Compositional Generalization Requires Compositional Parsers
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
A rapidly growing body of research on compositional generalization investigates the ability of a semantic parser to dynamically recombine linguistic elements seen in training into unseen sequences. We present a systematic comparison of sequence-to-sequence models and models guided by compositional principles on the recent COGS corpus (Kim and Linzen, 2020). Though seq2seq models can perform well on lexical tasks, they perform with near-zero accuracy on structural generalization tasks that require novel syntactic structures; this holds true even when they are trained to predict syntax instead of semantics. In contrast, compositional models achieve near-perfect accuracy on structural generalization; we present new results confirming this from the AM parser (Groschwitz et al., 2021). Our findings show structural generalization is a key measure of compositional generalization and requires models that are aware of complex structure.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 27 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Feb 2022.
Builds on
27 of 43 references.
References · 27
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 36,960
- 2019BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehensioncited by 5,874
- 2019BERT Rediscovers the Classical NLP Pipelinecited by 1,046
- 2016Assessing the Ability of LSTMs to Learn Syntax-Sensitive Dependenciescited by 350
- 2019Measuring Compositional Generalization: A Comprehensive Method on Realistic Datacited by 280
- 2020COGS: A Compositional Generalization Challenge Based on Semantic Interpretationcited by 260
- 2018Constituency Parsing with a Self-Attentive Encodercited by 196
- 2020Compositional Generalization and Natural Language Variation: Can a Semantic Parsing Approach Handle Both?cited by 147
- 2021The Devil is in the Detail: Simple Tricks Improve Systematic Generalization of Transformerscited by 117
- 2020Span-based Semantic Parsing for Compositional Generalizationcited by 77
15 more
- 2020Does syntax need to grow on trees? Sources of hierarchical inductive bias in sequence-to-sequence networkscited by 72
- 2021Meta-Learning to Compositionally Generalizecited by 62
- 2016Simple and Accurate Dependency Parsing Using Bidirectional LSTM Feature Representationscited by 55
- 2018Deep RNNs Encode Soft Hierarchical Syntaxcited by 34
- 2021Learning Algebraic Recombination for Compositional Generalizationcited by 31
- 2021Disentangled Sequence to Sequence Learning for Compositional Generalizationcited by 30
- 2021Lexicon Learning for Few-Shot Neural Sequence Modelingcited by 28
- 2021Are Pre-trained Convolutions Better than Pre-trained Transformers?cited by 27
- 2018AMR Dependency Parsing with a Typed Semantic Algebracited by 17
- 2019Compositional Semantic Parsing Across Graphbankscited by 15
- 2017Modeling Source Syntax for Neural Machine Translationcited by 12
- 2021Improving Compositional Generalization in Classification Tasks via Structure Annotationscited by 12
- 2020Fast semantic parsing with well-typedness guaranteescited by 10
- 2021Compositional generalization in semantic parsing with pretrained transformerscited by 5
- 2021Learning compositional structures for semantic graph parsingcited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 2.
2 papers.