Large language models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance on natural language to SQL (NL2SQL) benchmarks, yet their reported accuracy may be inflated by contamination from benchmark queries or structurally similar patterns seen during training. We introduce SPENCE (Syntactic Probing and Evaluation of NL2SQL Contamination Effects), a controlled syntactic probing framework for detecting and quantifying such contamination. SPENCE systematically generates syntactic variants of test queries for four widely used NL2SQL datasets—Spider, SParC, CoSQL, and the newer BIRD benchmark. We use SPENCE to evaluate multiple high-capacity LLMs under execution-based scoring. For each model, we measure changes in execution accuracy (Delta Accuracy) across increasing levels of syntactic divergence and quantify rank sensitivity using Kendall’s tau with bootstrap confidence intervals. By aligning these robustness trends with benchmark release dates, we observe a clear temporal gradient: older benchmarks such as Spider exhibit the strongest negative values and thus the highest likelihood of training leakage, whereas the more recent BIRD dataset shows minimal sensitivity and appears largely uncontaminated. Together, these findings highlight the importance of temporally contextualized, syntactic-probing evaluation for trustworthy NL2SQL benchmarking.

Robust evaluation in the presence of linguistic variation is key to understanding the generalization capabilities of Natural Language to SQL (NL2SQL) models, yet existing benchmarks rarely address this factor in a systematic or controlled manner. We propose a novel schema-aligned paraphrasing framework that leverages SQL-to-NL (SQL2NL) to automatically generate semantically equivalent, lexically diverse queries while maintaining alignment with the original schema and intent. This enables the first targeted evaluation of NL2SQL robustness to linguistic variation in isolation-distinct from prior work that primarily investigates ambiguity or schema perturbations. Ouranalysis reveals that state-of-the-art models are far more brittle than standard benchmarks suggest. For example, LLaMa3.3-70B exhibits a 10.23% drop in execution accuracy (from 77.11% to 66.9%) on paraphrased Spider queries, while LLaMa3.1-8B suffers an even larger drop of nearly 20% (from 62.9% to 42.5%). Smaller models (e.g., GPT-4o mini) are disproportionately affected. We also find that robustness degradation varies significantly with query complexity, dataset, and domain- highlighting the need for evaluation frameworks that explicitly measure linguistic generalization to ensure reliable performance in real-world settings.