Leveraging the compositional nature of our world to expedite learning and facilitate generalization is a hallmark of human perception. In machine learning, on the other hand, achieving compositional generalization has proven to be an elusive goal, even for models with explicit compositional priors. To get a better handle on compositional generalization, we here approach it from the bottom up: Inspired by identifiable representation learning, we investigate compositionality as a property of the data-generating process rather than the data itself. This reformulation enables us to derive mild conditions on only the support of the training distribution and the model architecture, which are sufficient for compositional generalization. We further demonstrate how our theoretical framework applies to real-world scenarios and validate our findings empirically. Our results set the stage for a principled theoretical study of compositional generalization.

Given the intractably large size of the space of proofs, any model that is capable of general deductive reasoning must generalize to proofs of greater complexity. Recent studies have shown that large language models (LLMs) possess some abstract deductive reasoning ability given chain-of-thought prompts. However, they have primarily been tested on proofs using modus ponens or of a specific size, and from the same distribution as the in-context examples. To measure the general deductive reasoning ability of LLMs, we test on a broad set of deduction rules and measure their ability to generalize to more complex proofs from simpler demonstrations from multiple angles: depth-, width-, and compositional generalization. To facilitate systematic exploration, we construct a new synthetic and programmable reasoning dataset that enables control over deduction rules and proof complexity. Our experiments on four LLMs of various sizes and training objectives show that they are able to generalize to compositional proofs. However, they have difficulty generalizing to longer proofs, and they require explicit demonstrations to produce hypothetical subproofs, specifically in proof by cases and proof by contradiction.

In the supplementary material, we describe the domain specific languages used in our experiments (Section 1), demonstrate how the proposed CKY-E2 method works by a concrete example (Section 2.1), show formal properties of CKY-E2 (Section 2.2), present dataset setups and analyze model behaviors (Section 3), and list environmental details for experiments (Section??). In this section, we will present and discuss the domain-specific languages (DSLs) we use for two domains: visual reasoning and language-guided navigation. We will further introduce the neurosymbolic module we have designed for executing programs in these two domains. Overall, each DSL contains a set of types and a set of deterministic modules that have been manually designed for realizing necessary operations in these domains. However, in contrast to realizing them as we do in standard programming languages (with for-loops and if-conditions), we will be using tensor operations (e.g., tensor additions and multiplications) to realize them so that the output of each program is differentiable with respect to all of its inputs. We refer readers to the original papers for a detailed introduction to the DSL and neuro-symbolic program execution. Here we only highlight the key aspects of our language and its neuro-symbolic realization, and discuss the difference between our implementation and the ones in original papers. Our visual reasoning DSL is a subset of CLEVR, containing 6 types and 8 primitive operations. Table 1 illustrates all 6 types and how they are internally represented in neuro-symbolic execution. Table 2 further shows all operations in the DSL. There are two main differences between the DSL used by G2L2 and the original CLEVRDSL.

As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly advanced, their ability to exhibit compositional generalization---the capacity to combine learned skills in novel ways not encountered during training---has garnered significant attention. This type of generalization, particularly in scenarios beyond training data, is also of great interest in the study of AI safety and alignment. A recent study introduced the Skill-Mix evaluation, where models are tasked with composing a short paragraph demonstrating the use of a specified $k$-tuple of language skills. While small models struggled with composing even with $k=3$, larger models like GPT-4 performed reasonably well with $k=5$ and $6$.In this paper, we employ a setup akin to Skill-Mix to evaluate the capacity of smaller models to learn compositional generalization from examples. Utilizing a diverse set of language skills---including rhetorical, literary, reasoning, theory of mind, and common sense---GPT was used to generate text samples that exhibit random subsets of $k$ skills. Subsequent fine-tuning of 7B and 13B parameter models on these combined skill texts, for increasing values of $k$, revealed the following findings: (1) Training on combinations of $k=2$ and $3$ skills results in noticeable improvements in the ability to compose texts with $k=4$ and $5$ skills, despite models never having seen such examples during training.

Compositional generalization, the ability of an agent to generalize to unseen combinations of latent factors, is easy for humans but hard for deep neural networks. A line of research in cognitive science has hypothesized a process, "iterated learning,"

Human reasoning can be understood as a cooperation between the intuitive, associative "System-1" and the deliberative, logical "System-2".

LLMs show remarkable emergent abilities, such as inferring concepts from presumably out-of-distribution prompts, known as in-context learning.