Pith. sign in

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

arxiv 2005.06247 v1 pith:M5OVZS5Z submitted 2020-05-13 cs.LG stat.ML

classification cs.LGstat.ML
keywords methodslearningexplainablereinforcementcomplexdecisionsfacthuman
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
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.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. xInv: Explainable Optimization of Inverse Problems

    cs.LG 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    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.

  2. Assuring the Safety of Reinforcement Learning Components: AMLAS-RL

    cs.LG 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    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.

  3. Explainable Reinforcement Learning via Physics-Aware Policy Distillation

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    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.

Pith tools