Revisiting OOD Generalization in Programmatic RL

Programmatic policies are often reported to generalize better than neural policies in reinforcement learning (RL) benchmarks. We revisit some of these claims and show that much of the observed gap arises from uncontrolled experimental factors rather than intrinsic representational reasons. Re-evaluating three core benchmarks used in influential papers---TORCS, Karel, and Parking---we find that neural policies, when trained with a few modifications, such as sparse observations and cautious intrinsic reward functions, can match or exceed the out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization of programmatic policies. We argue that a representation enables OOD generalization if (i) the policy space it induces includes a generalizing policy and (ii) the search algorithm can find it. The neural and programmatic policies in prior work are comparable in OOD generalization because the domain-specific languages used induce policy spaces similar to those of neural networks, and our modifications help the gradient search find generalizing solutions. By disentangling representational factors from experimental confounds, we advance our understanding of what makes a representation succeed or fail at OOD generalization.