Unobserved Local Structures Make Compositional Generalization Hard
Ben Bogin, Shivanshu Gupta, Jonathan Berant
Abstract
While recent work has shown that sequence-to-sequence models struggle to generalize to new compositions (termed compositional generalization), little is known on what makes compositional generalization hard on a particular test instance. In this work, we investigate the factors that make generalization to certain test instances challenging. We first substantiate that some examples are more difficult than others by showing that different models consistently fail or succeed on the same test instances. Then, we propose a criterion for the difficulty of an example: a test instance is hard if it contains a local structure that was not observed at training time. We formulate a simple decision rule based on this criterion and empirically show it predicts instance-level generalization well across 5 different semantic parsing datasets, substantially better than alternative decision rules. Last, we show local structures can be leveraged for creating difficult adversarial compositional splits and also to improve compositional generalization under limited training budgets by strategically selecting examples for the training set.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 5ceadacd-e56b-4e94-a6fa-2537b9961f4cCited by top-tier papers13
- Faith and Fate: Limits of Transformers on CompositionalityNouha Dziri, Ximing Lu, Melanie Sclar, Xiang Lorraine Li et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 728 citations
- Prompting GPT-3 To Be ReliableChenglei Si, Zhe Gan, Zhengyuan Yang, Shuohang Wang et al.ICLR 2023 · 68 citations
- Diverse Demonstrations Improve In-context Compositional GeneralizationItay Levy, Ben Bogin, Jonathan BerantACL 2023 · 51 citations
- Don't Generate, Discriminate: A Proposal for Grounding Language Models to Real-World EnvironmentsYu Gu, Xiang Deng, Yu SuACL 2023 · 36 citations
- How Do In-Context Examples Affect Compositional Generalization?Shengnan An, Zeqi Lin, Qiang Fu, Bei Chen et al.ACL 2023 · 15 citations
Builds on12
- BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and ComprehensionMike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad et al.ACL 2020 · 1,224 citations
- Measuring Compositional Generalization: A Comprehensive Method on Realistic DataDaniel Keysers, Nathanael Schärli, Nathan Scales, Hylke Buisman et al.ICLR 2020 · 401 citations
- A Benchmark for Systematic Generalization in Grounded Language UnderstandingLaura Ruis, Jacob Andreas, Marco Baroni, Diane Bouchacourt et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 169 citations
- COGS: A Compositional Generalization Challenge Based on Semantic InterpretationNajoung Kim, Tal LinzenEMNLP 2020 · 149 citations
- Compositional Generalization via Neural-Symbolic Stack MachinesXinyun Chen, Chen Liang, Adams Wei Yu, Dawn Song et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 112 citations
Related papers
- Structural generalization is hard for sequence-to-sequence modelsYuekun Yao, Alexander KollerEMNLP 2022 · 8 citations
- Compositional Generalization without Trees using Multiset Tagging and Latent PermutationsMatthias Lindemann, Alexander Koller, Ivan TitovACL 2023
- Span-based Semantic Parsing for Compositional GeneralizationJonathan Herzig, Jonathan BerantACL 2021
- Compositional Generalization and Natural Language Variation: Can a Semantic Parsing Approach Handle Both?Peter Shaw, Ming-Wei Chang, Panupong Pasupat, Kristina ToutanovaACL 2021
- Consistency Regularization Training for Compositional GeneralizationYongjing Yin, Jiali Zeng, Yafu Li, Fandong Meng et al.ACL 2023 · 5 citations
