Pareto Conditioned Networks learn multiple multi-objective reinforcement learning behaviours by conditioning a single policy on a desired return command. However, the local mapping from command and state to action remains opaque. We propose command-space counterfactual explanations for PCNs: given a fixed state, original command, and foil action, we search, in a black-box setting, for a minimally changed desired-return command under which the same trained policy would choose the foil. Our contributions are threefold. First, we formulate PCN explanations as return-command interventions, using a return-only PCN variant that avoids the added ambiguity of horizon-conditioning. Second, we adapt adversarial machine learning methods to reinforcement-learning explanations. Third, we introduce a boundary-seeded directional search that improves over purely local optimization in the command-action landscape, resulting in our proposed approach CF-ZOO. The resulting explanations are actionable and intuitively expressed in the user's own preferences: "If your trade-off had shifted slightly towards X, the agent would have chosen Y."
To effectively integrate AI into high-stakes, critical environments such as healthcare, autonomous driving, and aviation--and to advance toward higher levels of automation and seamless human-AI collaboration--building trust in AI-driven solutions is essential. Trust, in turn, is closely linked to the explainability of AI systems. The rapid advancements in AI across various domains have underscored the challenges of establishing trust, raising increasing interest in AI explainability even more when applied to deep learning. In this context, the present work aims to explore the application of explainability techniques to Reinforcement Learning (RL) algorithms, specifically within the safety-critical domain of Air Traffic Control (ATC). Using a simplified ATC environment as an initial testbed, an intelligent agent is trained with a reinforcement learning algorithm to make decisions on alternative flight routes that avoid no-fly zones. As a preliminary explainability approach, a saliency map is employed, providing insights into the input features that most significantly influence the agent's decision-making process.
A trained deep reinforcement learning policy is a black box, and we ask whether it can be made explainable by rewriting it as an executable logic program that reproduces its behaviour and that a person can read, a logic engine can run, and an optimizer can edit. We present a three-stage post-hoc transformation that extracts a frozen proximal policy optimization teacher, induces an ordered rule list from its decisions in the manner of classical relational learning, and emits the result as a Prolog program whose every decision is executed by an off-the-shelf logic engine; a subsequent expansion stage edits the rule base and accepts an edit only when policy evaluation certifies a return increase. We prove four guarantees. A return-loss bound makes the distilled program a machine-checkable certificate in a finite Markov decision process, and the expansion loop improves monotonically and terminates. For the continuous-observation setting we answer whether the conversion is possible at all: the propositional threshold instantiation converts the network to arbitrary fidelity as the resolution B grows, with disagreement O(1/B) and a return gap that closes at the same rate, and a matching lower bound shows the cost is exponential in the observation dimension for an oblique decision boundary. Empirically, on a two-room key-and-door task with 16,944 reachable states the expanded Prolog program attains exact optimal return in every seed and, in a budget-capped regime, exceeds the stochastic teacher on exact return in ten of ten seeds. On three continuous-control tasks the emitted program substitutes the network, matching the neural teacher within noise on Acrobot with eleven clauses and recovering about 97% of its return on CartPole, while on the finer-control LunarLander it recovers only partially, exactly the ceiling the exponential lower bound predicts.
Explainable Reinforcement Learning (XRL) seeks to make Reinforcement Learning (RL) policies more transparent and interpretable, a key requirement in safety-critical and human-centric scenarios. However, it is mostly based on user studies, thus targeting the needs of a specific audience and lacking shared evaluation metrics. On the other hand, logic-based approaches within eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) provide compact, human-readable abstractions of decision-making. However, the systematic quantification of the explainability degree of logical representations remains an open problem. This work aims to advance the state of the art in XRL by introducing objective and planning-oriented metrics for policy explainability in RL settings. At the same time, it contributes to the field of logic for XAI by providing a principled way to quantify the explainability of logical rules, moving beyond common-sense assessments and simple propositional fragments. We employ Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) to extract symbolic representations of RL policies and define a novel set of explainability metrics, including activation rate, feature coverage, syntactic distance and semantic distance. These metrics quantify alignment between symbolic rules and agent behavior, the role of features in decision-making, and the evolution of policies during training and across agents in single and multi-agent RL. Experiments across different RL domains show that the proposed metrics highlight action-specific learning dynamics beyond global return, provide fine-grained insights into domain features beyond classical approaches for global feature importance estimation, and uncover coordination, specialization, and adaptation patterns in MARL. Moreover, they provide crucial insights for the transfer and generalization of action-specific policies.
