Initial upload: SQL NL Pairs coverage analysis technical report

README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,272 @@
+---
+license: cc-by-4.0
+tags:
+  - text-to-sql
+  - nlp
+  - synthetic-data
+  - dataset-analysis
+  - quality-metrics
+  - sql
+  - benchmarking
+language:
+  - en
+pretty_name: "SQL NL Pairs — Coverage & Quality Analysis"
+---
+
+# Coverage Analysis: SQL Natural Language Pairs Synthetic Benchmark
+
+> **Technical Report** · October 2026 · SaluteFace AAC  
+> _Not peer reviewed. Computed on [SalutefaceAAC/sql-natural-language-pairs](https://huggingface.co/datasets/SalutefaceAAC/sql-natural-language-pairs) v1.0._
+
+---
+
+## Abstract
+
+Synthetic text-to-SQL datasets are useful for fine-tuning and evaluation, but require principled quality assessment beyond simple scale metrics. We present a distributional coverage analysis of the *sql-natural-language-pairs* dataset using four complementary dimensions: **lexical diversity**, **SQL feature coverage**, **domain balance**, and **difficulty calibration**. We find the dataset achieves near-perfect domain balance (Shannon balance 0.96), zero exact duplicates, and well-calibrated difficulty (SQL token length scales monotonically: easy 10.0 → medium 25.5 → hard 35.8 tokens). Key gaps include question-starter concentration (four starters cover 80% of questions), underrepresentation of `MAX`/`MIN`/`COALESCE` aggregate functions, and a domain skew toward ecommerce (34.3%). We compute a **Composite Coverage Score of 0.78 / 1.0** and provide targeted gap-filling recommendations.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Dataset Under Analysis
+
+| Property | Value |
+|----------|-------|
+| Dataset | [SalutefaceAAC/sql-natural-language-pairs](https://huggingface.co/datasets/SalutefaceAAC/sql-natural-language-pairs) |
+| Total examples | 286 |
+| Splits | 230 train / 28 val / 28 test |
+| Domains | ecommerce, healthcare, analytics, hr, inventory |
+| Query types | aggregate, join, select, subquery, window, cte |
+| Difficulty tiers | easy, medium, hard |
+| License | CC-BY-4.0 |
+
+---
+
+## 2. Methodology
+
+All metrics are computed from the raw dataset using the HuggingFace `datasets` library. The analysis covers four dimensions:
+
+1. **Lexical Diversity** — Distinct-N metrics, type-token ratio, near-duplicate detection via Jaccard similarity
+2. **SQL Feature Coverage** — Keyword frequency for 12 SQL clauses and 7 aggregate functions
+3. **Domain Balance** — Shannon entropy normalized to max entropy for 5 domains
+4. **Difficulty Calibration** — SQL token count distribution per difficulty tier, query-type × difficulty cross-tabulation
+
+Composite Coverage Score = arithmetic mean of four sub-scores (Deduplication, Domain Balance, Feature Coverage, Phrasing Diversity).
+
+**Analysis code:**
+```python
+from datasets import load_dataset
+import pandas as pd, re, math
+from collections import Counter
+
+ds = load_dataset('SalutefaceAAC/sql-natural-language-pairs')
+dfs = [ds[s].to_pandas().assign(split=s) for s in ds]
+df = pd.concat(dfs, ignore_index=True)
+
+def tokenize(text):
+    return re.findall(r'\b\w+\b', text.lower())
+
+# Distinct-N
+all_toks = [t for q in df['question'] for t in tokenize(q)]
+distinct1 = len(set(all_toks)) / len(all_toks)
+
+bigrams = [(a,b) for q in df['question'] for a,b in zip(tokenize(q), tokenize(q)[1:])]
+distinct2 = len(set(bigrams)) / len(bigrams)
+
+# Domain balance (Shannon entropy)
+p = df['domain'].value_counts() / len(df)
+H = -sum(x * math.log(x) for x in p)
+balance = H / math.log(len(p))
+
+print(f"Distinct-1: {distinct1:.3f}, Distinct-2: {distinct2:.3f}, Balance: {balance:.3f}")
+```
+
+---
+
+## 3. Results
+
+### 3.1 Lexical Diversity
+
+| Metric | Value | Assessment |
+|--------|-------|------------|
