s
ROSE o3-2504 (thread-1)
22.48s
ROSE o3-2504 (thread-8)
3.35s
Appendix
Table 9: Average time on ROSE-VEC-BIRD.
Metric
Total Cost (USD)
Avg. Cost (USD)
FLEX o3-2504
3.819
0.0118
ROSE o3-2504
2.249
0.0070
Appendix
Table 10: Monetary cost on ROSE-VEC-BIRD.
#Calls
#Questions
Percentage (%)
1
176
54.66
2
146
45.34
Avg.
1.45
–
Appendix
Table 11: Number of LLM calls by ROSE o3-2504 on ROSE-VEC-BIRD.
Label
Model
Count
Precision (%)
GoldX
OpenAI o3
35
82.86
Gemini-2.5 Pro
58
63.79
DeepSeek-R1
59
57.63
AmbQ
OpenAI o3
16
75.00
Gemini-2.5 Pro
17
35.29
DeepSeek-R1
61
27.87
Appendix
Table 12: Precision of ROSE diagnostic labelling for GoldX and AmbQ on ROSE-VEC-BIRD.
Backbone
Metric
κ (%)
Acc (%)
MCC (%)
F1 (%)
Deterministic
EM
0.00
32.73
0.00
0.00
ETM
8.60
41.30
21.19
22.22
EX
43.56
69.57
51.36
71.18
OpenAI o3
LLM-SQL-Solver
10.51
43.65
23.56
25.75
FLEX
55.20
76.87
60.53
79.18
ROSE w/o Refuter
66.76
85.67
67.25
89.57
Appendix
Table 13: Performance of NL2SQL metrics on ROSE-VEC-BIRD. Bold indicates the best metric within each LLM block. Underline indicates the second best within each block. Open-source models are represented with , while closed-source models are represented with .
Backbone
Metric
κ (%)
Acc (%)
MCC (%)
F1 (%)
Deterministic
EM
0.77
21.59
6.22
3.72
ETM
4.47
28.41
15.11
18.88
EX
11.09
39.02
24.23
38.31
OpenAI o3
LLM-SQL-Solver
13.06
41.83
26.43
42.70
FLEX
57.85
82.13
63.23
87.47
ROSE w/o Refuter
45.87
84.79
47.29
90.87
Appendix
Table 14: Performance of NL2SQL metrics on ROSE-VEC-Spider. Bold indicates the best metric within each LLM block. Underline indicates the second best within each block. Open-source models are represented with , while closed-source models are represented with .
Label
Model
Count
Precision (%)
GoldX
OpenAI o3
16
87.50
Gemini-2.5 Pro
18
83.33
DeepSeek-R1
17
76.47
AmbQ
OpenAI o3
41
97.56
Gemini-2.5 Pro
46
86.96
DeepSeek-R1
47
82.98
Appendix
Table 15: Precision of ROSE diagnostic labelling for GoldX and AmbQ on ROSE-VEC-Spider.
Method
Model
Simple
Moderate
Challenge
Overall
Prompting Methods
GPT-5
–
21.24
36.21
43.44
33.19
Alpha-SQL-32B
Qwen2.5-Coder
10.22
10.18
17.52
11.74
OpenSearch-SQL
DeepSeek-Chat
13.24
10.66
11.46
11.59
RSL-SQL
DeepSeek-Chat
12.14
11.96
10.20
11.65
DeepSeek-Chat
–
11.65
23.99
22.78
20.08
Appendix
Table 16: Score gap on BIRD Mini-Dev across difficulty levels. Underlined methods denote base models.
Figure 6: Streamlit interface for inspecting SQL predictions.
Robustness evaluation for Natural Language to SQL (NL2SQL) systems is essential because real-world database environments are dynamic, noisy, and continuously evolving, whereas conventional benchmark evaluations typically assume static schemas and well-formed user inputs. In this work, we introduce a robustness evaluation benchmark containing approximately ten types of perturbations and conduct evaluations under both traditional and agentic settings. We assess multiple state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs), including Grok-4.1, Gemini-3-Pro, Claude-Opus-4.6, and GPT-5.2. Our results show that these models generally maintain strong performance under several perturbations; however, notable performance degradation is observed for surface-level noise (e.g., character-level corruption) and linguistic variation that preserves semantics while altering lexical or syntactic forms. Furthermore, we observe that surface-level noise causes larger performance drops in traditional pipelines, whereas linguistic variation presents greater challenges in agentic settings. These findings highlight the remaining challenges in achieving robust NL2SQL systems, particularly in handling linguistic variability.
Natural language interfaces to databases aim to translate user questions into executable SQL, yet remain brittle in real-world settings where questions are underspecified and schemas are large and ambiguous. Ambiguity across user questions, database schemas, and model interpretations are central failure modes in NL2SQL, leading to misaligned intent, incorrect schema grounding, and erroneous SQL generation. Existing approaches rely on human clarification or treat ambiguity as a schema representation problem, but these do not scale nor resolve ambiguity autonomously. We propose SOMA-SQL to automatically resolve ambiguity via targeted synthetic query log and ambiguity-driven probing. SOMA-SQL constructs synthetic query log to ground schema interpretation and guide candidate SQL generation; it then executes targeted probing queries, driven by a structured ambiguity taxonomy and candidate disagreements, to produce disambiguation evidence for final SQL selection and repair. This active approach to ambiguity discovery and resolution generalizes across unseen schemas and query distributions without human-in-the-loop. Experiments on six public benchmarks demonstrate that SOMA-SQL improves execution accuracy by 13.0% on average over state-of-the-art baselines, with gains of up to 16.7% on ambiguous questions.
Sai Ashish Somayajula, Marianne Menglin Liu, Chuan Lei +9
Natural language to SQL (NL2SQL) conversion is an important problem for researchers and enterprises due to the ubiquitous importance of relational databases in broad-ranging practical problems. Despite the rapid advancements in the capabilities of LLMs, NL2SQL has not reached parity in accuracy with human expert SQL writers, hence needing additional improvements in NL2SQL algorithms. This study presents a new multi-agent method for NL2SQL that achieves 78.1% semantic accuracy on the BIg Bench for LaRge-scale Database (BIRD) benchmark. Our method leverages a semantically enriched representation of user-provided schema, adds user-provided business rules, and produces accurate SQL queries. The main contributions of this study are (a) We designed an optimized new orchestrator in a multi-agent solution that uses LLMs to plan, orchestrate, reflect, and self-correct to generate accurate SQL queries, (b) We developed an advanced schema enrichment method that creates context-aware metadata to improve accuracy, and (c) We demonstrated the accuracy and generalizability of the method across different domains and datasets by evaluating it on the BIRD-SQL benchmark.