SALUS: Automated Auditing of NL-to-SQL Benchmarks through Weak Supervision of Multi-Agent Output

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.

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.

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.