Compositional Generalization via Semantic Tagging
About
Although neural sequence-to-sequence models have been successfully applied to semantic parsing, they fail at compositional generalization, i.e., they are unable to systematically generalize to unseen compositions of seen components. Motivated by traditional semantic parsing where compositionality is explicitly accounted for by symbolic grammars, we propose a new decoding framework that preserves the expressivity and generality of sequence-to-sequence models while featuring lexicon-style alignments and disentangled information processing. Specifically, we decompose decoding into two phases where an input utterance is first tagged with semantic symbols representing the meaning of individual words, and then a sequence-to-sequence model is used to predict the final meaning representation conditioning on the utterance and the predicted tag sequence. Experimental results on three semantic parsing datasets show that the proposed approach consistently improves compositional generalization across model architectures, domains, and semantic formalisms.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Semantic Parsing | CFQ (MCD2) | Accuracy8.2 | 33 | |
| Semantic Parsing | CFQ (MCD1) | Accuracy34.9 | 33 | |
| Semantic Parsing | CFQ MCD3 | Accuracy10.6 | 33 | |
| Semantic Parsing | COGS (generalization) | Accuracy (Generalization)88 | 25 | |
| Semantic Parsing | CFQ MCD avg | Exact Match Accuracy17.8 | 22 | |
| Text-to-SQL | Geoquery | Exact Match Accuracy63.6 | 17 | |
| Semantic Parsing | CFQ MCD2 (test) | Accuracy0.082 | 15 | |
| Semantic Parsing | CFQ MCD1 (test) | Accuracy34.9 | 15 | |
| Semantic Parsing | CFQ MCD3 (test) | Accuracy10.6 | 15 | |
| Text-to-SQL | ATIS | Exact Match Accuracy29.1 | 13 |