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

Title: Automatically Composing Representation Transformations as a Means for Generalization

Paper content:
A generally intelligent learner should generalize to more complex tasks than it has previously encountered, but the two common paradigms in machine learning -- either training a separate learner per task or training a single learner for all tasks -- both have difficulty with such generalization because they do not leverage  the compositional structure of the task distribution.
This paper introduces the compositional problem graph as a broadly applicable formalism to relate tasks of different complexity in terms of problems with shared subproblems.
We propose the compositional generalization problem for measuring how readily old knowledge can be reused and hence built upon.
As a first step for tackling compositional generalization, we introduce the compositional recursive learner, a domain-general framework for learning algorithmic procedures for composing representation transformations, producing a learner that reasons about what computation to execute by making analogies to previously seen problems.
We show on a symbolic and a high-dimensional domain that our compositional approach can generalize to more complex problems than the learner has previously encountered, whereas baselines that are not explicitly compositional do not.
This paper seeks to tackle the question of how to build machines that leverage prior experience to solve more complex problems than they have previously encountered.
How does a learner represent prior experience?
How does a learner apply what it has learned to solve new problems?
Motivated by these questions, this paper aims to formalize the idea of, as well as to develop an understanding of the machinery for, compositional generalization in problems that exhibit compositional structure.
The solutions for such problems can be found by composing in sequence a small set of reusable partial solutions, each of which tackles a subproblem of a larger problem.
The central contributions of this paper are to frame the shared structure across multiple tasks in terms of a compositional problem graph, propose compositional generalization as an evaluation scheme to test the degree a learner can apply previously learned knowledge to solve new problems, and introduce the compositional recursive learner, a domain-general framework 1 for sequentially composing representation transformations that each solve a subproblem of a larger problem.The key to our approach is recasting the problem of generalization as a problem of learning algorithmic procedures over representation transformations.
A solution to a (sub)problem is a transformation between its input and output representations, and a solution to a larger problem composes these subsolutions together.
Therefore, representing and leveraging prior problem-solving experience amounts to learning a set of reusable primitive transformations and their means of composition that reflect the structural properties of the problem distribution.
This paper introduces the compositional recursive learner (CRL), a framework for learning both these transformations and their composition together with sparse supervision, taking a step beyond other approaches that have assumed either pre-specified transformation or composition rules (Sec. 5).
CRL learns a modular recursive program that iteratively re-represents the input representation into more familiar representations it knows how to compute with.
In this framework, a transformation between representations is encapsulated into a computational module, and the overall program is the sequential combination of the inputs and outputs of these modules, whose application are decided by a controller.What sort of training scheme would encourage the spontaneous specialization of the modules around the compositional structure of the problem distribution?
First, exposing the learner to a diverse distribution of compositional problems helps it pattern-match across problems to distill out common functionality that it can capture in its modules for future use.
Second, enforcing that each module have only a local view of the global problem encourages task-agnostic functionality that prevents the learner from overfitting to the empirical training distribution; two ways to do this are to constrain the model class of the modules and to hide the task specification from the modules.
Third, training the learner with a curriculum encourages the learner to build off old solutions to solve new problems by re-representing the new problem into one it knows how to solve, rather than learning from scratch.How should the learner learn to use these modules to exploit the compositional structure of the problem distribution?
We can frame the decision of which computation to execute as a reinforcement learning problem in the following manner.
The application of a sequence of modules can be likened to the execution trace of the program that CRL automatically constructs, where a computation is the application of a module to the output of a previous computation.
The automatic construction of the program can be formulated as the solution to a sequential decision-making problem in a meta-level Markov decision process (MDP) (Hay et al., 2014) , where the state space is the learner's internal states of computation and the action space is the set of modules.
