Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Explaining Reinforcement Learning Policies through Counterfactual Trajectories

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 2201.12462 v2 pith:RKEBLHLQ submitted 2022-01-29 cs.LG cs.AIcs.HCcs.RO

classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.HCcs.RO
keywords agentbehaviordistributiontrajectoriesmethodmethodspolicyshowing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

In order for humans to confidently decide where to employ RL agents for real-world tasks, a human developer must validate that the agent will perform well at test-time. Some policy interpretability methods facilitate this by capturing the policy's decision making in a set of agent rollouts. However, even the most informative trajectories of training time behavior may give little insight into the agent's behavior out of distribution. In contrast, our method conveys how the agent performs under distribution shifts by showing the agent's behavior across a wider trajectory distribution. We generate these trajectories by guiding the agent to more diverse unseen states and showing the agent's behavior there. In a user study, we demonstrate that our method enables users to score better than baseline methods on one of two agent validation tasks.

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