Although variational autoencoders (VAE) are successfully used to obtain meaningful low-dimensional representations for high-dimensional data, the characterization of critical points of the loss function for general observation models is not fully understood. We introduce a theoretical framework that is based on a connection between $\beta$-VAE and generalized linear models (GLM). The equality between the activation function of a $\beta$-VAE and the inverse of the link function of a GLM enables us to provide a systematic generalization of the loss analysis for $\beta$-VAE based on the assumption that the observation model distribution belongs to an exponential dispersion family (EDF). As a result, we can initialize $\beta$-VAE nets by maximum likelihood estimates (MLE) that enhance the training performance on both synthetic and real world data sets. As a further consequence, we analytically describe the auto-pruning property inherent in the $\beta$-VAE objective and reason for posterior collapse.
We address whether neural models for Natural Language Inference (NLI) can learn the compositional interactions between lexical entailment and negation, using four methods: the behavioral evaluation methods of (1) challenge test sets and (2) systematic generalization tasks, and the structural evaluation methods of (3) probes and (4) interventions. To facilitate this holistic evaluation, we present Monotonicity NLI (MoNLI), a new naturalistic dataset focused on lexical entailment and negation. In our behavioral evaluations, we find that models trained on general-purpose NLI datasets fail systematically on MoNLI examples containing negation, but that MoNLI fine-tuning addresses this failure. In our structural evaluations, we look for evidence that our top-performing BERT-based model has learned to implement the monotonicity algorithm behind MoNLI. Probes yield evidence consistent with this conclusion, and our intervention experiments bolster this, showing that the causal dynamics of the model mirror the causal dynamics of this algorithm on subsets of MoNLI. This suggests that the BERT model at least partially embeds a theory of lexical entailment and negation at an algorithmic level.
Humans can systematically generalize to novel compositions of existing concepts. Recent studies argue that neural networks appear inherently ineffective in such cognitive capacity, leading to a pessimistic view and a lack of attention to optimistic results. We revisit this controversial topic from the perspective of meaningful learning, an exceptional capability of humans to learn novel concepts by connecting them with known ones. We reassess the compositional skills of sequence-to-sequence models conditioned on the semantic links between new and old concepts. Our observations suggest that models can successfully one-shot generalize to novel concepts and compositions through semantic linking, either inductively or deductively. We demonstrate that prior knowledge plays a key role as well. In addition to synthetic tests, we further conduct proof-of-concept experiments in machine translation and semantic parsing, showing the benefits of meaningful learning in applications. We hope our positive findings will encourage excavating modern neural networks' potential in systematic generalization through more advanced learning schemes.
Humans easily interpret expressions that describe unfamiliar situations composed from familiar parts ("greet the pink brontosaurus by the ferris wheel"). Modern neural networks, by contrast, struggle to interpret novel compositions. In this paper, we introduce a new benchmark, gSCAN, for evaluating compositional generalization in situated language understanding. Going beyond a related benchmark that focused on syntactic aspects of generalization, gSCAN defines a language grounded in the states of a grid world, facilitating novel evaluations of acquiring linguistically motivated rules. For example, agents must understand how adjectives such as 'small' are interpreted relative to the current world state or how adverbs such as 'cautiously' combine with new verbs. We test a strong multi-modal baseline model and a state-of-the-art compositional method finding that, in most cases, they fail dramatically when generalization requires systematic compositional rules.
The CLEVR dataset of natural-looking questions about 3D-rendered scenes has recently received much attention from the research community. A number of models have been proposed for this task, many of which achieved very high accuracies of around 97-99%. In this work, we study how systematic the generalization of such models is, that is to which extent they are capable of handling novel combinations of known linguistic constructs. To this end, we test models' understanding of referring expressions based on matching object properties (such as e.g. "another cube that is the same size as the brown cube") in novel contexts. Our experiments on the thereby constructed CLOSURE benchmark show that state-of-the-art models often do not exhibit systematicity after being trained on CLEVR. Surprisingly, we find that an explicitly compositional Neural Module Network model also generalizes badly on CLOSURE, even when it has access to the ground-truth programs at test time. We improve the NMN's systematic generalization by developing a novel Vector-NMN module architecture with vector-valued inputs and outputs. Lastly, we investigate how much few-shot transfer learning can help models that are pretrained on CLEVR to adapt to CLOSURE. Our few-shot learning experiments contrast the adaptation behavior of the models with intermediate discrete programs with that of the end-to-end continuous models.
Many recent works have discussed the propensity, or lack thereof, for emergent languages to exhibit properties of natural languages. A favorite in the literature is learning compositionality. We note that most of those works have focused on communicative bandwidth as being of primary importance. While important, it is not the only contributing factor. In this paper, we investigate the learning biases that affect the efficacy and compositionality of emergent languages. Our foremost contribution is to explore how capacity of a neural network impacts its ability to learn a compositional language. We additionally introduce a set of evaluation metrics with which we analyze the learned languages. Our hypothesis is that there should be a specific range of model capacity and channel bandwidth that induces compositional structure in the resulting language and consequently encourages systematic generalization. While we empirically see evidence for the bottom of this range, we curiously do not find evidence for the top part of the range and believe that this is an open question for the community.
The recent success of natural language understanding (NLU) systems has been troubled by results highlighting the failure of these models to generalize in a systematic and robust way. In this work, we introduce a diagnostic benchmark suite, named CLUTRR, to clarify some key issues related to the robustness and systematicity of NLU systems. Motivated by classic work on inductive logic programming, CLUTRR requires that an NLU system infer kinship relations between characters in short stories. Successful performance on this task requires both extracting relationships between entities, as well as inferring the logical rules governing these relationships. CLUTRR allows us to precisely measure a model's ability for systematic generalization by evaluating on held-out combinations of logical rules, and it allows us to evaluate a model's robustness by adding curated noise facts. Our empirical results highlight a substantial performance gap between state-of-the-art NLU models (e.g., BERT and MAC) and a graph neural network model that works directly with symbolic inputs---with the graph-based model exhibiting both stronger generalization and greater robustness.
In order to meet the diverse challenges in solving many real-world problems, an intelligent agent has to be able to dynamically construct a model of its environment. Objects facilitate the modular reuse of prior knowledge and the combinatorial construction of such models. In this work, we argue that dynamically bound features (objects) do not simply emerge in connectionist models of the world. We identify several requirements that need to be fulfilled in overcoming this limitation and highlight corresponding inductive biases.
Standard methods in deep learning for natural language processing fail to capture the compositional structure of human language that allows for systematic generalization outside of the training distribution. However, human learners readily generalize in this way, e.g. by applying known grammatical rules to novel words. Inspired by work in neuroscience suggesting separate brain systems for syntactic and semantic processing, we implement a modification to standard approaches in neural machine translation, imposing an analogous separation. The novel model, which we call Syntactic Attention, substantially outperforms standard methods in deep learning on the SCAN dataset, a compositional generalization task, without any hand-engineered features or additional supervision. Our work suggests that separating syntactic from semantic learning may be a useful heuristic for capturing compositional structure.
In the last decade, deep artificial neural networks have achieved astounding performance in many natural language processing tasks. Given the high productivity of language, these models must possess effective generalization abilities. It is widely assumed that humans handle linguistic productivity by means of algebraic compositional rules: Are deep networks similarly compositional? After reviewing the main innovations characterizing current deep language processing networks, I discuss a set of studies suggesting that deep networks are capable of subtle grammar-dependent generalizations, but also that they do not rely on systematic compositional rules. I argue that the intriguing behaviour of these devices (still awaiting a full understanding) should be of interest to linguists and cognitive scientists, as it offers a new perspective on possible computational strategies to deal with linguistic productivity beyond rule-based compositionality, and it might lead to new insights into the less systematic generalization patterns that also appear in natural language.
Human perception is structured around objects which form the basis for our higher-level cognition and impressive systematic generalization abilities. Yet most work on representation learning focuses on feature learning without even considering multiple objects, or treats segmentation as an (often supervised) preprocessing step. Instead, we argue for the importance of learning to segment and represent objects jointly. We demonstrate that, starting from the simple assumption that a scene is composed of multiple entities, it is possible to learn to segment images into interpretable objects with disentangled representations. Our method learns -- without supervision -- to inpaint occluded parts, and extrapolates to scenes with more objects and to unseen objects with novel feature combinations. We also show that, due to the use of iterative variational inference, our system is able to learn multi-modal posteriors for ambiguous inputs and extends naturally to sequences.
Numerous models for grounded language understanding have been recently proposed, including (i) generic models that can be easily adapted to any given task and (ii) intuitively appealing modular models that require background knowledge to be instantiated. We compare both types of models in how much they lend themselves to a particular form of systematic generalization. Using a synthetic VQA test, we evaluate which models are capable of reasoning about all possible object pairs after training on only a small subset of them. Our findings show that the generalization of modular models is much more systematic and that it is highly sensitive to the module layout, i.e. to how exactly the modules are connected. We furthermore investigate if modular models that generalize well could be made more end-to-end by learning their layout and parametrization. We find that end-to-end methods from prior work often learn inappropriate layouts or parametrizations that do not facilitate systematic generalization. Our results suggest that, in addition to modularity, systematic generalization in language understanding may require explicit regularizers or priors.