Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Explaining Conditions for Reinforcement Learning Behaviors from Real and Imagined Data

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 2011.09004 v1 pith:6UIMEVYZ submitted 2020-11-17 cs.LG cs.AIcs.HCcs.NEcs.RO

classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.HCcs.NEcs.RO
keywords conditionsdatabehaviorscomesdifferentexperientialimaginedlearning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The deployment of reinforcement learning (RL) in the real world comes with challenges in calibrating user trust and expectations. As a step toward developing RL systems that are able to communicate their competencies, we present a method of generating human-interpretable abstract behavior models that identify the experiential conditions leading to different task execution strategies and outcomes. Our approach consists of extracting experiential features from state representations, abstracting strategy descriptors from trajectories, and training an interpretable decision tree that identifies the conditions most predictive of different RL behaviors. We demonstrate our method on trajectory data generated from interactions with the environment and on imagined trajectory data that comes from a trained probabilistic world model in a model-based RL setting.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Survey of Explainable Reinforcement Learning: Targets, Methods and Needs

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey of 250+ explainable-reinforcement-learning papers proposes a What/How taxonomy and reports that sequence-level explanations are rare (11 works) compared with policy-level (175) and action-level (89) ones.

Pith tools