mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Grounded Graph Decoding Improves Compositional Generalization in Question Answering

arXiv 2111.03642 ↗First posted 5 Nov 2021cs.CL cs.LGcited by 6

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Question answering models struggle to generalize to novel compositions of training patterns, such to longer sequences or more complex test structures. Current end-to-end models learn a flat input embedding which can lose input syntax context. Prior approaches improve generalization by learning permutation invariant models, but these methods do not scale to more complex train-test splits. We propose Grounded Graph Decoding, a method to improve compositional generalization of language representations by grounding structured predictions with an attention mechanism. Grounding enables the model to retain syntax information from the input in thereby significantly improving generalization over complex inputs. By predicting a structured graph containing conjunctions of query clauses, we learn a group invariant representation without making assumptions on the target domain. Our model significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines on the Compositional Freebase Questions (CFQ) dataset, a challenging benchmark for compositional generalization in question answering. Moreover, we effectively solve the MCD1 split with 98% accuracy.

Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Nov 2021.

Builds on

23 of 31 references.

References · 23

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,491
  3. 2014Neural Machine Translation by Jointly Learning to Align and Translatecited by 4,530
  4. 2016Variational Graph Auto-Encoderscited by 1,373
  5. 2018Universal Transformerscited by 613
  6. 2019Measuring Compositional Generalization: A Comprehensive Method on Realistic Datacited by 280
  7. 2019The Evolved Transformercited by 180
  8. 2016Language to Logical Form with Neural Attentioncited by 158
  9. 2018Improving Text-to-SQL Evaluation Methodologycited by 133
  10. 2021Case-based Reasoning for Natural Language Queries over Knowledge Basescited by 107
  11. 2020Compositional Generalization in Semantic Parsing: Pre-training vs. Specialized Architecturescited by 95
  12. 2019Compositional Questions Do Not Necessitate Multi-hop Reasoningcited by 87
11 more
  1. 2019Measuring Compositionality in Representation Learningcited by 84
  2. 2020Compositional Generalization via Neural-Symbolic Stack Machinescited by 80
  3. 2020Learning Compositional Rules via Neural Program Synthesiscited by 74
  4. 2019Compositional generalization in a deep seq2seq model by separating syntax and semanticscited by 56
  5. 2021Unlocking Compositional Generalization in Pre-trained Models Using Intermediate Representationscited by 55
  6. 2018AMR Parsing as Graph Prediction with Latent Alignmentcited by 36
  7. 2016An Incremental Parser for Abstract Meaning Representationcited by 34
  8. 2013Lambda Dependency-Based Compositional Semanticscited by 26
  9. 2020Hierarchical Poset Decoding for Compositional Generalization in Languagecited by 26
  10. 2017Robust Incremental Neural Semantic Graph Parsingcited by 13
  11. 2019Semantic Graph Parsing with Recurrent Neural Network DAG Grammarscited by 8

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2022: 2; 2023: 2; 2024: 1; 2025: 1.

6 papers.