Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.22259

Which Part of the Context Layer Does the Work? Separating Semantic Content from Retrieval Scaffolding in Text-to-SQL Agents

Qing Ye
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Context layers, curated documentation that an analytics agent fetches at query time, produce large accuracy gains on text-to-SQL benchmarks. A with/without comparison cannot say which part of the layer does the work: the semantic content, the retrieval scaffolding that delivers it, or the pre-computed views that usually accompany it. We report a four-arm ablation on DABStep on four models that separates the three. The instrument is a data contract: a YAML artifact that carries a domain's semantics and the rules an agent's tools enforce. One arm empties every field of prose in the frozen contract while holding the tool surface, retrieval instruction, table allow-list and operation rules byte-for-byte fixed. Compiling the contract's own SQL expressions into views gives the ceiling a pre-computed layer would reach: gold on all 176 tasks it covers. Content dominates. It raises hard-task accuracy from 13.9% to 55.1%, 22.6% to 56.6%, 22.9% to 68.4% and 37.0% to 77.4%, beating the same knowledge pasted into the prompt on every model. Scaffolding without content is worth 0 to 5 points on two flash models and 14 to 15 on two frontier models. Against the compiled ceiling the contract arm's shortfall is a failure to derive, and it falls from 39 points to 5 with model capability. The contract beats the prompt because the rule it needs is one lookup away rather than buried in a long prompt: its SQL carries the fee semantics up to 98% of the time against the prompt arm's 4%, and at the lowest cost per correct answer on three of four models. For practitioners: semantics first, scaffolding second, pre-computed macros only where an agent demonstrably fails to derive. Ungoverned arms submitted 166 mutating statements; governed arms none. The gain is confined to the contract's domain. On one model the benchmark's own withheld golds grade the contract arm at 51.9% against 18.8% for the prompt baseline.

Explore related subjects

cs.CLcs.AIcs.DB

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Qing Ye. 2026-09-06. Which Part of the Context Layer Does the Work? Separating Semantic Content from Retrieval Scaffolding in Text-to-SQL Agents. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.22259

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

DA-Cramming: Enhancing Cost-Effective Language Model Pretraining with Dependency Agreement Integration

Pretraining language models is still a challenge for many researchers due to its substantial computational costs. As such, there is growing interest in developing more affordable pretraining methods. One notable advancement in this area is the Cramming technique (Geiping and Goldstein, 2022), which enables the pretraining of BERT-style language models using just one GPU in a single day. Building on this innovative approach, we introduce the Dependency Agreement Cramming (DA-Cramming), an efficient framework that integrates information about dependency agreements into the pretraining process. Unlike existing methods that leverage similar semantic information during finetuning, our approach represents a pioneering effort focusing on enhancing the foundational language understanding with semantic information during pretraining. We meticulously design a dual-stage pretraining work flow with four dedicated submodels to capture representative dependency agreements at the chunk level, effectively transforming these agreements into embeddings to benefit the pretraining. Extensive empirical results demonstrate that our method significantly outperforms previous methods across various tasks.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

BigO(Bench): Can LLMs Generate Code with Controlled Time and Space Complexity?

We introduce BigO(Bench), a novel coding benchmark designed to evaluate the capabilities of generative language models in understanding and generating code with specified time and space complexities. This benchmark addresses the gap in current evaluations that often overlook the ability of models to comprehend and produce code constrained by computational complexity. BigO(Bench) includes tooling to infer the algorithmic complexity of any Python function from profiling measurements, including human- or LLM-generated solutions. BigO(Bench) also includes of set of 3,105 coding problems and 1,190,250 solutions from Code Contests annotated with inferred (synthetic) time and space complexity labels from the complexity framework, as well as corresponding runtime and memory footprint values for a large set of input sizes. We present results from evaluating multiple state-of-the-art language models on this benchmark, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses in handling complexity requirements. In particular, token-space reasoning models are unrivaled in code generation but not in complexity understanding, hinting that they may not generalize well to tasks for which no reward was given at training time.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

SafetyFlow: An Agent-Flow System for Automated LLM Safety Benchmarking

The rapid proliferation of large language models (LLMs) has intensified the requirement for reliable safety evaluation to uncover model vulnerabilities. To this end, numerous LLM safety evaluation benchmarks are proposed. However, existing benchmarks generally rely on labor-intensive manual curation, which causes excessive time and resource consumption. They also exhibit significant redundancy and limited difficulty. To alleviate these problems, we introduce SafetyFlow, the first agent-flow system designed to automate the construction of LLM safety benchmarks. SafetyFlow can automatically build a comprehensive safety benchmark in only four days without any human intervention by orchestrating seven specialized agents, significantly reducing time and resource cost. Equipped with versatile tools, the agents of SafetyFlow ensure process and cost controllability while integrating human expertise into the automatic pipeline. The final constructed dataset, SafetyFlowBench, contains 23,446 queries with low redundancy and strong discriminative power. Our contribution includes the first fully automated benchmarking pipeline and a comprehensive safety benchmark. We evaluate the safety of 49 advanced LLMs on our dataset and conduct extensive experiments to validate our efficacy and efficiency.

cs.CL↗