Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Learning Symbolic Rules for Interpretable Deep Reinforcement Learning

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 2103.08228 v2 pith:6CHV76HX submitted 2021-03-15 cs.AI

classification cs.AI
keywords learningsymbolicframeworkreinforcementdeepinterpretabilitylearnedneural
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent progress in deep reinforcement learning (DRL) can be largely attributed to the use of neural networks. However, this black-box approach fails to explain the learned policy in a human understandable way. To address this challenge and improve the transparency, we propose a Neural Symbolic Reinforcement Learning framework by introducing symbolic logic into DRL. This framework features a fertilization of reasoning and learning modules, enabling end-to-end learning with prior symbolic knowledge. Moreover, interpretability is achieved by extracting the logical rules learned by the reasoning module in a symbolic rule space. The experimental results show that our framework has better interpretability, along with competing performance in comparison to state-of-the-art approaches.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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