Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Original source2 min read

Test-Time Verification for Text-to-SQL via Outcome Reward Models

Summary

This work proposes Outcome Reward Models (ORMs) as learned semantic scoring functions for test-time verification in Text-to-SQL. The GradeSQL framework automates ORM training via candidate generation and execution labeling, eliminating manual annotation. ORMs outperform execution-based Best-of-N and Majority Voting by up to 4.33% on BIRD and 2.10% on Spider, demonstrating scalability and stronger improvements on complex queries.

SourcearXiv Computational LinguisticsAuthor: Mattia Tritto, Giuseppe Farano, Dario Di Palma, Gaetano Rossiello, Fedelucio Narducci, Dharmashankar Subramanian, Tommaso Di Noia
Test-Time Verification for Text-to-SQL via Outcome Reward Models
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 29 Jun 2026]

Title:Test-Time Verification for Text-to-SQL via Outcome Reward Models

View a PDF of the paper titled Test-Time Verification for Text-to-SQL via Outcome Reward Models, by Mattia Tritto and 6 other authors

View PDF

Abstract:Improving the reliability of large language models (LLMs) at inference time is a central challenge in structured reasoning tasks such as Text-to-SQL. Common test-time inference strategies, including Best-of-N sampling and Majority Voting, rely on heuristic signals such as execution success or output frequency, which provide limited semantic discrimination across candidate outputs. In this work, we study Outcome Reward Models (ORMs) as learned semantic scoring functions for test-time verification in Text-to-SQL. While ORMs have been previously explored for test-time scaling and alignment, their application to structured query generation remains underexplored. We introduce GradeSQL, a scalable framework for training task-specific ORMs via automated candidate generation and execution-based labeling, enabling verifier training without manual annotation. We integrate ORMs into a verification-driven Best-of-N pipeline and evaluate our approach on the BIRD and Spider benchmarks across multiple open-source LLM families. ORM-based selection consistently outperforms execution-based Best-of-N and Majority Voting, with gains of up to +4.33% on BIRD and +2.10% on Spider. We further show that ORMs scale effectively with larger candidate sets and yield stronger improvements on complex queries. Overall, our results demonstrate that ORM-based verification provides a simple, effective, and scalable alternative to heuristic test-time selection strategies for Text-to-SQL. Code datasets and models are publicly available.

Comments: Accepted to the SURGeLLM Workshop at ACL 2026, San Diego, US

Subjects:

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Databases (cs.DB)

Cite as: arXiv:2606.30851 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2606.30851v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.30851

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Gaetano Rossiello [view email] [v1] Mon, 29 Jun 2026 19:31:39 UTC (263 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Test-Time Verification for Text-to-SQL via Outcome Reward Models, by Mattia Tritto and 6 other authors

View PDF

TeX Source

view license

Current browse context:

cs.CL

new | recent | 2026-06

Change to browse by:

cs cs.AI cs.DB

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

EngineersAdvanced

Key points

  • ORM as learned semantic scorer for Text-to-SQL verification
  • GradeSQL automates ORM training without manual annotation
  • Up to 4.33% gain on BIRD, 2.10% on Spider
  • ORMs scale with candidate size and boost complex query performance

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.