user: text: Write a concise one-sentence TLDR summary of the scientific paper content below.

Title: Modeling question asking using neural program generation

Paper content:
People ask questions that are far richer, more informative, and more creative than current AI systems.
We propose a neural program generation framework for modeling human question asking, which represents questions as formal programs and generates programs with an encoder-decoder based deep neural network.
From extensive experiments using an information-search game, we show that our method can ask optimal questions in synthetic settings, and predict which questions humans are likely to ask in unconstrained settings.
We also propose a novel grammar-based question generation framework trained with reinforcement learning, which is able to generate creative questions without supervised data.
People can ask rich, creative questions to learn efficiently about their environment.
Question asking is central to human learning yet it is a tremendous challenge for computational models.
There is always an infinite set of possible questions that one can ask, leading to challenges both in representing the space of questions and in searching for the right question to ask.
Machine learning has been used to address aspects of this challenge.
Traditional methods have used heuristic rules designed by humans (Heilman & Smith, 2010; Chali & Hasan, 2015) , which are usually restricted to a specific domain.
Recently, neural network approaches have also been proposed, including retrieval methods which select the best question from past experience (Mostafazadeh et al., 2016 ) and encoder-decoder frameworks which map visual or linguistic inputs to questions (Serban et al., 2016; Mostafazadeh et al., 2016; Yuan et al., 2017; Yao et al., 2018) .
While effective in some settings, these approaches do not consider settings where the questions are asked about partially unobservable states.
Besides, these methods are heavily data-driven, limiting the diversity of generated questions and requiring large training sets for different goals and contexts.
There is still a large gap between how people and machines ask questions.
Recent work has aimed to narrow this gap by taking inspiration from cognitive science.
For instance, Lee et al. (2018) incorporates aspects of "theory of mind" (Premack & Woodruff, 1978) in question asking by simulating potential answers to the questions, but the approach relies on imperfect agents for natural language understanding which may lead to error propagation.
Related to our approach, Rothe et al. (2017) proposed a powerful question-asking framework by modeling questions as symbolic programs, but their algorithm relies on hand-designed program features and requires expensive calculations to ask questions.
We use "neural program generation" to bridge symbolic program generation and deep neural networks, bringing together some of the best qualities of both approaches.
Symbolic programs provide a compositional "language of thought" (Fodor, 1975) for creatively synthesizing which questions to ask, allowing the model to construct new ideas based on familiar building blocks.
Compared to natural language, programs are precise in their semantics, have clearer internal structure, and require a much smaller vocabulary, making them an attractive representation for question answering systems as well (Johnson et al., 2017; Yi et al., 2018; Mao et al., 2019) .
However, there has been much less work using program synthesis for question asking, which requires searching through infinitely many questions (where many questions may be informative) rather than producing a single correct answer to a question.
Deep neural networks allow for rapid question-synthesis using encoder-decoder modeling, eliminating the need for the expensive symbolic search and feature evaluations in Rothe et al. (2017) .
Together, the questions can be synthesized quickly and evaluated formally for quality groundtruth board partly revealed board example questions
How long is the red ship?
(size Red)
Is purple ship horizontal?
(== (orient Purple)
H) Do all three ships have the same size?
(=== (map (λ x (size x)) (set AllShips)))
Figure 1: The Battleship task.
Blue, red, and purple tiles are ships, dark gray tiles are water, and light gray tiles are hidden.
The agent can see a partly revealed board, and should ask a question to seek information about the hidden board.
Example questions and translated programs are shown on the right.
We recommend viewing the figures in color.
(e.g. the expected information gain), which as we show can be used to train question asking systems using reinforcement learning.
In this paper, we develop a neural program generation model for asking questions in an informationsearch game similar to "Battleship" used in previous work (Gureckis & Markant, 2009; Rothe et al., 2017; .
The model uses a convolutional encoder to represent the game state, and a Transformer decoder (Vaswani et al., 2017) for generating questions.
