arXiv preprint ·
Does a Governed Confidence Score Know When a Text-to-SQL Answer Is Right? An Exploratory Study on BIRD and a Pre-registered Confirmation on Spider
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Conversational analytics lets people ask questions of records spread across many systems and get answers in plain language; it is useful only if each answer can be trusted and explained. A production system of this kind attaches a confidence score to every answer it writes over a database and uses it to show the answer, show it with a warning, or withhold it. The score's weights, caps and thresholds were set by design. This paper audits that design. On the 1,534 questions of BIRD dev, answered by GPT-5.1 with a benchmark-adapted production prompt and five samples per question, the designed score separates right from wrong answers weakly (AUROC 0.624, 95% CI 0.595-0.652) and withholds 35.7% of correct answers. Nearly all of its ranking signal comes from agreement among the samples, and most of it is lost where agreement is combined by a minimum with a checklist that drops to zero on any unsupported claim, including claims in commentary. We froze a rule in which agreement with the shown answer is the score and deterministic checks act as vetoes and caps, and pre-registered a test on Spider dev before any Spider answer existed. The primary hypothesis held: AUROC rose from 0.566 to 0.725 (paired difference +0.159, 95% CI +0.097 to +0.221), and correct answers withheld fell from 49.0% to 8.8% with PASS accuracy 95.7%. Under one matching policy the choice of agreement statistic matters little; the gain comes from how agreement enters the score. Whether added checks help depends on how correctness is defined, while they always cost unqualified coverage. A pre-registered empty-result check did not meet its effect-size criterion on Spider. Correctness here means the core answer; labels are model-judged, and a blinded two-person audit, not yet complete, will be reported in a revised version.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Artificial Intelligence
Computational Reflective Equilibrium for Agentic AI: A Rawlsian Alignment Scaffold for Governance
Foundation Models for Event Prediction Across Heterogeneous Event Logs
When Does Compensating Inherited Quantization Error Help? Mean-Square Guarantees for Layer-Wise Quantization and Their Limits
YUBI-Real2Sim: 3DGS Scene Verification for Reliable Policy Evaluation
Of Errors and Echoes: Responsibility-Aware Credit Assignment for Tool-Use Agents
Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.