REVIEW 1 cited by
Compositionality and Generalization in Emergent Languages
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
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Natural language allows us to refer to novel composite concepts by combining expressions denoting their parts according to systematic rules, a property known as \emph{compositionality}. In this paper, we study whether the language emerging in deep multi-agent simulations possesses a similar ability to refer to novel primitive combinations, and whether it accomplishes this feat by strategies akin to human-language compositionality. Equipped with new ways to measure compositionality in emergent languages inspired by disentanglement in representation learning, we establish three main results. First, given sufficiently large input spaces, the emergent language will naturally develop the ability to refer to novel composite concepts. Second, there is no correlation between the degree of compositionality of an emergent language and its ability to generalize. Third, while compositionality is not necessary for generalization, it provides an advantage in terms of language transmission: The more compositional a language is, the more easily it will be picked up by new learners, even when the latter differ in architecture from the original agents. We conclude that compositionality does not arise from simple generalization pressure, but if an emergent language does chance upon it, it will be more likely to survive and thrive.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
OMEGA: Can LLMs Reason Outside the Box in Math? Evaluating Exploratory, Compositional, and Transformative Generalization
OMEGA is a templated math benchmark showing that LLMs, including RL-tuned models, generalize to harder instances but largely fail at compositional and transformative reasoning.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.