Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful tools for Text-to-SQL tasks, exhibiting remarkable reasoning capabilities. Different from tasks such as math word problem and commonsense reasoning, SQL solutions have a relatively fixed pattern. This facilitates the investigation of whether LLMs can benefit from categorical thinking, mirroring how humans acquire knowledge through inductive reasoning based on comparable examples. In this study, we propose that employing query group partitioning allows LLMs to focus on learning the thought processes specific to a single problem type, consequently enhancing their reasoning abilities across diverse difficulty levels and problem categories. Our experiments reveal that multiple advanced LLMs, when equipped with PTD-SQL, can either surpass or match previous state-of-the-art (SOTA) methods on the Spider and BIRD datasets. Intriguingly, models with varying initial performances have exhibited significant improvements mainly at the boundary of their capabilities after targeted drilling, suggesting a parallel with human progress. Code is available at https://github.com/lrlbbzl/PTD-SQL.

The ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to critique and refine their reasoning is crucial for their application in evaluation, feedback provision, and self-improvement. This paper introduces CriticBench, a comprehensive benchmark designed to assess LLMs’ abilities to critique and rectify their reasoning across a variety of tasks. CriticBench encompasses five reasoning domains: mathematical, commonsense, symbolic, coding, and algorithmic. It compiles 15 datasets and incorporates responses from three LLM families. Utilizing CriticBench, we evaluate and dissect the performance of 17 LLMs in generation, critique, and correction reasoning, i.e., GQC reasoning. Our findings reveal: (1) a linear relationship in GQC capabilities, with critique-focused training markedly enhancing performance; (2) a task-dependent variation in correction effectiveness, with logic-oriented tasks being more amenable to correction; (3) GQC knowledge inconsistencies that decrease as model size increases; and (4) an intriguing inter-model critiquing dynamic, where stronger models are better at critiquing weaker ones, while weaker models can surprisingly surpass stronger ones in their self-critique. We hope these insights into the nuanced critique-correct reasoning of LLMs will foster further research in LLM critique and self-improvement.