PreprintCited by 83Reinforcement Learning in RoboticsDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningPsychiatry, Mental Health, Neuroscience

Environmental drivers of systematicity and generalization in a situated agent

Open access
Hill, Felix, Lampinen, Andrew, Schneider, Rosalia, Clark, Stephen, Botvinick, Matthew, McClelland, James L., Santoro, Adam·2019·arXiv

Abstract

The question of whether deep neural networks are good at generalising beyond their immediate training experience is of critical importance for learning-based approaches to AI. Here, we consider tests of out-of-sample generalisation that require an agent to respond to never-seen-before instructions by manipulating and positioning objects in a 3D Unity simulated room. We first describe a comparatively generic agent architecture that exhibits strong performance on these tests. We then identify three aspects of the training regime and environment that make a significant difference to its performance: (a) the number of object/word experiences in the training set; (b) the visual invariances afforded by the agent's perspective, or frame of reference; and (c) the variety of visual input inherent in the perceptual aspect of the agent's perception. Our findings indicate that the degree of generalisation that networks exhibit can depend critically on particulars of the environment in which a given task is instantiated. They further suggest that the propensity for neural networks to generalise in systematic ways may increase if, like human children, those networks have access to many frames of richly varying, multi-modal observations as they learn.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1910.00571

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • When language is tied to rich environments, a system's grasp of language can become more systematic and generalizable.

    “In turn, grounding language in rich environments can make a system's understanding of the language itself more systematic and generalizable (Hill et al., 2019).”

    From Scaling Instructable Agents Across Many Simulated Worlds (2024) · cites this paper as Hill et al., 2019

  • Empirical evidence indicates that grounding supports even basic generalization; Hill et al. (2019) found that agents in richer, more embodied environments show more systematic compositional generalization.

    “Beyond this theoretical argument, empirical evidence shows that grounding can support even fundamental kinds of generalization- Hill et al. (2019) show that agents grounded in richer, more-embodied environments exhibit more systematic compositional generalization.”

    From Scaling Instructable Agents Across Many Simulated Worlds (2024) · cites this paper as Hill et al., 2019

