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

Title: Symmetry and Systematicity

Paper content:
We argue that symmetry is an important consideration in addressing the problem
of systematicity and investigate two forms of symmetry relevant to symbolic processes.
We implement this approach in terms of convolution and show that it can
be used to achieve effective generalisation in three toy problems: rule learning,
composition and grammar learning.
Convolution (LeCun & Bengio, 1998) has been an incredibly effective element in making Deep Learning successful.
Applying the same set of filters across all positions in an image captures an important characteristic of the processes that generate the objects depicted in them, namely the translational symmetry of the underlying laws of nature.
Given the impact of these architectures, researchers are increasingly interested in finding approaches that can be used to exploit further symmetries (Cohen & Welling, 2016; Higgins et al., 2018) , such as rotation or scale.
Here, we will investigate symmetries relevant to symbolic processing.
We show that incorporating symmetries derived from symbolic processes into neural architectures allows them to generalise more robustly on tasks that require handling elements and structures that were not seen at training time.
Specifically, we construct convolution-based models that outperform standard approaches on the rule learning task of Marcus et al. (1999) , a simplified form of the SCAN task (Lake & Baroni, 2018 ) and a simple context free language learning task.
Symbolic architectures form the main alternative to conventional neural networks as models of intelligent behaviour, and have distinct characteristics and abilities.
Specifically, they form representations in terms of structured combinations of atomic symbols.
Their power comes not from the atomic symbols themselves, which are essentially arbitrary, but from the ability to construct and transform complex structures.
This allows symbolic processing to happen without regard to the meaning of the symbols themselves, expressed in the formalist's motto as If you take care of the syntax, the semantics will take care of itself (Haugeland, 1985) .
From this point of view, thought is a form of algebra (James, 1890; Boole, 1854) in which formal rules operate over symbolic expressions, without regard to the values of the variables they contain (Marcus, 2001) .
As a consequence, those values can be processed systematically across all the contexts they occur in.
So, for example, we do not need to know who Socrates is or even what mortal means in order to draw a valid conclusion from All men are mortal and Socrates is a man.
However, connectionist approaches have been criticised as lacking this systematicity.
Fodor & Pylyshyn (1988) claimed that neural networks lack the inherent ability to model the fact that cognitive capacities always exhibit certain symmetries, so that the ability to entertain a given thought implies the ability to entertain thoughts with semantically related contents.
Thus, understanding these symmetries and designing neural architectures around them may enable us to build systems that demonstrate this systematicity.
However, the concept of systematicity has itself drawn scrutiny and criticism from a range of researchers interested in real human cognition and behaviour.
Pullum & Scholz (2007) argue that the definition is too vague.
Nonetheless, understanding the symmetries of symbolic processes is likely to be fruitful in itself, even where human cognition fails to fully embody that idealisation.
We investigate two kinds of symmetry, relating to permutations of symbols and to equivalence between memory slots.
The relation between symbols and their referents is, in principle, arbitrary, and any permutation of this correspondence is therefore a symmetry of the system.
More simply, the names we give to things do not matter, and we should be able to get equivalent results whether we call it rose or trandafir, as long as we do so consistently.
Following on from that, a given symbol should be treated consistently wherever we find it.
This can be thought of as a form of symmetry over the various slots within the data structures, such as stacks and queues, where symbols can be stored.
We explore these questions using a number of small toy problems and compare the performance of architectures with and without the relevant symmetries.
In each case, we use convolution as the means of implementing the symmetry, which, in practical terms, allows us to rely only on standard deep learning components.
In addition, this approach opens up novel uses for convolutional architectures, and suggests connections between symbolic processes and spatial representations.
One way to address the criticisms of distributed approaches raised by Fodor & Pylyshyn (1988) has been to focus on methods for binding and combining multiple representations (Smolensky, 1990; Hinton, 1990; Plate, 1991; Pollack, 1990; Hummel & Holyoak, 1997) in order to handle constituent structure more effectively.
Here, we instead examined the role of symmetry in the systematicity of how those representations are processed, using a few simple proof-of-concept problems.
We showed that imposing a symmetry on the architecture was effective in obtaining the desired form of generalisation when learning simple rules, composing representations and learning grammars.
In particular, we discussed two forms of symmetry relevant to the processing of symbols, corresponding respectively to the fact that all atomic symbols are essentially equivalent and the fact that any given symbol can be represented in multiple places, yet retain the same meaning.
The first of these gives rise to a symmetry under permutations of these symbols, which allows generalisation to occur from one symbol to another.
The second gives rise to a symmetry across memory locations, which allows generalisation from simple structures to more complex ones.
On all the problems, we implemented the symmetries using convolution.
From a practical point of view, this allowed us to build networks using only long-accepted components from the standard neural toolkit.
From a theoretical point of view, however, this implementation decision draws a connection between the cognition of space and the cognition of symbols.
The translational invariance of space is probably the most significant and familiar example of symmetry we encounter in our natural environment.
As such it forms a sensible foundation on which to build an understanding of other symmetries.
In fact, Corcoran & Tarski (1986) use invariances under various spatial transformations within geometry as a starting point for their definition of logical notion in terms of invariance under all permutations.
Moreover, from an evolutionary perspective, it is also plausible that there are common origins behind the mechanisms that support the exploitation of a variety of different symmetries, including potentially spatial and symbolic.
In addition, recent research supports the idea that cerebral structures historically associated with the representation of spatial structure, such as the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex, also play a role in representing more general relational structures (Behrens et al., 2018; Duff & Brown-Schmidt, 2012) .
Thus, our use of convolution is not merely a detail of implementation, but also an illustration of how spatial symmetries might relate to more abstract domains.
In particular, the recursive push down automata, discussed in Section 4, utilises push and pop operations that relate fairly transparently to spatial translations.
Of course, a variety of other symmetries, beyond translations, are likely to be important in human cognition, and an important challenge for future research will be to understand how symmetries are discovered and learned empirically, rather than being innately specified.
A common theme in our exploration of symmetry, was the ability it conferred to separate content from structure.
Imposing a symmetry across symbols or memory locations, allowed us to abstract away from the particular content represented to represent the structure containing it.
So, for example the grammar rule learned by our network on the syllable sequences of Marcus et al. (1999) was able to generalise from seen to unseen syllables because it represented the abstract structure of ABB and ABA sequences, without reference to the particular syllables involved.
We explored how this ability could also be exploited on composition and grammar learning tasks, but it is likely that there are many other situations where such a mechanism would be useful.

assistant: text: We use convolution to make neural networks behave more like symbolic systems.