PreprintCited by 264Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Measuring Compositional Generalization: A Comprehensive Method on Realistic Data

Open access

Abstract

State-of-the-art machine learning methods exhibit limited compositional generalization. At the same time, there is a lack of realistic benchmarks that comprehensively measure this ability, which makes it challenging to find and evaluate improvements. We introduce a novel method to systematically construct such benchmarks by maximizing compound divergence while guaranteeing a small atom divergence between train and test sets, and we quantitatively compare this method to other approaches for creating compositional generalization benchmarks. We present a large and realistic natural language question answering dataset that is constructed according to this method, and we use it to analyze the compositional generalization ability of three machine learning architectures. We find that they fail to generalize compositionally and that there is a surprisingly strong negative correlation between compound divergence and accuracy. We also demonstrate how our method can be used to create new compositionality benchmarks on top of the existing SCAN dataset, which confirms these findings.

Overview

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.1912.09713

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. Aishwarya Agrawal, Dhruv Batra, Devi Parikh, and Aniruddha Kembhavi. Don't just assume; look and answer: Overcoming priors for visual question answering. In CVPR, 2018. URL https: //arxiv.org/pdf/1712.00377.pdf.
  2. Jacob Andreas. Measuring compositionality in representation learning. In ICLR, 2019. URL https: //openreview.net/pdf?id=HJz05o0qK7.
  3. Franz Baader, Diego Calvanese, Deborah McGuinness, Peter Patel-Schneider, and Daniele Nardi. The description logic handbook: Theory, implementation and applications. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
  4. Franz Baader, Sebastian Brandt, and Carsten Lutz. Pushing the EL envelope. In IJCAI, 2005. URL http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1642293.1642351.
  5. Dzmitry Bahdanau, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. In ICLR, 2015. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.0473. · arXiv
  6. 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? In ICLR, 2019. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.12889. · arXiv
  7. Jasmijn Bastings, Marco Baroni, Jason Weston, Kyunghyun Cho, and Douwe Kiela. Jump to better conclusions: SCAN both left and right. In BlackboxNLP@EMNLP, 2018. URL https://www. aclweb.org/anthology/W18-5407.
  8. Peter Battaglia, Jessica Blake Chandler Hamrick, Victor Bapst, Alvaro Sanchez, Vinicius Zam- baldi, Mateusz Malinowski, Andrea Tacchetti, David Raposo, Adam Santoro, Ryan Faulkner, Caglar Gulcehre, Francis Song, Andy Ballard, Justin Gilmer, George E. Dahl, Ashish Vaswani, Kelsey Allen, Charles Nash, Victoria Jayne Langston, Chris Dyer, Nicolas Heess, Daan Wier- stra, Pushmeet Kohli, Matt Botvinick, Oriol Vinyals, Yujia Li, and Razvan Pascanu. Rela- tional inductive biases, deep learning, and graph networks. CoRR, abs/1806.01261, 2018. URL https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.01261.pdf. · arXiv
  9. Jonathan Berant, Andrew Chou, Roy Frostig, and Percy Liang. Semantic parsing on Freebase from question-answer pairs. In EMNLP, 2013. URL https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D13-1160.
  10. Kurt Bollacker, Colin Evans, Praveen Paritosh, Tim Sturge, and Jamie Taylor. Freebase: a collabo- ratively created graph database for structuring human knowledge. In ACM SIGMOD, 2008. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/1376616.1376746. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Michael Chang, Abhishek Gupta, Sergey Levine, and Thomas L. Griffiths. Automatically com- posing representation transformations as a means for generalization. In ICLR, 2019. URL https://openreview.net/pdf?id=B1ffQnRcKX.
  12. JK Chung, PL Kannappan, CT Ng, and PK Sahoo. Measures of distance between probability distri- butions. JMAA, 138(1):280-292, 1989. URL https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/82205465.pdf.
  13. Michael A. Covington. Gulp 3.1: An extension of prolog for unification-based grammar. Research Report AI-1994-06, University of Georgia, 1994. URL http://hdl.handle.net/10724/30221.
  14. Mostafa Dehghani, Stephan Gouws, Oriol Vinyals, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Łukasz Kaiser. Universal transformers. CoRR, abs/1807.03819, 2018. URL https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.03819.pdf. · arXiv
  15. Catherine Finegan-Dollak, Jonathan K. Kummerfeld, Li Zhang, Karthik Ramanathan, Sesh Sadasi- vam, Rui Zhang, and Dragomir Radev. Improving text-to-SQL evaluation methodology. In ACL, 2018. URL http://aclweb.org/anthology/P18-1033.
  16. 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. In ICLR, 2018. URL https://openreview.net/pdf?id= rkN2Il-RZ.
  17. Drew A. Hudson and Christopher D. Manning. Compositional attention networks for machine rea- soning. In ICLR, 2018. URL https://openreview.net/pdf?id=S1Euwz-Rb.
