mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Compositional Generalization via Structural Identification in a Category-Theoretic Framework

arXiv 2608.26465 ↗First posted 26 Aug 2026cs.CL stat.MLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Compositional generalization is usually evaluated through model accuracy. We instead ask which structural or lexical identifications make held-out COGS examples admissible from the structures observed in training. Sentences are represented as functors from syntactic addresses to lexical tokens, and selective collapses induce Kan extensions that propagate observed associations. Across 21 COGS generalization types, admissibility follows distinct identification profiles, while residual failures separate unsupported structural templates. These data-side diagnoses characterize what the training corpus licenses under specified identifications, without training a predictive model.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 4 of its 10 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Aug 2026.

Builds on

4 of 10 references.

References · 4

  1. 2020COGS: A Compositional Generalization Challenge Based on Semantic Interpretationcited by 263
  2. 2023ReCOGS: How Incidental Details of a Logical Form Overshadow an Evaluation of Semantic Interpretationcited by 24
  3. 2023SLOG: A Structural Generalization Benchmark for Semantic Parsingcited by 22
  4. 2026A calculus of types in Isbell nucleicited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.