REVIEW 3 cited by
Explainable Reinforcement Learning: A Survey
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
read the original abstract
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), i.e., the development of more transparent and interpretable AI models, has gained increased traction over the last few years. This is due to the fact that, in conjunction with their growth into powerful and ubiquitous tools, AI models exhibit one detrimential characteristic: a performance-transparency trade-off. This describes the fact that the more complex a model's inner workings, the less clear it is how its predictions or decisions were achieved. But, especially considering Machine Learning (ML) methods like Reinforcement Learning (RL) where the system learns autonomously, the necessity to understand the underlying reasoning for their decisions becomes apparent. Since, to the best of our knowledge, there exists no single work offering an overview of Explainable Reinforcement Learning (XRL) methods, this survey attempts to address this gap. We give a short summary of the problem, a definition of important terms, and offer a classification and assessment of current XRL methods. We found that a) the majority of XRL methods function by mimicking and simplifying a complex model instead of designing an inherently simple one, and b) XRL (and XAI) methods often neglect to consider the human side of the equation, not taking into account research from related fields like psychology or philosophy. Thus, an interdisciplinary effort is needed to adapt the generated explanations to a (non-expert) human user in order to effectively progress in the field of XRL and XAI in general.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
xInv: Explainable Optimization of Inverse Problems
An explainability method that instruments differentiable optimizers to emit natural language events and uses a language model to synthesize human-readable explanations of inverse problem optimization.
-
Assuring the Safety of Reinforcement Learning Components: AMLAS-RL
AMLAS-RL defines six stages for generating RL safety assurance arguments, demonstrated on a wheeled vehicle where verification ultimately showed the need to revisit earlier stages.
-
Explainable Reinforcement Learning via Physics-Aware Policy Distillation
Distilling TD3 into a depth-7 decision tree with a Pole-Urgency feature and noisy oracle data matches inverted-pendulum success while inducing Bang-Bang limit-cycle control that remains empirically bounded.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.