Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Common Benchmarks Undervalue the Generalization Power of Programmatic Policies

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2506.14162 v1 pith:HGECUWRE submitted 2025-06-17 cs.LG

Common Benchmarks Undervalue the Generalization Power of Programmatic Policies

classification cs.LG
keywords policiesprogrammaticneuralproblemsgeneralizationgeneralizerepresentationsargue
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Algorithms for learning programmatic representations for sequential decision-making problems are often evaluated on out-of-distribution (OOD) problems, with the common conclusion that programmatic policies generalize better than neural policies on OOD problems. In this position paper, we argue that commonly used benchmarks undervalue the generalization capabilities of programmatic representations. We analyze the experiments of four papers from the literature and show that neural policies, which were shown not to generalize, can generalize as effectively as programmatic policies on OOD problems. This is achieved with simple changes in the neural policies training pipeline. Namely, we show that simpler neural architectures with the same type of sparse observation used with programmatic policies can help attain OOD generalization. Another modification we have shown to be effective is the use of reward functions that allow for safer policies (e.g., agents that drive slowly can generalize better). Also, we argue for creating benchmark problems highlighting concepts needed for OOD generalization that may challenge neural policies but align with programmatic representations, such as tasks requiring algorithmic constructs like stacks.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.