biasing learning towards structured representations and computations, and in particular, systems
that operate on graphs.
Humans' capacity for combinatorial generalization depends critically on our cognitive mechanisms for representing structure and reasoning about relations. We represent complex systems as
compositions of entities and their interactions1(Navon, 1977; McClelland and Rumelhart, 1981;
Plaut et al., 1996; Marcus, 2001; Goodwin and Johnson-Laird, 2005; Kemp and Tenenbaum, 2008),
such as judging whether a haphazard stack of objects is stable (Battaglia et al., 2013). We use
hierarchies to abstract away from ne-grained dierences, and capture more general commonalities
between representations and behaviors (Botvinick, 2008; Tenenbaum et al., 2011), such as parts of
an object, objects in a scene, neighborhoods in a town, and towns in a country. We solve novel
problems by composing familiar skills and routines (Anderson, 1982), for example traveling to a
new location by composing familiar procedures and objectives, such as \travel by airplane", \to
San Diego", \eat at", and \an Indian restaurant". We draw analogies by aligning the relational
structure between two domains and drawing inferences about one based on corresponding knowledge
Artificial intelligence (AI) has undergone a renaissance recently, making
major progress in key domains such as vision, language, control, and
decision-making. This has been due, in part, to cheap data and cheap compute
resources, which have fit the natural strengths of deep learning. However, many
defining characteristics of human intelligence, which developed under much
different pressures, remain out of reach for current approaches. In particular,
generalizing beyond one's experiences--a hallmark of human intelligence from
infancy--remains a formidable challenge for modern AI.
  The following is part position paper, part review, and part unification. We
argue that combinatorial generalization must be a top priority for AI to
achieve human-like abilities, and that structured representations and
computations are key to realizing this objective. Just as biology uses nature
and nurture cooperatively, we reject the false choice between
"hand-engineering" and "end-to-end" learning, and instead advocate for an
approach which benefits from their complementary strengths. We explore how
using relational inductive biases within deep learning architectures can
facilitate learning about entities, relations, and rules for composing them. We
present a new building block for the AI toolkit with a strong relational
inductive bias--the graph network--which generalizes and extends various
approaches for neural networks that operate on graphs, and provides a
straightforward interface for manipulating structured knowledge and producing
structured behaviors. We discuss how graph networks can support relational
reasoning and combinatorial generalization, laying the foundation for more
sophisticated, interpretable, and flexible patterns of reasoning. As a
companion to this paper, we have released an open-source software library for
building graph networks, with demonstrations of how to use them in practice.
Peter W. Battaglia Jessica B. Hamrick Victor Bapst Alvaro Sanchez-Gonzalez Vinicius Zambaldi Mateusz Malinowski Andrea Tacchetti David Raposo Adam Santoro Ryan Faulkner Caglar Gulcehre Francis Song Andrew Ballard Justin Gilmer George Dahl Ashish Vaswani Kelsey Allen Charles Nash Victoria Langston Chris Dyer Nicolas Heess Daan Wierstra Pushmeet Kohli Matt Botvinick Oriol Vinyals Yujia Li Razvan Pascanu