critiques from structured, symbolic positions (Fodor and Pylyshyn, 1988; Pinker and Prince, 1988),
there was a constructive eort (Bobrow and Hinton, 1990; Marcus, 2001) to address the challenges
directly and carefully. A variety of innovative sub-symbolic approaches for representing and reasoning
about structured objects were developed in domains such as analogy-making, linguistic analysis,
symbol manipulation, and other forms of relational reasoning (Smolensky, 1990; Hinton, 1990;
Pollack, 1990; Elman, 1991; Plate, 1995; Eliasmith, 2013), as well as more integrative theories for
how the mind works (Marcus, 2001). Such work also helped cultivate more recent deep learning
advances which use distributed, vector representations to capture rich semantic content in text
(Mikolov et al., 2013; Pennington et al., 2014), graphs (Narayanan et al., 2016, 2017), algebraic and
logical expressions (Allamanis et al., 2017; Evans et al., 2018), and programs (Devlin et al., 2017;
Chen et al., 2018b).
We suggest that a key path forward for modern AI is to commit to combinatorial generalization
as a top priority, and we advocate for integrative approaches to realize this goal. Just as biology does
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