Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This paper presents GROUND, a framework that mitigates hallucinations and security risks in enterprise text-to-SQL systems by enforcing governed semantic definitions over database schemas. By validating generated queries against strict rules for metrics, joins, and row-level security before execution, the approach eliminates measured hallucinations across all tested categories while preventing data leaks that occur with standard retrieval methods. The findings demonstrate that robust production analytics require binding user intent to approved business semantics rather than relying solely on metric fidelity or schema grounding.
Sources coveringarXiv, SiliconANGLE, AWS, InfoQ
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

GROUND: Reducing Hallucinations in LLM-Based Enterprise Analytics Through Governed Semantic Definitions

arXiv3 min read

arXiv:2608.26157v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Natural-language analytics over enterprise data warehouses is increasingly important, but production use is limited by hallucinated metrics, invalid joins, wrong grain, unsafe data access, and unsupported explanations. Existing text-to-SQL systems often ground generation in database schemas or retrieved documentation, while enterprise reporting also requires governed business semantics: approved metrics, dimensions, join paths, filters, and row-level security. This paper introduces GROUND, Governed Retrieval Over Unified Normalized Definitions, a framework that constrains LLM-generated analytics to a governed semantic layer. GROUND supplies approved definitions, binds user intent to governed metrics and dimensions, and validates generated SQL against schema, metric, join, grain, filter, security, and cost rules before execution. On violations, it retries or abstains. In a 100-question synthetic enterprise-reporting benchmark, GROUND is compared with direct schema-only text-to-SQL, schema-RAG, and semantic-only grounding under one shared model. GROUND is the only system free of measured hallucinations across all six evaluated categories, while ungoverned systems violate row-level security on many questions. A semantic-only condition with exact metric definitions but no access policy still leaks data, showing that governance cannot be replaced by metric fidelity alone. The findings are replicated on real U.S. NHTSA vehicle-safety data with independent hand-authored gold and tested on an adversarial set across four models from three providers. GROUND's enforced guarantees, especially filters and row-level security, hold with zero violations on every model, while judgment-dependent behaviors such as refusing undefined metrics remain fallible.

Abstract:Natural-language analytics over enterprise data warehouses is increasingly important, but production use is limited by hallucinated metrics, invalid joins, wrong grain, unsafe data access, and unsupported explanations. Existing text-to-SQL systems often ground generation in database schemas or retrieved documentation, while enterprise reporting also requires governed business semantics: approved metrics, dimensions, join paths, filters, and row-level security. This paper introduces GROUND, Governed Retrieval Over Unified Normalized Definitions, a framework that constrains LLM-generated analytics to a governed semantic layer. GROUND supplies approved definitions, binds user intent to governed metrics and dimensions, and validates generated SQL against schema, metric, join, grain, filter, security, and cost rules before execution. On violations, it retries or abstains. In a 100-question synthetic enterprise-reporting benchmark, GROUND is compared with direct schema-only text-to-SQL, schema-RAG, and semantic-only grounding under one shared model. GROUND is the only system free of measured hallucinations across all six evaluated categories, while ungoverned systems violate row-level security on many questions. A semantic-only condition with exact metric definitions but no access policy still leaks data, showing that governance cannot be replaced by metric fidelity alone. The findings are replicated on real U.S. NHTSA vehicle-safety data with independent hand-authored gold and tested on an adversarial set across four models from three providers. GROUND's enforced guarantees, especially filters and row-level security, hold with zero violations on every model, while judgment-dependent behaviors such as refusing undefined metrics remain fallible.

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2608.26157 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2608.26157v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.26157 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 322 words

Related coverage