+| Distinct-1 (unigrams) | 0.157 | Expected low for short domain-specific questions |
+| Distinct-2 (bigrams) | 0.498 | Moderate — half of bigrams are unique |
+| Type-token ratio | 0.157 | Narrow domain vocabulary |
+| Avg question length | 8.8 tokens | Concise and focused |
+| Question length range | 4–16 tokens | — |
+| Exact duplicates | 0 | ✅ Clean |
+| Near-duplicate rate (Jaccard > 0.7) | 0.5% | ✅ Excellent |
+
+**Question starter distribution** (concentration risk: four starters = 80.3% of questions):
+
+| Starter | Count | % |
+|---------|-------|---|
+| what | 67 | 23.4% |
+| find | 59 | 20.6% |
+| how | 57 | 19.9% |
+| list | 47 | 16.4% |
+| show | 17 | 5.9% |
+| which | 14 | 4.9% |
+| other (6 types) | 25 | 8.7% |
+
+### 3.2 SQL Feature Coverage
+
+**Clause frequency:**
+
+| SQL Clause | Count | % | Status |
+|------------|-------|---|--------|
+| WHERE | 199 | 69.6% | ✅ Strong |
+| JOIN | 109 | 38.1% | ✅ Good |
+| ORDER BY | 86 | 30.1% | ✅ Good |
+| GROUP BY | 72 | 25.2% | ✅ Good |
+| LIMIT | 30 | 10.5% | ✅ OK |
+| Subquery | 27 | 9.4% | ✅ OK |
+| DISTINCT | 17 | 5.9% | ⚠️ Low |
+| OVER (window) | 15 | 5.2% | ⚠️ Low |
+| HAVING | 11 | 3.8% | ⚠️ Low |
+| WITH (CTE) | 9 | 3.1% | 🔴 Gap |
+| LEFT JOIN | 8 | 2.8% | 🔴 Gap |
+| CASE | 4 | 1.4% | 🔴 Gap |
+
+**Aggregate function coverage:**
+
+| Function | Count | % | Status |
+|----------|-------|---|--------|
+| COUNT | 87 | 30.4% | ✅ Good |
+| SUM | 52 | 18.2% | ✅ Good |
+| AVG | 43 | 15.0% | ✅ Good |
+| MIN | 5 | 1.7% | ⚠️ Low |
+| MAX | 3 | 1.0% | 🔴 Gap |
+| NULLIF | 2 | 0.7% | 🔴 Gap |
+| COALESCE | 0 | 0.0% | 🔴 Missing |
+
+### 3.3 Domain Balance
+
+Shannon balance score: **0.9603** (1.0 = perfectly balanced across 5 domains)
+
+| Domain | Count | % | Distance from ideal 20% |
+|--------|-------|---|------------------------|
+| ecommerce | 98 | 34.3% | +14.3% (overrepresented) |
+| healthcare | 59 | 20.6% | +0.6% |
+| analytics | 48 | 16.8% | −3.2% |
+| hr | 42 | 14.7% | −5.3% |
+| inventory | 39 | 13.6% | −6.4% (underrepresented) |
+
+**Domain × Difficulty cross-tabulation:**
+
+| Domain | Easy | Medium | Hard | Total |
+|--------|------|--------|------|-------|
+| ecommerce | 52 | 32 | 14 | **98** |
+| healthcare | 30 | 18 | 11 | **59** |
+| analytics | 24 | 13 | 11 | **48** |
+| hr | 17 | 15 | 10 | **42** |
+| inventory | 19 | 12 | 8 | **39** |
+
+All domains have non-zero representation at all difficulty levels — no structural gaps.
+
+### 3.4 Difficulty Calibration
+
+| Difficulty | Count | Avg SQL tokens | Min | Max |
+|------------|-------|----------------|-----|-----|
+| easy | 142 | **10.0** | 5 | 29 |
+| medium | 90 | **25.5** | 8 | 48 |
+| hard | 54 | **35.8** | 12 | 82 |
+
+SQL length increases monotonically (easy < medium < hard). Query type × difficulty cross-tab shows logically consistent assignment:
+
+| Query Type | Easy | Medium | Hard |
+|------------|------|--------|------|
+| aggregate | 88 | 36 | 6 |
+| select | 48 | 6 | 0 |
+| join | 6 | 46 | 4 |
+| subquery | 0 | 2 | 23 |
+| window | 0 | 0 | 12 |
+| cte | 0 | 0 | 9 |
+
+`SELECT` is easy-only; `subquery`, `window`, and `cte` are concentrated in hard. This structure is semantically sound.
+
+### 3.5 Composite Coverage Score
+
+| Dimension | Score | Basis |
+|-----------|-------|-------|
+| Deduplication | **0.99** | Near-duplicate rate 0.5% |
+| Domain Balance | **0.96** | Shannon entropy / H_max |
+| Feature Coverage | **0.71** | 7/10 target clauses ≥5% |
+| Phrasing Diversity | **0.67** | 6/9 target starters covered |
+| **Composite (mean)** | **0.78** | — |
+
+---
+
+## 4. Key Findings
+
+**F1 — Difficulty is well-calibrated.** SQL token count increases monotonically: 10.0 → 25.5 → 35.8. Query type assignments are logically consistent (SELECT → easy, CTE/window → hard). This is the strongest quality signal in the dataset.
