Semantic Parsing

A standard pipeline for symbolic reasoning over natural-language problems translates them into first-order logic and invokes a theorem prover. The translation step is the bottleneck: swap "every" for "some" and every inference that follows is corrupted. Yet today's metrics often score more broken translations higher than less broken ones, because BLEU, BERTScore, and Smatch++ reward surface overlap that the worst errors happen to preserve. We introduce SIV, which derives two kinds of probes from the target formula and uses a theorem prover to verify the candidate translation against each. Positive probes are statements the candidate must entail, which detect translations that drop content; contrastive probes are statements the candidate must not entail, which detect translations that assert more than the original. On a controlled pool of perturbed FOLIO translations, the severity of the error accounts for 80% of SIV's score variance, compared with at most 17% for any prior metric. Across six error classes on a disjoint pool, SIV scores the reference above the perturbed candidate in over 99% of pairs. Because each probe is labeled with what it tests, the failure pattern also supplies a labeled error trace, recovering the perturbation class at macro-F1 0.638, nearly double the score-only baseline. On 434 expert-audited real LLM translations, SIV attains the top AUC, uniquely detects and grades expert-labeled major errors, and abstains, rather than mis-scoring, on out-of-vocabulary translations.

The English Resource Grammar (ERG) is a hand-written computational grammar of English. Given a sentence, its processor, ACE, produces a formal meaning representation called Minimal Recursion Semantics (MRS): a graph of the sentence's predicates and their arguments. The grammar is bidirectional and can also turn an MRS back into an English sentence. \citet{hajdik2019} used the ERG's treebank to build a benchmark for that generation task, MRS to text, and trained sequence-to-sequence models to solve it. The parsing task, text to MRS, can be tested on the same sentences. We reconstruct their 10K-sentence test split, and score two large language models, Claude Sonnet4.5 and Claude Opus5, in both directions against their trained systems and against ACE, with no task-specific training. Given an MRS and three examples, Opus writes the sentence at 76.3 BLEU, ten points above their system trained on 72k pairs (66.1 BLEU), and comparable to their system trained on a million extra pairs (77.2 BLEU). Sonnet scores 65.7 BLEU, and letting it choose among ACE's own candidate sentences lifts it to 69.6, while a pooled judge that keeps Opus's own sentence among the candidates adds 0.6 points (77.0 BLEU). In the parsing direction, however, the models fall far behind ACE: asked for the MRS of the same sentences, they reach 57.2 (Sonnet) and 65.5 (Opus) F$_1$ on the graph's predicates and arguments against 91.0 for ACE, and exact-match the gold on about 1% of sentences. We characterize the failure modes for the parsing tasks, and conclude that a generation score alone does not show that models understand formal semantic representations.

When language models reason in chain-of-thought or exchange free-text intermediates, they serialize structured information into natural language. How much tree-structured compositional content survives this bottleneck? We propose a round-trip protocol that answers this question empirically for tree-structured expressions. A generator converts a procedurally generated arithmetic expression into a word problem, a separate extractor recovers the expression from the word problem alone, and symbolic equivalence provides an exact oracle. Evaluating all pairwise combinations of sixteen models yields a communication matrix whose marginals separate generation quality from extraction quality. Three main findings emerge. First, the channel is lossy and asymmetric: swapping which model generates and which extracts shifts accuracy by up to 60.4 points, and the best pair reaches 92.9% by combining different models on each end rather than the same model on both. Second, at least 73.6% of round-trip failures originate at generation, and difficulty is driven by tree structure (operator count, depth, right-branching) rather than model family. Third, the channel is trainable: ~3600 fine-tuning examples that share the evaluation's operators and tree shapes lift every open-weight model above untrained Gemini-3.1-Pro, an upper bound under matched semantics. A disjoint-domain regime with new operators and vocabulary also raises every open-weight model, confirming the gain is not an artifact of matched semantics, though a gap to the frontier remains. Together these results identify tree-structured expression serialization as a primary limiting factor when models communicate hierarchical structure through natural language.

Semantic parsing (SP)-based knowledge base question answering aims to answer natural language questions by generating executable logical forms (LFs) over knowledge bases (KBs). When applying Large Language Models (LLMs) to this task, a key challenge over large, heterogeneous KBs is selecting question-related schema elements (i.e., relations and classes) and composing them into complex LFs. Recent LLM-based methods often make early discrete commitments to schema elements during intermediate reasoning, allowing incorrect intermediate schema decisions to propagate and finally result in incorrect LFs. To overcome this limitation, we propose SALR, a schema-anchored latent reasoning method for LF construction. It performs multi-step reasoning by generating continuous thoughts in the model's hidden states, thereby delaying the explicit commitment to LF decisions. To ground this latent reasoning process in the corresponding KB schema, SALR aligns continuous thoughts with a codebook of KB schema elements through an alignment objective supervised by schema traces deterministically derived from gold LFs. It then incorporates the aligned schema codes into inputs for subsequent reasoning steps. This schema-mediated feedback guides LF generation without requiring the model to emit an explicit textual reasoning trajectory. Experiments on GrailQA and WebQSP show that SALR achieves consistent overall gains over strong baselines. Notably, on compositional questions from GrailQA, SALR outperforms TIARA, a strong SP-based baseline, by 2.86 F1 points. Further analyses show that schema-mediated feedback affects LF generation and that schema information is recoverable from the latent states.

