Goto

Collaborating Authors

 structural generalization


Strengthening Structural Inductive Biases by Pre-training to Perform Syntactic Transformations

arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence

Models need appropriate inductive biases to effectively learn from small amounts of data and generalize systematically outside of the training distribution. While Transformers are highly versatile and powerful, they can still benefit from enhanced structural inductive biases for seq2seq tasks, especially those involving syntactic transformations, such as converting active to passive voice or semantic parsing. In this paper, we propose to strengthen the structural inductive bias of a Transformer by intermediate pre-training to perform synthetically generated syntactic transformations of dependency trees given a description of the transformation. Our experiments confirm that this helps with few-shot learning of syntactic tasks such as chunking, and also improves structural generalization for semantic parsing. Our analysis shows that the intermediate pre-training leads to attention heads that keep track of which syntactic transformation needs to be applied to which token, and that the model can leverage these attention heads on downstream tasks.


Evaluating Structural Generalization in Neural Machine Translation

arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence

Compositional generalization refers to the ability to generalize to novel combinations of previously observed words and syntactic structures. Since it is regarded as a desired property of neural models, recent work has assessed compositional generalization in machine translation as well as semantic parsing. However, previous evaluations with machine translation have focused mostly on lexical generalization (i.e., generalization to unseen combinations of known words). Thus, it remains unclear to what extent models can translate sentences that require structural generalization (i.e., generalization to different sorts of syntactic structures). To address this question, we construct SGET, a machine translation dataset covering various types of compositional generalization with control of words and sentence structures. We evaluate neural machine translation models on SGET and show that they struggle more in structural generalization than in lexical generalization. We also find different performance trends in semantic parsing and machine translation, which indicates the importance of evaluations across various tasks.


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

arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence

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.


ReCOGS: How Incidental Details of a Logical Form Overshadow an Evaluation of Semantic Interpretation

arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence

Compositional generalization benchmarks seek to assess whether models can accurately compute meanings for novel sentences, but operationalize this in terms of logical form (LF) prediction. This raises the concern that semantically irrelevant details of the chosen LFs could shape model performance. We argue that this concern is realized for the COGS benchmark (Kim and Linzen, 2020). COGS poses generalization splits that appear impossible for present-day models, which could be taken as an indictment of those models. However, we show that the negative results trace to incidental features of COGS LFs. Converting these LFs to semantically equivalent ones and factoring out capabilities unrelated to semantic interpretation, we find that even baseline models get traction. A recent variable-free translation of COGS LFs suggests similar conclusions, but we observe this format is not semantically equivalent; it is incapable of accurately representing some COGS meanings. These findings inform our proposal for ReCOGS, a modified version of COGS that comes closer to assessing the target semantic capabilities while remaining very challenging. Overall, our results reaffirm the importance of compositional generalization and careful benchmark task design.


On the Structural Generalization in Text-to-SQL

arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence

Exploring the generalization of a text-to-SQL parser is essential for a system to automatically adapt the real-world databases. Previous works provided investigations focusing on lexical diversity, including the influence of the synonym and perturbations in both natural language questions and databases. However, research on the structure variety of database schema~(DS) is deficient. Specifically, confronted with the same input question, the target SQL is probably represented in different ways when the DS comes to a different structure. In this work, we provide in-deep discussions about the structural generalization of text-to-SQL tasks. We observe that current datasets are too templated to study structural generalization. To collect eligible test data, we propose a framework to generate novel text-to-SQL data via automatic and synchronous (DS, SQL) pair altering. In the experiments, significant performance reduction when evaluating well-trained text-to-SQL models on the synthetic samples demonstrates the limitation of current research regarding structural generalization. According to comprehensive analysis, we suggest the practical reason is the overfitting of (NL, SQL) patterns.


Structural generalization is hard for sequence-to-sequence models

arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence

Sequence-to-sequence (seq2seq) models have been successful across many NLP tasks, including ones that require predicting linguistic structure. However, recent work on compositional generalization has shown that seq2seq models achieve very low accuracy in generalizing to linguistic structures that were not seen in training. We present new evidence that this is a general limitation of seq2seq models that is present not just in semantic parsing, but also in syntactic parsing and in text-to-text tasks, and that this limitation can often be overcome by neurosymbolic models that have linguistic knowledge built in. We further report on some experiments that give initial answers on the reasons for these limitations.