Well-designed diagnostic tasks have played a key role in studying the failure of neural nets (NNs) to generalize systematically. Famous examples include SCAN and Compositional Table Lookup (CTL). Here we introduce CTL++, a new diagnostic dataset based on compositions of unary symbolic functions. While the original CTL is used to test length generalization or productivity, CTL++ is designed to test systematicity of NNs, that is, their capability to generalize to unseen compositions of known functions. CTL++ splits functions into groups and tests performance on group elements composed in a way not seen during training. We show that recent CTL-solving Transformer variants fail on CTL++. The simplicity of the task design allows for fine-grained control of task difficulty, as well as many insightful analyses. For example, we measure how much overlap between groups is needed by tested NNs for learning to compose. We also visualize how learned symbol representations in outputs of functions from different groups are compatible in case of success but not in case of failure. These results provide insights into failure cases reported on more complex compositions in the natural language domain. Our code is public.

Recently, many datasets have been proposed to test the systematic generalization ability of neural networks. The companion baseline Transformers, typically trained with default hyper-parameters from standard tasks, are shown to fail dramatically. Here we demonstrate that by revisiting model configurations as basic as scaling of embeddings, early stopping, relative positional embedding, and Universal Transformer variants, we can drastically improve the performance of Transformers on systematic generalization. We report improvements on five popular datasets: SCAN, CFQ, PCFG, COGS, and Mathematics dataset. Our models improve accuracy from 50% to 85% on the PCFG productivity split, and from 35% to 81% on COGS. On SCAN, relative positional embedding largely mitigates the EOS decision problem (Newman et al., 2020), yielding 100% accuracy on the length split with a cutoff at 26. Importantly, performance differences between these models are typically invisible on the IID data split. This calls for proper generalization validation sets for developing neural networks that generalize systematically. We publicly release the code to reproduce our results.