Papers › Finding needles in a haystack: Sampling Structurally-diverse Training Sets from...
Finding needles in a haystack: Sampling Structurally-diverse Training Sets from Synthetic Data for Compositional Generalization
Inbar Oren, Jonathan Herzig, Jonathan Berant
Modern semantic parsers suffer from two principal limitations. First, training requires expensive collection of utterance-program pairs. Second, semantic parsers fail to generalize at test time to new compositions/structures that have not been observed during training. Recent research has shown that automatic generation of synthetic utterance-program pairs can alleviate the first problem, but its potential for the second has thus far been under-explored. In this work, we investigate automatic generation of synthetic utterance-program pairs for improving compositional generalization in semantic parsing. Given a small training set of annotated examples and an "infinite" pool of synthetic examples, we select a subset of synthetic examples that are structurally-diverse and use them to improve compositional generalization. We evaluate our approach on a new split of the schema2QA dataset, and show that it leads to dramatic improvements in compositional generalization as well as moderate improvements in the traditional i.i.d setup. Moreover, structurally-diverse sampling achieves these improvements with as few as 5K examples, compared to 1M examples when sampling uniformly at random -- a 200x improvement in data efficiency.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections