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.
Towards Symbolic Reinforcement Learning with Common Sense
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
Deep Reinforcement Learning (deep RL) has made several breakthroughs in recent years in applications ranging from complex control tasks in unmanned vehicles to game playing. Despite their success, deep RL still lacks several important capacities of human intelligence, such as transfer learning, abstraction and interpretability. Deep Symbolic Reinforcement Learning (DSRL) seeks to incorporate such capacities to deep Q-networks (DQN) by learning a relevant symbolic representation prior to using Q-learning. In this paper, we propose a novel extension of DSRL, which we call Symbolic Reinforcement Learning with Common Sense (SRL+CS), offering a better balance between generalization and specialization, inspired by principles of common sense when assigning rewards and aggregating Q-values. Experiments reported in this paper show that SRL+CS learns consistently faster than Q-learning and DSRL, achieving also a higher accuracy. In the hardest case, where agents were trained in a deterministic environment and tested in a random environment, SRL+CS achieves nearly 100% average accuracy compared to DSRL's 70% and DQN's 50% accuracy. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case of near perfect zero-shot transfer learning using Reinforcement Learning.
citation-role summary
citation-polarity summary
fields
cs.AI 1years
2025 1verdicts
CONDITIONAL 1roles
background 1polarities
unclear 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
A Survey of Explainable Reinforcement Learning: Targets, Methods and Needs
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.