  18. Drew A. Hudson and Christopher D. Manning. GQA: A new dataset for real-world visual reasoning and compositional question answering. In CVPR, 2019a. URL https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.09506. pdf. · arXiv
  19. Drew A. Hudson and Christopher D. Manning. Learning by abstraction: The neural state machine. CoRR, abs/1907.03950, 2019b. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1907.03950. · arXiv
  20. Justin Johnson, Bharath Hariharan, Laurens van der Maaten, Fei-Fei Li, Lawrence C. Zitnick, and Ross Girshick. CLEVR: A diagnostic dataset for compositional language and elementary visual reasoning. In CVPR, 2017. URL https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.06890.pdf. · arXiv
  21. Lauri Karttunen. Features and values. In ACL, 1984. URL https://doi.org/10.3115/980491.980499. · DOI
  22. Brenden M. Lake and Marco Baroni. Generalization without systematicity: On the compositional skills of sequence-to-sequence recurrent networks. In ICML, 2018. URL https://arxiv.org/pdf/ 1711.00350.pdf.
  23. João Loula, Marco Baroni, and Brenden Lake. Rearranging the familiar: Testing compositional gen- eralization in recurrent networks. In BlackboxNLP@EMNLP, 2018. URL https://www.aclweb. org/anthology/W18-5413.
  24. Jiayuan Mao, Chuang Gan, Pushmeet Kohli, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Jiajun Wu. The neuro- symbolic concept learner: Interpreting scenes, words, and sentences from natural supervision. In ICLR, 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.12584. · arXiv
  25. Alexander Miller, Adam Fisch, Jesse Dodge, Amir-Hossein Karimi, Antoine Bordes, and Jason Weston. Key-value memory networks for directly reading documents. EMNLP, 2016. doi: 10.18653/v1/d16-1147. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.18653/v1/D16-1147. · DOI
  26. Jake Russin, Jason Jo, Randall C. O'Reilly, and Yoshua Bengio. Compositional generalization in a deep seq2seq model by separating syntax and semantics. CoRR, abs/1904.09708, 2019. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1904.09708. · arXiv
  27. David Saxton, Edward Grefenstette, Felix Hill, and Pushmeet Kohli. Analysing mathematical reasoning abilities of neural models. In ICLR, 2019. URL https://openreview.net/pdf?id= H1gR5iR5FX.
  28. Yu Su, Huan Sun, Brian Sadler, Mudhakar Srivatsa, Izzeddin Gur, Zenghui Yan, and Xifeng Yan. On generating characteristic-rich question sets for QA evaluation. In EMNLP, 2016. URL https: //www.aclweb.org/anthology/D16-1054.
  29. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. In NIPS, 2017. URL https: //arxiv.org/pdf/1706.03762.pdf.
  30. Ashish Vaswani, Samy Bengio, Eugene Brevdo, Francois Chollet, Aidan N. Gomez, Stephan Gouws, Llion Jones, Łukasz Kaiser, Nal Kalchbrenner, Niki Parmar, Ryan Sepassi, Noam Shazeer, and Jakob Uszkoreit. Tensor2tensor for neural machine translation. CoRR, abs/1803.07416, 2018. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1803.07416. · arXiv
  31. Yushi Wang, Jonathan Berant, and Percy Liang. Building a semantic parser overnight. In ACL, 2015. URL http://aclweb.org/anthology/P15-1129.
  32. Jason Weston, Antoine Bordes, Sumit Chopra, Alexander M Rush, Bart van Merriënboer, Armand Joulin, and Tomas Mikolov. Towards AI-complete question answering: A set of prerequisite toy tasks. In ICLR, 2016. URL https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.05698.pdf. · arXiv
  33. Xuchen Yao and Benjamin Van Durme. Information extraction over structured data: Question an- swering with freebase. In ACL, 2014. URL https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P14-1090.
  34. Scott Wen-tau Yih, Matthew Richardson, Chris Meek, Ming-Wei Chang, and Jina Suh. The value of semantic parse labeling for knowledge base question answering. In ACL, 2016. URL https: //www.aclweb.org/anthology/P16-2033.
  35. Yuyu Zhang, Hanjun Dai, Zornitsa Kozareva, Alexander J Smola, and Le Song. Variational rea- soning for question answering with knowledge graph. In AAAI, 2018. URL https://arxiv.org/pdf/ 1709.04071.pdf.
  36. Did [Emerald Cities]'s cinematographer, writer, and editor edit, executive produce, and direct [Blues for the Avatar] and [White Stork Is Coming]?
  37. What male employee of [Weta Workshop] was [Bad Taste]'s editor? 26. Were [Weta Digital] and
  38. Workshop] founded by a cinematographer and founded by a film editor? 27. What art director influenced [DreamWorks Animation]'s founder? 28. Did [Daisies] star [Fruit of Paradise]'s costume designer and writer, star [Jaromír Vomácka], and star [Jirina Myskova]?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Keysers, D., Schärli, N., Scales, N., Buisman, H., Furrer, D., Kashubin, S., Momchev, N., Sinopalnikov, D., Stafiniak, L., Tihon, T., Tsarkov, D., Wang, X., van Zee, M., & Bousquet, O.
Affiliations
Google (United States) (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2996094825
Cited by
264
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 72 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Keywords
compositional generalization, benchmark design, natural language question answering, compositional reasoning

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