JudgeSQL: Reasoning over SQL Candidates with Weighted Consensus Tournament
This addresses a bottleneck in text-to-SQL for database users, though it is incremental as it builds on existing candidate generation methods.
The paper tackles the problem of selecting the correct SQL query from a diverse candidate pool in text-to-SQL tasks, introducing JudgeSQL, which achieves superior judgment capabilities and cross-scale generalization on the BIRD benchmark.
Text-to-SQL is a pivotal task that bridges natural language understanding and structured data access, yet it remains fundamentally challenging due to semantic ambiguity and complex compositional reasoning. While large language models (LLMs) have greatly advanced SQL generation though prompting, supervised finetuning and reinforced tuning, the shift toward test-time scaling exposes a new bottleneck: selecting the correct query from a diverse candidate pool. Existing selection approaches, such as self-consistency or best-of-$N$ decoding, provide only shallow signals, making them prone to inconsistent scoring, fragile reasoning chains, and a failure to capture fine-grained semantic distinctions between closely related SQL candidates. To this end, we introduce JudgeSQL, a principled framework that redefines SQL candidate selection through structured reasoning and weighted consensus tournament mechanism. JudgeSQL develops a reasoning-based SQL judge model that distills reasoning traces with reinforcement learning guided by verifiable rewards, enabling accurate and interpretable judgments. Building on this, a weighted consensus tournament integrates explicit reasoning preferences with implicit generator confidence, yielding selections that are both more reliable and more efficient. Extensive experiments on the BIRD benchmark demonstrate that JudgeSQL exhibits superior SQL judgment capabilities and good cross-scale generalization and robustness to generator capacity.