Compositional generalisation has been divided into lexical and structural generalisation. Previous work has found that structural generalisation is harder than lexical for Transformers. We propose that this difference is not inherent to Transformers, but due to the high diversity of lexical types and low diversity of structural types in the specific datasets of these previous works. By type diversity we mean the number of different constructors of that type, instead of, for example, the specific word combinations that might populate the structure. To test this, we vary the amounts of type diversity of lexical and structural types in previously published datasets. We create linguistically diverse variants of the COGS and SLOG datasets using Grammatical Framework. We find that type diversity correlates with compositional generalisation equally in lexical and structural test cases, supporting our hypothesis. We note a contradiction with the proposition in previous work that compound divergence explains the difficulty in compositional generalisation tasks. We further investigate the effects of other dataset properties on compositional generalisation, such as the diversity of types other than the novel test structure, and surface properties of the logical semantics format.

SHACL is a core technology for validating the conformance of RDF knowledge graphs (KGs). Yet, authoring SHACL shapes requires technical expertise that most domain experts lack. Translating natural language requirements into SHACL (NL2SHACL) would lower this barrier. However, there is no dedicated benchmark for NL2SHACL, and evaluating generated shapes requires methods beyond string comparison, as semantically equivalent shapes can differ in serialisation and structure. To tackle these challenges, we present NL2SHACL-Bench, a benchmark suite for natural language to SHACL translation. Using NL2SHACL-Bench, we evaluate four state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) for this task. Our results show that current LLMs are highly capable of generating syntactically valid SHACL, but still struggle to produce semantically equivalent constraints for complex logical and structural patterns. This indicates that NL2SHACL-Bench provides a meaningful basis for measuring advances in the NL2SHACL state of the art.

Several SLOG test categories explicitly involve directional distinctions (modifier position shifts, argument extraction positions), yet AM-Parser, the previous SOTA, uses an AM algebra whose operations do not encode direction. We redesign the symbolic backend around CCG directed types (deterministic CKY + single linear decoder, 30K learnable parameters). Under the same BERT-base encoder, the system achieves 75.9$\pm$6.4% LF exact match, surpassing AM-Parser (70.8$\pm$4.3%). Per SLOG's own category groupings, gains are highly directional: the CCG system outperforms AM-Parser on all 5 position-shift categories (+29.9pp), while AM-Parser outperforms on all 6 recursive-depth categories. Replacing the encoder with DeBERTa-v3-large yields 90.7$\pm$4.9%, with the largest encoder gains in recursive-depth categories, complementary to directionality's gains. Directional representations shift the bottleneck from the symbolic layer (AM-Parser's 0% category ceiling) to the neural layer, which improves with encoder upgrades.

Randomized controlled trials are a cornerstone of medicine and the social sciences as they enable reliable estimates of causal effects. However, they are costly and time-consuming to conduct, motivating interest in predicting causal effects from existing experimental evidence. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance on knowledge-intensive tasks, raising the question of whether these models can be used for forecasting causal effect sizes. To investigate this, we introduce Query2Effect, a new large-scale benchmark consisting of more than 72,000 natural language questions aligned with experiment descriptions, created to simulate realistic information-seeking scenarios by varying query specificity along dimensions of implicitness, abstraction, and ambiguity. We then propose a two-step framework that first generates a synthetic structured representation of a query before predicting effect size using a supervised encoder model. Experiments show that finetuning plays a crucial role in improving prediction performance, with absolute error reducing by -27% up to -71% compared to prompted out-of-the-box LLMs, and that our two-step framework is beneficial for out-of-domain generalization, highlighting the benefits of separating semantic interpretation from numerical effect estimation.

Natural language interfaces to databases have gained popularity, yet the theoretical foundations for evaluating and designing these systems remain underdeveloped. We present QUEST (Query Understanding Evaluation through Semantic Translation), a framework resting on two independently motivated components: the FAR structural invariant, which holds that every well-formed query reduces to Filter, Aggregate, and Return operations; and the W5H dimensional framework, which holds that all filtering criteria map to six semantic dimensions (Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How). Validated across five text-to-SQL datasets (n = 120,464), FAR conformance is universal across all domains and schema types, while W5H dimensional profiles vary substantially. Healthcare queries are strongly concentrated in temporal (WHEN: 80.4%) and person-centric (WHO: 73.0%) dimensions far exceeding general-domain benchmarks, and causal (WHY) and mechanistic (HOW) reasoning are near-zero everywhere, with apparent HOW exceptions reflecting quantitative aggregation rather than genuine procedural reasoning. These results identify a frontier that must be crossed for genuine machine reasoning over structured data.

Structural generalization in semantic parsing requires systems to apply learned compositional rules to novel structural combinations. Existing approaches either rely on hand-written algebraic rules (AM-Parser) or fail to generalize structurally (Transformer-based models). We present an alternative requiring no hand-written compositional rules, based on a neural cellular automaton (NCA) with a discrete bottleneck: all compositional rules are learned from data through local iteration. On the SLOG benchmark, the system achieves an overall accuracy of $67.3 \pm 0.2\%$ across 10 seeds (AM-Parser: $70.8 \pm 4.3\%$), with 11 of 17 structural generalization categories at $100\%$ type-exact match, including three where AM-Parser scores $0$--$74\%$. Analysis reveals that all 5,539 failure instances reduce to exactly two mechanisms: novel combinations of wh-extraction context with reduced verb types, and modifiers appearing on the subject side of verbs. When we decompose results by CCG structural features, each sub-pattern either succeeds on all instances or fails on all. Intermediate scores (e.g., $41.4\%$) are mixtures of structurally distinct CCG patterns, not partial generalization. These results suggest that CCG directed types provide higher resolution than SLOG's phenomenon-level categories for characterizing structural generalization, and that the success/failure boundary is determined by the coverage of directed operations in the training data.