REVIEW 1 cited by
CTL++: Evaluating Generalization on Never-Seen Compositional Patterns of Known Functions, and Compatibility of Neural Representations
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Well-designed diagnostic tasks have played a key role in studying the failure of neural nets (NNs) to generalize systematically. Famous examples include SCAN and Compositional Table Lookup (CTL). Here we introduce CTL++, a new diagnostic dataset based on compositions of unary symbolic functions. While the original CTL is used to test length generalization or productivity, CTL++ is designed to test systematicity of NNs, that is, their capability to generalize to unseen compositions of known functions. CTL++ splits functions into groups and tests performance on group elements composed in a way not seen during training. We show that recent CTL-solving Transformer variants fail on CTL++. The simplicity of the task design allows for fine-grained control of task difficulty, as well as many insightful analyses. For example, we measure how much overlap between groups is needed by tested NNs for learning to compose. We also visualize how learned symbol representations in outputs of functions from different groups are compatible in case of success but not in case of failure. These results provide insights into failure cases reported on more complex compositions in the natural language domain. Our code is public.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
An Analysis for Reasoning Bias of Language Models with Small Initialization
Initialization scale controls whether a transformer learns compositional reasoning or memorized mappings, because reasoning tokens acquire more differentiated embeddings early in training.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.