Are Object-Centric Representations Better At Compositional Generalization?

Compositional generalization, the ability to recognize familiar parts in novel contexts, is a defining property of intelligent systems. Although modern models are trained on massive datasets, they still cover only a tiny fraction of the combinatorial space of possible inputs, raising the question of what structure representations must have to support generalization to unseen combinations. We formalize three desiderata for compositional generalization under standard training (divisibility, transferability, stability) and show they impose necessary geometric constraints: representations must decompose linearly into per-concept components, and these components must be orthogonal across concepts. This provides theoretical grounding for the Linear Representation Hypothesis: the linear structure widely observed in neural representations is a necessary consequence of compositional generalization. We further derive dimension bounds linking the number of composable concepts to the embedding geometry. Empirically, we evaluate these predictions across modern vision models (CLIP, SigLIP, DINO) and find that representations exhibit partial linear factorization with low-rank, near-orthogonal per-concept factors, and that the degree of this structure correlates with compositional generalization on unseen combinations. As models continue to scale, these conditions predict the representational geometry they may converge to. Code is available at https://github.com/oshapio/necessary-compositionality.

Compositional generalization, the ability to generate novel combinations of known concepts, is a key ingredient for visual generative models. Yet, not all mechanisms that enable or inhibit it are fully understood. In this work, we conduct a systematic study of which design choices critically determine compositional generalization in image and video generation. By isolating independent design axes, we identify two key factors strongly associated with compositional success: (i) whether the training objective operates on a discrete or continuous distribution, and (ii) the completeness of conditioning information about constituent factors during training. We also show that relaxing the discrete loss with an auxiliary continuous latent objective can partially recover compositional performance in discrete models like MaskGIT. Our findings, corroborated by diverse compositional tasks and preliminary evidence in world models and LLMs, motivate a shift toward continuous objectives for compositional generalization.

It has been hypothesized that achieving the data efficiency of human visual perception requires a generative approach in which internal representations result from inverting a decoder. Yet today's most successful vision models are non-generative, relying on an encoder that maps images to representations without decoder inversion. This raises the question of whether generation is necessary for data-efficient machine perception. To address this, we study to what extent generative and non-generative methods can achieve compositional generalization, a hallmark of human data efficiency. Under a compositional generative process, we formally characterize the inductive biases required for compositional generalization in decoder-based (generative) and encoder-based (non-generative) methods. We show theoretically that the inductive biases required for an encoder are substantially more complex and generally infeasible to impose explicitly through architectural constraints or regularization. By contrast, the decoder biases take a simple form that can be enforced directly. These results suggest that compositional generalization may be substantially easier to achieve through a generative paradigm of learning and inverting a decoder rather than learning an encoder directly. We examine our theoretical findings empirically by training a range of generative and non-generative methods on synthetic image data. We find that non-generative methods often fail to generalize compositionally and require large-scale pretraining to improve generalization. By comparison, generative methods yield gains in generalization without requiring additional data.