Rocky Klopfenstein

Rocky Klopfenstein, Yang He, Andrew Tremante et al.

We present SpotIt+, an open-source tool for evaluating Text-to-SQL systems via bounded equivalence verification. Given a generated SQL query and the ground truth, SpotIt+ actively searches for database instances that differentiate the two queries. To ensure that the generated counterexamples reflect practically relevant discrepancies, we introduce a constraint-mining pipeline that combines rule-based specification mining over example databases with LLM-based validation. Experimental results on the BIRD dataset show that the mined constraints enable SpotIt+ to generate more realistic differentiating databases, while preserving its ability to efficiently uncover numerous discrepancies between generated and gold SQL queries that are missed by standard test-based evaluation.

Rocky Klopfenstein, Yang He, Andrew Tremante et al.

Community-driven Text-to-SQL evaluation platforms play a pivotal role in tracking the state of the art of Text-to-SQL performance. The reliability of the evaluation process is critical for driving progress in the field. Current evaluation methods are largely test-based, which involves comparing the execution results of a generated SQL query and a human-labeled ground-truth on a static test database. Such an evaluation is optimistic, as two queries can coincidentally produce the same output on the test database while actually being different. In this work, we propose a new alternative evaluation pipeline, called SpotIt, where a formal bounded equivalence verification engine actively searches for a database that differentiates the generated and ground-truth SQL queries. We develop techniques to extend existing verifiers to support a richer SQL subset relevant to Text-to-SQL. A performance evaluation of ten Text-to-SQL methods on the high-profile BIRD dataset suggests that test-based methods can often overlook differences between the generated query and the ground-truth. Further analysis of the verification results reveals a more complex picture of the current Text-to-SQL evaluation.

Haoze Wu, Rocky Klopfenstein, Keith Farkas et al.

A fundamental limitation of Text-to-Code is that no guarantee can be obtained about the correctness of the generated code. Therefore, to ensure its correctness, the generated code still has to be reviewed, tested, and maintained by developers. However, parsing through LLM-generated code can be tedious and time-consuming, potentially negating the productivity gains promised by AI-coding tools. To address this challenge, we present Viverra, a system that automatically produces formally verified annotations alongside generated code to aid user's understanding of the generated program. Given a natural-language task description, Viverra prompts an LLM to synthesize a C program together with candidate assertions expressing safety and correctness properties. It then verifies those assertions in a compositional and best-effort manner via a portfolio of bounded model checkers. Evaluation on 18 diverse programming tasks suggests that Viverra can efficiently generate code with verified assertions, and that these assertions improve users' performance on code-comprehension tasks in a user study with more than 400 participants.