mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Structural generalization in COGS: Supertagging is (almost) all you need

arXiv 2310.14124 ↗First posted 21 Oct 2023cs.CLcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

In many Natural Language Processing applications, neural networks have been found to fail to generalize on out-of-distribution examples. In particular, several recent semantic parsing datasets have put forward important limitations of neural networks in cases where compositional generalization is required. In this work, we extend a neural graph-based semantic parsing framework in several ways to alleviate this issue. Notably, we propose: (1) the introduction of a supertagging step with valency constraints, expressed as an integer linear program; (2) a reduction of the graph prediction problem to the maximum matching problem; (3) the design of an incremental early-stopping training strategy to prevent overfitting. Experimentally, our approach significantly improves results on examples that require structural generalization in the COGS dataset, a known challenging benchmark for compositional generalization. Overall, our results confirm that structural constraints are important for generalization in semantic parsing.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 52 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Oct 2023.

Builds on

26 of 52 references.

References · 26

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
  2. 2016Deep Biaffine Attention for Neural Dependency Parsingcited by 334
  3. 2015Improved Semantic Representations From Tree-Structured Long Short-Term Memory Networkscited by 306
  4. 2019Measuring Compositional Generalization: A Comprehensive Method on Realistic Datacited by 284
  5. 2020COGS: A Compositional Generalization Challenge Based on Semantic Interpretationcited by 263
  6. 2019Good-Enough Compositional Data Augmentationcited by 158
  7. 2018Improving Text-to-SQL Evaluation Methodologycited by 135
  8. 2021The Devil is in the Detail: Simple Tricks Improve Systematic Generalization of Transformerscited by 117
  9. 2016Data Recombination for Neural Semantic Parsingcited by 111
  10. 2020Span-based Semantic Parsing for Compositional Generalizationcited by 77
  11. 2020Learning to Recombine and Resample Data for Compositional Generalizationcited by 65
  12. 2021Meta-Learning to Compositionally Generalizecited by 62
14 more
  1. 2021Unlocking Compositional Generalization in Pre-trained Models Using Intermediate Representationscited by 55
  2. 2018Simpler but More Accurate Semantic Dependency Parsingcited by 46
  3. 2021Improving Compositional Generalization with Latent Structure and Data Augmentationcited by 46
  4. 2018AMR Parsing as Graph Prediction with Latent Alignmentcited by 36
  5. 2020Compositional Generalization via Semantic Taggingcited by 32
  6. 2021Learning Algebraic Recombination for Compositional Generalizationcited by 31
  7. 2018AMR Dependency Parsing with a Typed Semantic Algebracited by 17
  8. 2022SUBS: Subtree Substitution for Compositional Semantic Parsingcited by 16
  9. 2019Transcoding compositionally: using attention to find more generalizable solutionscited by 14
  10. 2016Dependency Parsing as Head Selectioncited by 13
  11. 2021LAGr: Labeling Aligned Graphs for Improving Systematic Generalization in Semantic Parsingcited by 7
  12. 2022Compositional Generalisation with Structured Reordering and Fertility Layerscited by 6
  13. 2023On the inconsistency of separable losses for structured predictioncited by 2
  14. 2023On graph-based reentrancy-free semantic parsingcited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 0; 2026: 3.

4 papers.