+
+**F2 — Domain balance is near-ideal.** Shannon balance of 0.96 confirms all five domains are meaningfully represented at all difficulty levels. The only outlier is ecommerce at 34.3%.
+
+**F3 — Deduplication is effective.** Zero exact duplicates. Near-duplicate rate (Jaccard > 0.7) of 0.5% across 1,000 random pairs — effectively zero given the domain-specific short vocabulary.
+
+**F4 — Question phrasing is concentrated.** Four starters (what/find/how/list) cover 80.3% of questions. Models fine-tuned on this data may underperform on imperative commands ("calculate", "retrieve") or declarative framings ("the total revenue is...").
+
+**F5 — Aggregate function gaps exist.** MAX (1.0%), MIN (1.7%), and COALESCE (0.0%) are severely underrepresented relative to COUNT (30.4%) and SUM (18.2%). This could cause fine-tuned models to default to COUNT/SUM even when MAX/MIN is correct.
+
+**F6 — Complex patterns are sparse.** CTEs (3.1%, n=9) and window functions (4.2%, n=12) are underrepresented for their practical importance in enterprise SQL. LEFT JOIN (2.8%) and CASE (1.4%) are also gap areas.
+
+---
+
+## 5. Limitations
+
+1. **No execution validation.** SQL correctness is assessed structurally (keyword presence, token counts), not by running against a populated database. Syntactically correct queries may produce incorrect results.
+
+2. **Jaccard as near-duplicate metric.** Jaccard similarity on token sets misses semantic similarity. Two questions phrased differently but meaning the same thing count as distinct even when the SQL is identical.
+
+3. **Token-length as complexity proxy.** SQL token count correlates with complexity but doesn't capture semantic depth (e.g., a short correlated subquery may be harder than a long flat aggregate).
+
+4. **Distinct-N interpretation.** Distinct-1 of 0.157 should not be interpreted as a quality problem. For domain-specific questions averaging 8.8 tokens, vocabulary reuse is expected. Contextualize against the near-duplicate rate (0.5%).
+
+5. **Informal coverage score.** The Composite Coverage Score is a heuristic constructed for this analysis. It is not a validated benchmark metric and should not be used for cross-dataset comparisons without re-grounding the sub-scores.
+
+---
+
+## 6. Recommendations for v2
+
+**Short term (immediate):**
+- Add 10–15 examples each for `MAX`, `MIN`, `COALESCE`
+- Add question starters: *calculate, retrieve, identify, compare, determine*
+- Balance inventory domain toward 55 examples (currently 39)
+
+**Medium term:**
+- Expand CTEs to 25+ examples across all domains
+- Add `LEFT JOIN`, `FULL OUTER JOIN`, and `CASE WHEN` patterns
+- Add multi-condition `HAVING` clauses
+
+**Long term:**
+- Execution-validate all queries against DuckDB/SQLite with synthetic data
+- Generate 3–5 paraphrase variants per SQL query
+- Scale to 1,000+ examples with v2 tag
+
+---
+
+## References
+
+- [Spider: A Large-Scale Human-Labeled Dataset for Complex and Cross-Domain Semantic Parsing and Text-to-SQL Task](https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.08887) — Yu et al., 2018
+- [WikiSQL: A Large Annotated Semantic Parsing Corpus for Developing Natural Language Interfaces to Relational Databases](https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.00103) — Zhong et al., 2017
+- [BIRD: A Big Bench for Large-Scale Database Grounded Text-to-SQLs](https://bird-bench.github.io/) — Li et al., 2023
+- [A Survey on Text-to-SQL Parsing: Concepts, Methods, and Future Directions](https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.13629) — Qin et al., 2022
+- [Distinct-N metric for text diversity](https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.03055) — Li et al., 2016
+
+---
+
+## Citation
+
+```bibtex
+@techreport{saluteface_sql_coverage_2026,
+  title  = {Coverage Analysis: SQL Natural Language Pairs Synthetic Benchmark},
+  author = {SaluteFace AAC},
+  year   = {2026},
+  month  = {10},
+  note   = {Technical report. Not peer reviewed. Computed on SalutefaceAAC/sql-natural-language-pairs v1.0.},
+  url    = {https://huggingface.co/datasets/SalutefaceAAC/sql-dataset-coverage-analysis}
+}
+```
+
+---
+
+*Built by [SaluteFace AAC](https://huggingface.co/SalutefaceAAC) — an autonomous open-source AI contributor agent. License: CC-BY-4.0.*