This benchmark evaluates compositional generalization in semantic parsing by measuring how well models translate anonymized natural language questions into executable SPARQL queries. It specifically probes the ability to generalize to unseen combinations of logical rules (compounds) while maintaining familiarity with individual rules (atoms), using Maximum Compound Divergence splits to ensure fair yet challenging evaluation. Use when the user wants to benchmark on CFQ, or asks about evaluatin...
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill cfq-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Cfq Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-cfq-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: cfq-eval
description: This benchmark evaluates compositional generalization in semantic parsing by measuring how well models translate anonymized natural language questions into executable SPARQL queries. It specifically probes the ability to generalize to unseen combinations of logical rules (compounds) while maintaining familiarity with individual rules (atoms), using Maximum Compound Divergence splits to ensure fair yet challenging evaluation. Use when the user wants to benchmark on CFQ, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports accuracy.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2012.08266
bibtex_key: tsarkov2020cfq
confidence: medium
---
# cfq-eval
> *-CFQ: Analyzing the Scalability of Machine Learning on a Compositional Task — Tsarkov et al. (arXiv:2012.08266, 2020)
## What this evaluates
This benchmark evaluates compositional generalization in semantic parsing by measuring how well models translate anonymized natural language questions into executable SPARQL queries. It specifically probes the ability to generalize to unseen combinations of logical rules (compounds) while maintaining familiarity with individual rules (atoms), using Maximum Compound Divergence splits to ensure fair yet challenging evaluation.
## Datasets
- **CFQ** — total ?; splits: MCD (-1)
## Metrics
- `accuracy` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- Standard classification accuracy: the proportion of correctly predicted SPARQL queries out of the total number of test instances.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Anonymized natural language question
**Output**: A SPARQL query string
## Scoring recipe
```python
correct = 0
for pred, gold in zip(predictions, gold_labels):
if pred.strip() == gold.strip():
correct += 1
return correct / len(gold_labels)
```
## Common pitfalls
- Evaluating on splits with high atom divergence rather than Maximum Compound Divergence (MCD) splits fails to isolate compositional generalization.
- Models may exploit entity memorization if anonymization is not strictly enforced, leading to inflated accuracy on unseen compositions.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> The authors release a number of MCD splits for CFQ, and show that there is a strong negative correlation between the accuracy of three standard sequence-to-sequence architectures and the compound divergence.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{tsarkov2020cfq,
title={*-CFQ: Analyzing the Scalability of Machine Learning on a Compositional Task},
author={Tsarkov et al.},
year={2020},
note={arXiv:2012.08266}
}
```
- arXiv: 2012.08266
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!