Framing the construction of a program as a reinforcement learning problem allows us to use techniques in deep reinforcement learning to implement loops and recursion, as well as decide on which part of the current state of computation to apply a module, to re-use sub-solutions to solve a larger problem.Our experiments on solving multilingual arithmetic problems and recognizing spatially transformed MNIST digits BID26 show that the above proposed training scheme prescribes a type of reformulation: re-representing a new problem in terms of other problems by implicitly making an analogy between their solutions.
We also show that our meta-reasoning approach for deciding what modules to execute achieves better generalization to more complex problems than monolithic learners that are not explicitly compositional.
This paper sought to tackle the question of how to build machines that leverage prior experience to solve more complex problems than they have seen.
This paper makes three steps towards the solution.
First, we formalized the compositional problem graph as a language for studying compositionally-structured problems of different complexity that can be applied on various problems in machine learning.
Second, we introduced the compositional generalization evaluation scheme for measuring how readily old knowledge can be reused and hence built upon.
Third, we presented the compositional recursive learner, a domain-general framework for learning a set of reusable primitive transformations and their means of composition that reflect the structural properties of the problem distribution.
In doing so we leveraged tools from reinforcement learning to solve a program induction problem.There are several directions for improvement.
One is to stabilize the simultaneous optimization between discrete composition and continuous parameters; currently this is tricky to tune.
Others are to generate computation graphs beyond a linear chain of functions, and to infer the number of functions required for a family of problems.
A major challenge would be to discover the subproblem decomposition without a curriculum and without domain-specific constraints on the model class of the modules.
Griffiths et al. (2019) argued that the efficient use cognitive resources in humans may also explain their ability to generalize, and this paper provides evidence that reasoning about what computation to execute by making analogies to previously seen problems achieves significantly higher compositional generalization than non-compositional monolithic learners.
Encapsulating computational modules grounded in the subproblem structure also may pave a way for improving interpretability of neural networks by allowing the modules to be unit-tested against the subproblems we desire them to capture.
Because problems in supervised, unsupervised, and reinforcement learning can all be expressed under the framework of transformations between representations in the compositional problem graph, we hope that our work motivates further research for tackling the compositional generalization problem in many other domains to accelerate the long-range generalization capabilities that are characteristic of general-purpose learning machines.
Multilingual arithmetic (Sec. 4.1): The dataset contains arithmetic expressions of k terms where the terms are integers ∈ [0, 9] and the operators are ∈ {+, ·, −}, expressed in five different languages.
With 5 choices for the source language and target language, the number of possible problems is (10 k )(3 k−1 )(5 2 ).
In training, each source language is seen with 4 target languages and each target language is seen with 4 source languages: 20 pairs are seen in training and 5 pairs are held out for testing.
The learner sees 46200/(1.68 · 10 8 ) = 2.76 · 10 −4 of the training distribution.
The entire space of possible problems in the extrapolation set is (10 10 )(3 9 )(5 2 ) = 4.92 · 10 15 out of which we draw samples from the 5 held-out language pairs (10 10 )(3 9 )(5) = 9.84 · 10 14 possible .
An input expression is a sequence of one-hot vectors of size 13 × 5 + 1 = 66 where the single additional element is a STOP token (for training the RNN).
Spatially transformed MNIST (Sec. 4.2): The generative process for transforming the standard MNIST dataset to the input the learner observes is described as follows.
We first center the 28x28 MNIST image in a 42x42 black background.
We have three types of transformations to apply to the image: scale, rotate, and translate.
We can scale big or small (by a factor of 0.6 each way).
We can rotate left or right (by 45 degrees each direction).
We can translate left, right, up, and down, but the degree to which we translate depends on the size of the object: we translate the digit to the edge of the image, so smaller digits get translated more than large digits.
Large digits are translated by 20% of the image width, unscaled digits are translated by 29% of the image width, and small digits are translated by 38% of the image width.
In total there are 2 + 2 + 4 × 3 = 16 individual transformation operations used in the generative process.
Because some transformation combinations are commutative, we defined an ordering with which we will apply the generative transformations: scale then rotate then translate.
For length-2 compositions of generative transformations, there are scale-small-then-translate (1 × 4), scale-big-then-translate (1 × 4), rotate-then-translate (2 × 4), and scale-then-rotate (2 × 2).
We randomly choose 16 of these 20 for training, 2 for validation, 2 for test, as shown in Figure 4 (center).
For length-3 compositions of generative transformations, there are scale-small-then-rotate-then-translate (1×2×4) and scale-big-then-rotate-then-translate (1×2×4).
All 16 were held out for evaluation.

assistant: text: We explore the problem of compositional generalization and propose a means for endowing neural network architectures with the ability to compose themselves to solve these problems.