What makes Models Compositional? A Theoretical View: With Supplement
2405.02350
0
0
🔍
Abstract
Compositionality is thought to be a key component of language, and various compositional benchmarks have been developed to empirically probe the compositional generalization of existing sequence processing models. These benchmarks often highlight failures of existing models, but it is not clear why these models fail in this way. In this paper, we seek to theoretically understand the role the compositional structure of the models plays in these failures and how this structure relates to their expressivity and sample complexity. We propose a general neuro-symbolic definition of compositional functions and their compositional complexity. We then show how various existing general and special purpose sequence processing models (such as recurrent, convolution and attention-based ones) fit this definition and use it to analyze their compositional complexity. Finally, we provide theoretical guarantees for the expressivity and systematic generalization of compositional models that explicitly depend on our proposed definition and highlighting factors which drive poor empirical performance.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- The paper explores the role of compositional structure in the failures of existing sequence processing models on compositional benchmarks.
- It proposes a general neuro-symbolic definition of compositional functions and their compositional complexity.
- The paper analyzes how various sequence processing models, such as recurrent, convolutional, and attention-based models, fit this definition and relate to their expressivity and sample complexity.
- It provides theoretical guarantees for the expressivity and systematic generalization of compositional models based on the proposed definition.
Plain English Explanation
The paper is concerned with compositional generalization, which is the ability of language models to understand and generate novel combinations of familiar concepts. This is thought to be a key component of human language, and researchers have developed various compositional benchmarks to test the compositional generalization of existing sequence processing models.
However, these benchmarks often highlight failures of existing models, and it's not clear why these models struggle with compositional tasks. The paper aims to theoretically understand the role of the compositional structure of the models in these failures and how this structure relates to their expressivity and sample complexity.
The researchers propose a general definition of compositional functions and their compositional complexity, which they then use to analyze various sequence processing models, such as recurrent, convolutional, and attention-based models. This allows them to provide theoretical guarantees for the compositional generalization of these models based on their proposed definition.
Technical Explanation
The paper begins by defining a general neuro-symbolic framework for compositional functions, which describes the compositional structure of a function in terms of its input-output behavior and the internal computations performed. This framework allows the researchers to quantify the compositional complexity of a function, which is related to its expressivity and sample complexity.
The researchers then analyze how various sequence processing models, such as recurrent neural networks (RNNs), convolutional neural networks (CNNs), and attention-based models, fit into this neuro-symbolic framework. They show that the compositional complexity of these models depends on their architectural structure and inductive biases, which can explain their empirical performance on compositional benchmarks.
Based on this analysis, the paper provides theoretical guarantees for the expressivity and systematic generalization of compositional models. Specifically, it shows that models with lower compositional complexity can achieve better systematic generalization, but may have lower expressivity. Conversely, models with higher compositional complexity can be more expressive but may struggle with systematic generalization.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a novel theoretical framework for understanding the role of compositional structure in the performance of sequence processing models on compositional benchmarks. This is a valuable contribution, as it helps to explain the failures of existing models and suggests ways to design more compositionally generalizable models.
However, the paper does not address some potential limitations of the proposed framework. For example, it's not clear how the framework would handle more complex compositional structures, such as nested or recursive compositions. Additionally, the paper does not discuss how the framework could be extended to incorporate other factors that may influence compositional generalization, such as the nature of the training data or the learning algorithm used.
Furthermore, while the theoretical guarantees provided in the paper are interesting, it's not clear how they would translate to practical applications. More empirical work may be needed to validate the framework and explore its real-world implications.
Overall, the paper presents a promising approach to understanding compositional generalization in sequence processing models, but there is still more work to be done to fully elucidate the role of compositional structure in language learning and generation.
Conclusion
The paper proposes a general neuro-symbolic framework for understanding the role of compositional structure in the performance of sequence processing models on compositional benchmarks. By defining a measure of compositional complexity and analyzing how various models fit into this framework, the researchers are able to provide theoretical guarantees for the expressivity and systematic generalization of compositional models.
