Papers › ReCOGS: How Incidental Details of a Logical Form Overshadow an Evaluation of Semantic...

ReCOGS: How Incidental Details of a Logical Form Overshadow an Evaluation of Semantic Interpretation

24 Mar 2023arXiv:2303.13716archive 2025-07-28

Zhengxuan Wu, Christopher D. Manning, Christopher Potts

Compositional generalization benchmarks for semantic parsing seek to assess whether models can accurately compute meanings for novel sentences, but operationalize this in terms of logical form (LF) prediction. This raises the concern that semantically irrelevant details of the chosen LFs could shape model performance. We argue that this concern is realized for the COGS benchmark. COGS poses generalization splits that appear impossible for present-day models, which could be taken as an indictment of those models. However, we show that the negative results trace to incidental features of COGS LFs. Converting these LFs to semantically equivalent ones and factoring out capabilities unrelated to semantic interpretation, we find that even baseline models get traction. A recent variable-free translation of COGS LFs suggests similar conclusions, but we observe this format is not semantically equivalent; it is incapable of accurately representing some COGS meanings. These findings inform our proposal for ReCOGS, a modified version of COGS that comes closer to assessing the target semantic capabilities while remaining very challenging. Overall, our results reaffirm the importance of compositional generalization and careful benchmark task design.

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

17 samples harvested; 3 ran; 1 honoured the contract we drafted; 14 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 17 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from frankaging/recogs. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

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