On Using Distribution-Based Compositionality Assessment to Evaluate Compositional Generalisation in Machine Translation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Compositional generalisation (CG), in NLP and in machine learning more generally, has been assessed mostly using artificial datasets. It is important to develop benchmarks to assess CG also in real-world natural language tasks in order to understand the abilities and limitations of systems deployed in the wild. To this end, our GenBench Collaborative Benchmarking Task submission utilises the distribution-based compositionality assessment (DBCA) framework to split the Europarl translation corpus into a training and a test set in such a way that the test set requires compositional generalisation capacity. Specifically, the training and test sets have divergent distributions of dependency relations, testing NMT systems' capability of translating dependencies that they have not been trained on. This is a fully-automated procedure to create natural language compositionality benchmarks, making it simple and inexpensive to apply it further to other datasets and languages. The code and data for the experiments is available at https://github.com/aalto-speech/dbca.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 13 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Nov 2023.
Builds on
21 of 36 references.
References · 21
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,106
- 2015Neural Machine Translation of Rare Words with Subword Unitscited by 2,910
- 2019Does Learning Require Memorization? A Short Tale about a Long Tailcited by 456
- 2022Data Distributional Properties Drive Emergent In-Context Learning in Transformerscited by 305
- 2019Measuring Compositional Generalization: A Comprehensive Method on Realistic Datacited by 283
- 2019Compositionality decomposed: how do neural networks generalise?cited by 264
- 2020COGS: A Compositional Generalization Challenge Based on Semantic Interpretationcited by 261
- 2017OpenNMT: Open-source Toolkit for Neural Machine Translationcited by 251
- 2020Compositional Generalization and Natural Language Variation: Can a Semantic Parsing Approach Handle Both?cited by 147
- 2021How much do language models copy from their training data? Evaluating linguistic novelty in text generation using RAVENcited by 124
- 2022State-of-the-art generalisation research in NLP: A taxonomy and reviewcited by 98
- 2020We Need to Talk About Random Splitscited by 70
9 more
- 2021The paradox of the compositionality of natural language: a neural machine translation case studycited by 59
- 2021Frequency Effects on Syntactic Rule Learning in Transformerscited by 59
- 2021On Compositional Generalization of Neural Machine Translationcited by 34
- 2022Evaluating Distributional Distortion in Neural Language Modelingcited by 19
- 2019Don't Forget the Long Tail! A Comprehensive Analysis of Morphological Generalization in Bilingual Lexicon Inductioncited by 15
- 2019On Compositionality in Neural Machine Translationcited by 14
- 2023Subword Segmental Machine Translation: Unifying Segmentation and Target Sentence Generationcited by 7
- 2022Systematicity, Compositionality and Transitivity of Deep NLP Models: a Metamorphic Testing Perspectivecited by 5
- 2022Real-World Compositional Generalization with Disentangled Sequence-to-Sequence Learningcited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1.
1 paper.