This work contributes to our understanding of what makes language easy to deep learn and suggests that explicitly modeling compositional structure may be a key to achieving more compositionally generalizable language models. Further research is needed to extend and validate the proposed framework, but this paper represents an important step towards a more comprehensive theory of compositional generalization in language.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
A Survey on Compositional Learning of AI Models: Theoretical and Experimetnal Practices
Sania Sinha, Tanawan Premsri, Parisa Kordjamshidi
0
0
Compositional learning, mastering the ability to combine basic concepts and construct more intricate ones, is crucial for human cognition, especially in human language comprehension and visual perception. This notion is tightly connected to generalization over unobserved situations. Despite its integral role in intelligence, there is a lack of systematic theoretical and experimental research methodologies, making it difficult to analyze the compositional learning abilities of computational models. In this paper, we survey the literature on compositional learning of AI models and the connections made to cognitive studies. We identify abstract concepts of compositionality in cognitive and linguistic studies and connect these to the computational challenges faced by language and vision models in compositional reasoning. We overview the formal definitions, tasks, evaluation benchmarks, variety of computational models, and theoretical findings. We cover modern studies on large language models to provide a deeper understanding of the cutting-edge compositional capabilities exhibited by state-of-the-art AI models and pinpoint important directions for future research.
6/14/2024
From Frege to chatGPT: Compositionality in language, cognition, and deep neural networks
Jacob Russin, Sam Whitman McGrath, Danielle J. Williams, Lotem Elber-Dorozko
0
0
Compositionality has long been considered a key explanatory property underlying human intelligence: arbitrary concepts can be composed into novel complex combinations, permitting the acquisition of an open ended, potentially infinite expressive capacity from finite learning experiences. Influential arguments have held that neural networks fail to explain this aspect of behavior, leading many to dismiss them as viable models of human cognition. Over the last decade, however, modern deep neural networks (DNNs), which share the same fundamental design principles as their predecessors, have come to dominate artificial intelligence, exhibiting the most advanced cognitive behaviors ever demonstrated in machines. In particular, large language models (LLMs), DNNs trained to predict the next word on a large corpus of text, have proven capable of sophisticated behaviors such as writing syntactically complex sentences without grammatical errors, producing cogent chains of reasoning, and even writing original computer programs -- all behaviors thought to require compositional processing. In this chapter, we survey recent empirical work from machine learning for a broad audience in philosophy, cognitive science, and neuroscience, situating recent breakthroughs within the broader context of philosophical arguments about compositionality. In particular, our review emphasizes two approaches to endowing neural networks with compositional generalization capabilities: (1) architectural inductive biases, and (2) metalearning, or learning to learn. We also present findings suggesting that LLM pretraining can be understood as a kind of metalearning, and can thereby equip DNNs with compositional generalization abilities in a similar way. We conclude by discussing the implications that these findings may have for the study of compositionality in human cognition and by suggesting avenues for future research.
5/27/2024
When does compositional structure yield compositional generalization? A kernel theory
Samuel Lippl, Kim Stachenfeld
0
0
Compositional generalization (the ability to respond correctly to novel combinations of familiar components) is thought to be a cornerstone of intelligent behavior. Compositionally structured (e.g. disentangled) representations are essential for this; however, the conditions under which they yield compositional generalization remain unclear. To address this gap, we present a general theory of compositional generalization in kernel models with fixed, potentially nonlinear representations (which also applies to neural networks in the lazy regime). We prove that these models are functionally limited to adding up values assigned to conjunctions/combinations of components that have been seen during training (conjunction-wise additivity), and identify novel compositionality failure modes that arise from the data and model structure, even for disentangled inputs. For models in the representation learning (or rich) regime, we show that networks can generalize on an important non-additive task (associative inference), and give a mechanistic explanation for why. Finally, we validate our theory empirically, showing that it captures the behavior of deep neural networks trained on a set of compositional tasks. In sum, our theory characterizes the principles giving rise to compositional generalization in kernel models and shows how representation learning can overcome their limitations. We further provide a formally grounded, novel generalization class for compositional tasks that highlights fundamental differences in the required learning mechanisms (conjunction-wise additivity).
5/28/2024
Compositional Generative Modeling: A Single Model is Not All You Need
Yilun Du, Leslie Kaelbling
0
0
Large monolithic generative models trained on massive amounts of data have become an increasingly dominant approach in AI research. In this paper, we argue that we should instead construct large generative systems by composing smaller generative models together. We show how such a compositional generative approach enables us to learn distributions in a more data-efficient manner, enabling generalization to parts of the data distribution unseen at training time. We further show how this enables us to program and construct new generative models for tasks completely unseen at training. Finally, we show that in many cases, we can discover separate compositional components from data.
6/5/2024