Building on the work of Rothe et al. (2017) , the model uses a grammar-enhanced question asking framework, such that questions as programs are formed through derivation using a context free grammar.
Importantly, we show that the model can be trained from human demonstrations of good questions using supervised learning, along with a data augmentation procedure that leverages previous work to produce additional human-like questions for training.
Our model can also be trained without such demonstrations using reinforcement learning.
We evaluate the model on several aspects of human question asking, including reasoning about optimal questions in synthetic scenarios, density estimation based on free-form question asking, and creative generation of genuinely new questions.
To summarize, our paper makes three main contributions:
1) We propose a neural network for modeling human question-asking behavior,
2) We propose a novel reinforcement learning framework for generating creative human-like questions by exploiting the power of programs, and
3) We evaluate different properties of our methods extensively through three different experiments.
We train our model in a fully supervised fashion.
Accuracy for the counting and missing tile tasks is shown in Figure 3 .
The full neural program generation model shows strong reasoning abilities, achieving high accuracy for both the counting and missing tile tasks, respectively.
We also perform ablation analysis of the encoder filters of the model, and provide the results in Appendix D.
The results for the compositionality task are summarized in Table 1 .
When no training data regarding the held out question type is provided, the model cannot generalize to situations systematically different from training data, exactly as pointed out in previous work on the compositional skills of encoder-decoder models (Lake & Baroni, 2018) .
However, when the number of additional training data increases, the model quickly incorporates the new question type while maintaining high accuracy on the familiar question tasks.
On the last row of Table 1 , we compare our model with another version where the decoder is replaced by two linear transformation operations which directly classify the ship type and location (details in Appendix B.1).
This model has 33.0% transfer accuracy on compositional scenarios never seen during training.
This suggests that the model has the potential to generalize to unseen scenarios if the task can be decomposed to subtasks and combined together.
We evaluate the log-likelihood of reference questions generated by our full model as well as some lesioned variants of the full model, including a model without pretraining, a model with the Transformer decoder replaced by an LSTM decoder, a model with the convolutional encoder replaced by a simple MLP encoder, and a model that only has a decoder (unconditional language model).
Though the method from Rothe et al. (2017) also works on this task, here we cannot compare with their method for two reasons.
One is that our dataset is constructed using their method, so the likelihood of their method should be an upper bound in our evaluation setting.
Additionally, they can only approximate the log-likelihood due to an intractable normalizing constant, and thus it difficult to directly compare with our methods.
Two different evaluation sets are used, one is sampled from the same process on new boards, the other is a small set of questions collected from human annotators.
In order to calculate the log-likelihood of human questions, we use translated versions of these questions that were used in previous work (Rothe et al., 2017) , and filtered some human questions that score poorly according to the generative model used for training the neural network (Appendix B.2).
A summary of the results is shown in Table 2a .
The full model performs best on both datasets, suggesting that pretraining, the Transformer decoder, and the convolutional encoder are all important components of the approach.
However, we find that the model without an encoder performs reasonably well too, even out-performing the full model with a LSTM-decoder on the human-produced questions.
This suggests that while contextual information from the board leads to improvements, it is not the most important factor for predicting human questions.
To further investigate the role of contextual information and whether or not the model can utilize it effectively, we conduct another analysis.
Intuitively, if there is little uncertainty about the locations of the ships, observing the board is critical since there are fewer good questions to ask.
To examine this factor, we divide the scenarios based on the entropy of the hypothesis space of possible ship locations into a low entropy set (bottom 30%), medium entropy set (40% in the middle), and high entropy set (top 30%).
We evaluate different models on the split sets of sampled data and report the results in Table 2b .
When the entropy is high, it is easier to ask a generally good question like "how long is the red ship" without information of the board, so the importance of the encoder is reduced.
If entropy is low, the models with access to the board has substantially higher log-likelihood than the model without encoder.
Also, the first experiment (section 5.1) would be impossible without an encoder.
Together, this implies that our model can capture important context-sensitive characteristics of how people ask questions.
The models are evaluated on 2000 randomly sampled boards, and the results are shown in Table  3 .
Note that any ungrammatical questions are excluded when we calculate the number of unique questions.
First, when the text-based model is evaluated on new contexts, 96.3% of the questions it generates were included in the training data.
We also find that the average EIG and the ratio of EIG>0 is worse than the supervised model trained on programs.
Some of these deficiencies are due to the very limited text-based training data, but using programs instead can help overcome these limitations.
With the program-based framework, we can sample new boards and questions to create a much larger dataset with executable program representations.
This self-supervised training helps to boost performance, especially when combined with grammar-enhanced RL.
From the table, the grammar-enhanced RL model is able to generate informative and creative questions.
It can be trained from scratch without examples of human questions, and produces many novel questions with high EIG.
In contrast, the supervised model rarely produces new questions beyond the training set.
The sequence-level RL model is also comparatively weak at generating novel questions, perhaps because it is also pre-trained on human questions.
It also more frequently generates ungrammatical questions.
We also provide examples in Figure 4 to show the diversity of questions generated by the grammar enhanced model, and more in the supplementary materials.
Figure 4a shows novel questions the model produces, which includes clever questions such as "Where is the bottom right of all the purple and blue tiles?" or "What is the size of the blue ship minus the purple ship?", while it can also sometimes generates meaningless questions such as "Is the blue ship shorter than itself?"
Additional examples of generated questions are provided in Appendix B. Is any ship two tiles long?
(> (++ (map (lambda x (== (size x) 2)) (set AllShips))) 0)
Are there any ships in row 1?
(> (++ (map (lambda y (and (== (rowL y) 1) (not (== (color y) Water)))) (set AllTiles))) 0)
Is part of a ship on tile 4-6?
(not (== (color 4-6)
Water)) What is the size of the blue ship?
(setSize (coloredTiles Blue))
What is the size of the purple ship?
(size Purple)
Which column is the first part of the blue ship?
(colL (topleft (coloredTiles Blue)))
What is the orientation of the blue ship?
With the grammar enhanced framework, we can also guide the model to ask different types of questions, consistent with the goal-directed nature and flexibility of human question asking.
The model can be queried for certain types of questions by providing different start conditions to the model.
Instead of starting derivation from the start symbol "A", we can start derivation from a intermediate state such as "B" for Boolean questions or a more complicated "(and B B)" for composition of two Boolean questions.
In Figure 4b , we show examples where the model is asked to generate four specific types of questions: true/false questions, number questions, location-related questions, and compositional true/false questions.
We see that the model can flexibly adapt to new constraints and generate meaningful questions.
In Figure 4c , we compare the model generated questions with human questions, each randomlysampled from the model outputs and the human dataset.
These examples again demonstrate that our model is able to generate clever and human-like questions.
However, we also find that people sometimes generate questions with quantifiers such as "any" and "all", which are operationalized in program form with lambda functions.
These questions are complicated in representation and not favored by our model, showing a current limitation in our model's capacity.
We introduce a neural program generation framework for question asking task under partially unobservable settings, which is able to generate creative human-like questions with human question demonstrations by supervised learning or without demonstrations by grammar-enhanced reinforcement learning.
Programs provide models with a "machine language of thought" for compositional thinking, and neural networks provide an efficient means of question generation.
We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method in extensive experiments covering a range of human question asking abilities.
The current model has important limitations.
It cannot generalize to systematically different scenarios, and it sometimes generates meaningless questions.
We plan to further explore the model's compositional abilities in future work.
Another promising direction is to model question asking and question answering jointly within one framework, which could guide the model to a richer sense of the question semantics.
Besides, allowing the agent to iteratively ask questions and try to win the game is another interesting future direction.
We would also like to use our framework in dialog systems and open-ended question asking scenarios, allowing such systems to synthesize informative and creative questions.

assistant: text: We introduce a model of human question asking that combines neural networks and symbolic programs, which can learn to generate good questions with or without supervised examples.