PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

RLP: A reinforcement learning benchmark for neural algorithmic reasoning

Yannick Niedermayr, Luca A Lanzendörfer, Benjamin Estermann, Roger Wattenhofer

datasets & benchmarksreinforcement learningbenchmarkalgorithmic reasoninglogic puzzles
8.60100
Fused
band ≈ ±15 pct pts (from σ = 0.31)
4.50100
Mimo
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.42)
15.60100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±22 pct pts (from σ = 0.45)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

TL;DR — Algorithmic reasoning is vital for problem-solving, while RL excels in certain tasks, its ability to handle complex algorithms is largely unexplored; we introduce an RL benchmark to assess this and find that RL struggles with algorithmic reasoning.

Abstract

Algorithmic reasoning is a fundamental cognitive ability that plays a pivotal role in problem-solving and decision-making processes. Although Reinforcement Learning (RL) has demonstrated remarkable proficiency in tasks such as motor control, handling perceptual input, and managing stochastic environments, its potential in learning generalizable and complex algorithms remains largely unexplored. To evaluate the current state of algorithmic reasoning in RL, we introduce an RL benchmark based on Simon Tatham's Portable Puzzle Collection. This benchmark contains 40 diverse logic puzzles of varying complexity levels, which serve as captivating challenges that test cognitive abilities, particularly in neural algorithmic reasoning. Our findings demonstrate that current RL approaches struggle with neural algorithmic reasoning, emphasizing the need for further research in this area. All of the software, including the environment, is available at https://github.com/rlppaper/rlp.

Author context

Most prolific author: 6 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 32)