A survey showing that common systematic generalization benchmarks measure behavioural systematicity, not the representational systematicity that Fodor and Pylyshyn's challenge requires, and mapping them onto Hadley's weak, quasi, and strong levels.
Evaluating Understanding on Conceptual Abstraction Benchmarks
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
A long-held objective in AI is to build systems that understand concepts in a humanlike way. Setting aside the difficulty of building such a system, even trying to evaluate one is a challenge, due to present-day AI's relative opacity and its proclivity for finding shortcut solutions. This is exacerbated by humans' tendency to anthropomorphize, assuming that a system that can recognize one instance of a concept must also understand other instances, as a human would. In this paper, we argue that understanding a concept requires the ability to use it in varied contexts. Accordingly, we propose systematic evaluations centered around concepts, by probing a system's ability to use a given concept in many different instantiations. We present case studies of such an evaluations on two domains -- RAVEN (inspired by Raven's Progressive Matrices) and the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC) -- that have been used to develop and assess abstraction abilities in AI systems. Our concept-based approach to evaluation reveals information about AI systems that conventional test sets would have left hidden.
fields
cs.LG 1years
2025 1verdicts
CONDITIONAL 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
Behavioural vs. Representational Systematicity in End-to-End Models: An Opinionated Survey
A survey showing that common systematic generalization benchmarks measure behavioural systematicity, not the representational systematicity that Fodor and Pylyshyn's challenge requires, and mapping them onto Hadley's weak, quasi, and strong levels.