Paired Examples as Indirect Supervision in Latent Decision Models
Nitish Gupta, Sameer Singh, Matt Gardner, Dan Roth
Abstract
Compositional, structured models are appealing because they explicitly decompose problems and provide interpretable intermediate outputs that give confidence that the model is not simply latching onto data artifacts. Learning these models is challenging, however, because end-task supervision only provides a weak indirect signal on what values the latent decisions should take. This often results in the model failing to learn to perform the intermediate tasks correctly. In this work, we introduce a way to leverage paired examples that provide stronger cues for learning latent decisions. When two related training examples share internal substructure, we add an additional training objective to encourage consistency between their latent decisions. Such an objective does not require external supervision for the values of the latent output, or even the end task, yet provides an additional training signal to that provided by individual training examples themselves. We apply our method to improve compositional question answering using neural module networks on the DROP dataset. We explore three ways to acquire paired questions in DROP: (a) discovering naturally occurring paired examples within the dataset, (b) constructing paired examples using templates, and (c) generating paired examples using a question generation model. We empirically demonstrate that our proposed approach improves both in-and outof-distribution generalization and leads to correct latent decision predictions.
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.
Cited by top-tier papers5
- On Learning Latent Models with Multi-Instance Weak SupervisionKaifu Wang, Efthymia Tsamoura, Dan RothNeurIPS 2023 · 19 citations
- CREST: A Joint Framework for Rationalization and Counterfactual Text GenerationMarcos V. Treviso, Alexis Ross, Nuno Miguel Guerreiro, André F. T. MartinsACL 2023 · 7 citations
- Imbalances in Neurosymbolic Learning: Characterization and Mitigating StrategiesEfthymia Tsamoura, Kaifu Wang, Dan RothNeurIPS 2025 · 2 citations
- Learning with Instance Bundles for Reading ComprehensionDheeru Dua, Pradeep Dasigi, Sameer Singh, Matt GardnerEMNLP 2021 · 1 citation
- On the Compositional Generalization in Versatile Open-domain DialogueTingchen Fu, Xueliang Zhao, Lemao Liu, Rui YanACL 2023
Builds on9
- BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTTianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q. Weinberger et al.ICLR 2020 · 8,443 citations
- Unsupervised Data Augmentation for Consistency TrainingQizhe Xie, Zihang Dai, Eduard H. Hovy, Thang Luong et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 2,774 citations
- Asking and Answering Questions to Evaluate the Factual Consistency of SummariesAlex Wang, Kyunghyun Cho, Mike LewisACL 2020 · 317 citations
- Adversarial Filters of Dataset BiasesRonan Le Bras, Swabha Swayamdipta, Chandra Bhagavatula, Rowan Zellers et al.ICML 2020 · 242 citations
- Neural Module Networks for Reasoning over TextNitish Gupta, Kevin Lin, Dan Roth, Sameer Singh et al.ICLR 2020 · 134 citations
Related papers
- Obtaining Faithful Interpretations from Compositional Neural NetworksSanjay Subramanian, Ben Bogin, Nitish Gupta, Tomer Wolfson et al.ACL 2020 · 5 citations
- Detection-Based Intermediate Supervision for Visual Question AnsweringYuhang Liu, Daowan Peng, Wei Wei, Yuanyuan Fu et al.AAAI 2024 · 3 citations
- Successive Prompting for Decomposing Complex QuestionsDheeru Dua, Shivanshu Gupta, Sameer Singh, Matt GardnerEMNLP 2022 · 38 citations
- Weakly Supervised Neuro-Symbolic Module Networks for Numerical Reasoning over TextAmrita Saha, Shafiq R. Joty, Steven C. H. HoiAAAI 2022 · 20 citations
- Learning by Analogy: A Causal Framework for Compositional GeneralizationLingjing Kong, Shaoan Xie, Yang Jiao, Yetian Chen et al.CVPR 2026
