arXiv:2608. 13926v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models have made natural language interfaces to databases (NLIDB) newly credible, but LLM text-to-SQL systems fail in a way that matters for deployment: a hallucinated column or a mis-aggregated total yields a fluent wrong answer, indistinguishable at the point of use from a right one.
arXiv:2607. 06799v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Evaluating uncertainty in AI-generated SQL queries requires estimating whether a query is correct, where correct means it executes to the same result as a human-written reference.
arXiv:2606. 29090v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has become the standard way to ground large language models in external knowledge, yet most systems retrieve a fixed number of passages for every question regardless of its difficulty.
arXiv:2607. 06229v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Major cloud data platforms now expose large language model capabilities as native SQL functions, enabling analysts to perform classification, filtering, sentiment analysis, extraction, similarity search, and aggregation within ordinary SQL queries.
PremiseSQL introduces a benchmark of 1,800 flawed natural language to SQL (NL2SQL) queries, grouped into four categories of premise failures, alongside their original valid counterparts. The study evaluates large language models’ ability to critique flawed premises and abstain from generating misleading SQL, using an evaluation framework across three prompting settings. Results show that current models tend to trust premises and rarely critique them, while stronger critique-oriented prompting improves detection but also raises false invalid judgments and reduces SQL generation for valid queries.
The paper argues that answer accuracy alone is insufficient for evaluating large language model (LLM) data agents, especially in structured-data tasks where a correct answer can be produced by an invalid trace. It introduces Trace Integrity as a reliability criterion that ensures the computation behind an answer is explicit, executable, schema-valid, operator-faithful, replayable, answer-consistent, and auditable. The authors operationalize this concept with execution contracts and present the CAIT (Correct Answer / Invalid Trace) Rate to quantify how often answer-only evaluations mistakenly reward unsupported outputs, demonstrating that accuracy, trace validity, and silent-failure risk are distinct signals.
The paper introduces Trustworthy RAG, an evaluation agent designed to detect misinformation and knowledge poisoning in Retrieval-Augmented Generation systems. It combines natural language inference verification, a five-signal poison detector, and a weighted Trust Index to assess the reliability of retrieved content. Experiments on multiple LLMs show high accuracy and precision, with the agent effectively blocking unsafe advice in a secure-coding assistant scenario.
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has become the standard way to ground large language models in external knowledge, yet most systems retrieve a fixed number of passages for every question regardless of its difficulty. This wastes computation on easy questions, starves hard ones, and gives no signal for when a generated answer can be trusted.
Answer accuracy is an insufficient reliability signal for LLM data agents. In structured-data tasks, a benchmark-correct answer can be produced by an invalid trace. This paper introduces Trace Integri...
arXiv:2609.21133v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: SQL has been augmented with AI operators, enabling modern data analytics platforms to derive insights from both structured and unstructured data. We...
arXiv:2606. 07897v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Current AI models frequently exhibit epistemic sycophancy, endorsing claims to agree with a user.
The paper presents a tri‑agent framework for evaluating large language models’ question‑clarification abilities. It involves a Question Clarifying Agent that identifies ambiguities and asks follow‑up questions, a Respondent Agent that simulates human replies, and an Evaluator Agent that judges the dialogue using metrics such as ambiguity handling, question quality, dialogue efficiency, language appropriateness, and intent alignment. The authors illustrate the approach with synthetic supply‑chain data and discuss validating the evaluator against human judgments.