Reinforcement Learning (RL) has emerged as a powerful paradigm for adaptive traffic signal control. However, in safety-critical infrastructure like traffic control, the opaque, black-box nature of deep RL models poses challenges for transportation agency acceptance, regulatory compliance, operational trust, troubleshooting, and fine-tuning. To bridge this gap between high-performance optimization and human-comprehensible interpretability, this effort introduces a novel, explainable entity centric RL framework for safe and transparent traffic signal control. Rather than processing traffic states through monolithic, flat vectors, the proposed architecture disaggregates real-time intersection observations into distinct, high-dimensional lane entities and phase temporal configurations to inherently preserve the structural topology and geometric configurations of the intersection. Relational dependencies and inter-lane conflicts are dynamically extracted via a dual-stage attention network featuring sequential multi-head cross-attention and self-attention blocks. This design yields a real time affinity matrix that quantifies the direct influence of signal phases on specific approach volumes and queues, providing full visual and analytical interpretability. To ensure strict operational reliability, a deterministic action-masking interface is integrated directly into the Proximal Policy Optimization pipeline, explicitly blocking invalid phase transitions to guarantee absolute compliance with established signal timing and safety constraints. Evaluated in a microscopic simulation environment, outperforms state-of-the-art baselines in delay minimization. More importantly, the emergent attention weights align precisely with established traffic engineering principles, offering an auditable, trust-enabling, and deployable architecture for next-generation adaptive traffic control systems.
Andreas Chouliaras, Luke Connolly, Dimitris Chatzpouloscs.AI cs.HC
Training safe Reinforcement Learning (RL) systems is inherently challenging, with no guarantee of avoiding unwanted behaviors. The most effective defenses against this are (i) transparency through explainability and (ii) alignment via human feedback. While both show promising results, no publicly available framework currently combines them. To address this, we introduce Themis, an XAI-enabled testing and evaluation framework for Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback. Themis supports over 200 widely used environments and is easily configurable for experiments in RL, transparency, and alignment. Our results show that Themis can train reward models that match or outperform the environment's true reward signal using human preferences. We also provide a cloud-based platform for collecting human feedback and managing experiments. It is user-friendly, auto-scalable, and supports large participant groups across multiple experiments without extra development overhead. Tests show Themis can support one thousand users in back-to-back experiments on a modest commercial machine.
Sabine Rieder, Stefan Pranger, Debraj Chakraborty +2cs.LG
Trust in a decision-making system requires both safety guarantees and the ability to interpret and understand its behavior. This is particularly important for learned systems, whose decision-making processes are often highly opaque. Shielding is a prominent model-based technique for enforcing safety in reinforcement learning. However, because shields are automatically synthesized using rigorous formal methods, their decisions are often similarly difficult for humans to interpret. Recently, decision trees became customary to represent controllers and policies. However, since shields are inherently non-deterministic, their decision tree representations become too large to be explainable in practice. To address this challenge, we propose a novel approach for explainable safe RL that enhances trust by providing human-interpretable explanations of the shield's decisions. Our method represents the shielding policy as a hierarchy of decision trees, offering top-down, case-based explanations. At design time, we use a world model to analyze the safety risks of executing actions in given states. Based on this analysis, we construct both the shield and a high-level decision tree that classifies states into risk categories (safe, critical, dangerous, unsafe), explaining why a situation may be safety-critical. At runtime, we generate localized decision trees that explain which actions are allowed and why others are deemed unsafe. Our method facilitates explainability of the safety aspect in safe-by-shielding reinforcement learning, requires no additional information beyond what is already used for shielding, incurs minimal overhead, and integrates readily into existing shielded RL pipelines. In our experiments, we compute explanations using decision trees that are several orders of magnitude smaller than the original shield.