Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Compositional Generalization and Decomposition in Neural Program Synthesis

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

arxiv 2204.03758 v1 pith:E34HMJO7 submitted 2022-04-07 cs.LG cs.PLstat.ML

Compositional Generalization and Decomposition in Neural Program Synthesis

classification cs.LG cs.PLstat.ML
keywords abilityprogramgeneralizationgeneralizesynthesistaskswhetheralong
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

When writing programs, people have the ability to tackle a new complex task by decomposing it into smaller and more familiar subtasks. While it is difficult to measure whether neural program synthesis methods have similar capabilities, what we can measure is whether they compositionally generalize, that is, whether a model that has been trained on the simpler subtasks is subsequently able to solve more complex tasks. In this paper, we focus on measuring the ability of learned program synthesizers to compositionally generalize. We first characterize several different axes along which program synthesis methods would be desired to generalize, e.g., length generalization, or the ability to combine known subroutines in new ways that do not occur in the training data. Based on this characterization, we introduce a benchmark suite of tasks to assess these abilities based on two popular existing datasets, SCAN and RobustFill. Finally, we make first attempts to improve the compositional generalization ability of Transformer models along these axes through novel attention mechanisms that draw inspiration from a human-like decomposition strategy. Empirically, we find our modified Transformer models generally perform better than natural baselines, but the tasks remain challenging.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.