Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
Jaxolotl provides an end-to-end JAX-native benchmark suite that standardizes six reinforcement learning algorithms across four environments under curated Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) task specifications. By precompiling symbolic task representations into static arrays for complete hardware acceleration, the framework eliminates evaluation discrepancies and achieves up to 220× training speedups. Large-scale benchmarking exposes a fundamental trade-off in the literature: expressive, non-myopic reasoning methods fail as proposition spaces scale, whereas scalable architectures rely heavily on domain-specific heuristics and suffer from myopia.
A 220× acceleration of LTL-guided RL exposes a critical failure mode: algorithms capable of non-myopic reasoning collapse as proposition spaces scale, while scalable alternatives depend entirely on myopic shortcuts.
Training agents to follow arbitrary instructions is an important goal of multi-task reinforcement learning (RL). Linear temporal logic (LTL) provides a precise and structured formalism for specifying instructions to agents, and has been successfully adopted for training generalist multi-task policies. However, differences in implementations, task distributions, and evaluation protocols make existing methods difficult to compare, while high computational costs limit the scale and statistical reliability of experiments. We introduce Jaxolotl, a unified high-performance benchmark suite for multi-task LTL-RL to address these concerns. Jaxolotl provides a modular, end-to-end JAX implementation of six representative algorithms and four environments, together with newly curated task suites and a standardised, statistically robust evaluation protocol. By precompiling symbolic task representations into static arrays, Jaxolotl enables fully JIT-compiled training and evaluation, achieving end-to-end speedups of up to $220\times$ and supporting controlled comparisons at substantially greater experimental scale. We use this framework to systematically evaluate existing approaches, revealing complementary strengths and limitations: general methods capable of non-myopic reasoning struggle as the number of propositions grows, while methods with stronger scaling rely on environment-specific assumptions and suffer from myopia.