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, and Yingyu Liang. Learning and generalization in overparameterized neural networks, going beyond two layers. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.04918 , 2018. · arXiv
  2. Michael L Anderson. Embodied cognition: A field guide. Artificial intelligence , 149(1):91-130, 2003.
  3. Philip W Anderson. More is different. Science , 177(4047):393-396, 1972.
  4. Jacob Andreas, Marcus Rohrbach, Trevor Darrell, and Dan Klein. Neural module networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 39-48, 2016.
  5. Jacob Andreas, Dan Klein, and Sergey Levine. Modular multitask reinforcement learning with policy sketches. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine LearningVolume 70 , pp. 166-175. JMLR. org, 2017.
  6. Sanjeev Arora, Rong Ge, Behnam Neyshabur, and Yi Zhang. Stronger generalization bounds for deep nets via a compression approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.05296 , 2018. · arXiv
  7. Sanjeev Arora, Simon S Du, Wei Hu, Zhiyuan Li, and Ruosong Wang. Fine-grained analysis of optimization and generalization for overparameterized two-layer neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.08584 , 2019. · arXiv
  8. Dzmitry Bahdanau, Shikhar Murty, Michael Noukhovitch, Thien Huu Nguyen, Harm de Vries, and Aaron Courville. Systematic generalization: What is required and can it be learned? arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.12889 , 2018. · arXiv
  9. Peter W Battaglia, Jessica B Hamrick, Victor Bapst, Alvaro Sanchez-Gonzalez, Vinicius Zambaldi, Mateusz Malinowski, Andrea Tacchetti, David Raposo, Adam Santoro, Ryan Faulkner, et al. Relational inductive biases, deep learning, and graph networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.01261 , 2018. · arXiv
  10. Charles Beattie, Joel Z. Leibo, Denis Teplyashin, Tom Ward, Marcus Wainwright, Heinrich K¨ uttler, Andrew Lefrancq, Simon Green, V´ ıctor Vald´ es, Amir Sadik, Julian Schrittwieser, Keith Anderson, Sarah York, Max Cant, Adam Cain, Adrian Bolton, Stephen Gaffney, Helen King, Demis Hassabis, Shane Legg, and Stig Petersen. Deepmind lab. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.03801 , 2016. · arXiv
  11. Devendra Singh Chaplot, Kanthashree Mysore Sathyendra, Rama Kumar Pasumarthi, Dheeraj Rajagopal, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. Gated-attention architectures for task-oriented language grounding. In Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2018.
  12. Elizabeth M Clerkin, Elizabeth Hart, James M Rehg, Chen Yu, and Linda B Smith. Real-world visual statistics and infants' first-learned object names. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 372(1711):20160055, 2017.
  13. Lasse Espeholt, Hubert Soyer, Remi Munos, Karen Simonyan, Volodymir Mnih, Tom Ward, Yotam Doron, Vlad Firoiu, Tim Harley, Iain Dunning, et al. Impala: Scalable distributed deep-rl with importance weighted actor-learner architectures. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.01561 , 2018. · arXiv
  14. Stefan L Frank. Learn more by training less: systematicity in sentence processing by recurrent networks. Connection Science , 18(3):287-302, 2006.
  15. Irina Higgins, Nicolas Sonnerat, Loic Matthey, Arka Pal, Christopher P Burgess, Matko Bosnjak, Murray Shanahan, Matthew Botvinick, Demis Hassabis, and Alexander Lerchner. Scan: Learning hierarchical compositional visual concepts. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.03389 , 2017. · arXiv
  16. Felix Hill, Karl Moritz Hermann, Phil Blunsom, and Stephen Clark. Understanding grounded language learning agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.09867 , 2017. · arXiv
  17. Karin H James, Susan S Jones, Linda B Smith, and Shelley N Swain. Young children's selfgenerated object views and object recognition. Journal of Cognition and Development , 15(3): 393-401, 2014.
  18. Philip J Kellman and Martha E Arterberry. The cradle of knowledge: Development of perception in infancy . MIT press, 2000.
  19. Brenden M Lake. Compositional generalization through meta sequence-to-sequence learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.05381 , 2019. · arXiv
  20. Brenden M Lake and Marco Baroni. Generalization without systematicity: On the compositional skills of sequence-to-sequence recurrent networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.00350 , 2017. · arXiv
  21. Brenden M Lake, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Joshua B Tenenbaum. Human-level concept learning through probabilistic program induction. Science , 350(6266):1332-1338, 2015.
  22. Brenden M Lake, Tal Linzen, and Marco Baroni. Human few-shot learning of compositional instructions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.04587 , 2019. · arXiv
  23. Andrew K Lampinen and Surya Ganguli. An analytic theory of generalization dynamics and transfer learning in deep linear networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.10374 , 2018. · arXiv
  24. Jiayuan Mao, Chuang Gan, Pushmeet Kohli, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Jiajun Wu. The neurosymbolic concept learner: Interpreting scenes, words, and sentences from natural supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.12584 , 2019. · arXiv
  25. Gary F Marcus. Rethinking eliminative connectionism. Cognitive psychology , 37(3):243-282, 1998.
  26. James L McClelland, David E Rumelhart, PDP Research Group, et al. Parallel distributed processing , volume 2. MIT press Cambridge, MA:, 1987.
  27. James L McClelland, Matthew M Botvinick, David C Noelle, David C Plaut, Timothy T Rogers, Mark S Seidenberg, and Linda B Smith. Letting structure emerge: connectionist and dynamical systems approaches to cognition. Trends in cognitive sciences , 14(8):348-356, 2010.
  28. Marvin Minsky and Seymour Papert. Perceptron: an introduction to computational geometry. The MIT Press, Cambridge, expanded edition , 19(88):2, 1969.
  29. Randall C O'Reilly. Generalization in interactive networks: The benefits of inhibitory competition and hebbian learning. Neural computation , 13(6):1199-1241, 2001.
  30. Randall C O'Reilly, Alex A Petrov, Jonathan D Cohen, Christian J Lebiere, Seth A Herd, Trent Kriete, In Paco Calvo, and John Symons. How limited systematicity emerges: A computational cognitive neuroscience approach. The architecture of cognition: Rethinking fodor and Pylyshyn's systematicity challenge , 2013.
  31. David C Plaut. Systematicity and specialization in semantics. In Connectionist Models in Cognitive Neuroscience , pp. 184-193. Springer, 1999.
  32. D. E. Rumelhart, G. E. Hinton, and R. J. Williams. Learning internal representations by error propagation. In J L McClelland, D E Rumelhart, PDP Research Group, et al. (eds.), Parallel distributed processing , volume 2, chapter 8, pp. 318-362. The MIT Press, 1986.
  33. Mark Steedman. Connectionist sentence processing in perspective. Cognitive Science , 23(4):615634, 1999.
  34. Mark Steedman. Taking Scope - The Natural Semantics of Quantifiers . The MIT Press, 2011.
  35. Haonan Yu, Haichao Zhang, and Wei Xu. Interactive grounded language acquisition and generalization in a 2d world. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.01433 , 2018. · arXiv
  36. Daniel Yurovsky, Linda B Smith, and Chen Yu. Statistical word learning at scale: The baby's view is better. Developmental science , 16(6):959-966, 2013.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hill, F., Lampinen, A., Schneider, R., Clark, S., Botvinick, M., McClelland, J. L., & Santoro, A.
Affiliations
  • Google (United States) (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • University College London (GB)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3005188920
Cited by
81
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 24
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • International Conference on Learning Representations
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Psychiatry, Mental Health, Neuroscience
Keywords
out-of-distribution generalization, systematicity, situated agents, embodied AI, object manipulation, training environment design, visual invariance, reference frames, multisensory perception, training data size

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review