A Distribution Mapping Approach to Counterfactually Fair Reinforcement Learning

Reinforcement learning (RL) seeks to optimize sequential decisions to maximize population-level benefits over time. However, when deployed in high-stakes settings such as healthcare, RL decisions might systematically restrict some subpopulation's access to valuable services in a manner contrary to the values and goals of stakeholders. Counterfactual fairness (CF) offers a promising framework to address this problem based on causal reasoning. This paper develops a data preprocessing algorithm that, when used in tandem with policy learning, enables CF in RL. Our algorithm relies on a novel quantile distribution mapping method for sequentially estimating the counterfactual states and rewards in the data preprocessing step, subsuming common additivity assumptions used for counterfactual prediction as a special case. We theoretically prove that the per-step level of counterfactual unfairness and infinite-horizon suboptimality gap can be bounded under mild regularity conditions. We also empirically test our algorithm in numerical experiments as well as in application to a real-world interventional digital health dataset.

An Introduction to Causal Reinforcement Learning

Causal inference provides a set of principles and tools that allow one to combine data and knowledge about an environment to reason with questions of counterfactual nature, i.e., what would have happened had reality been different, even when no data of this unrealized reality is currently available. Reinforcement learning provides methods to learn a policy that optimizes a specific measure (e.g., reward, regret) when the agent is deployed in an environment and pursues an exploratory, trial-and-error approach. These two disciplines have evolved independently and with virtually no interaction between them. We note that they operate over different aspects of the same building block, counterfactual relations, which makes them umbilically connected. Based on these observations, novel learning opportunities arise when this connection is explicitly acknowledged and mathematized. To realize this potential, we note that any environment where the RL agent is deployed can be decomposed as a collection of autonomous mechanisms with different causal invariances, parsimoniously modeled as a structural causal model; any standard RL setting implicitly encodes such a model. This formalization allows us to put under a unifying treatment different modes of learning, including online, off-policy, and causal calculus learning, which appear unrelated in the literature. However, these modalities are not exhaustive: we introduce several natural and pervasive classes of learning settings that entail novel dimensions of analysis. Specifically, we introduce and discuss through causal lenses generalized policy learning, where to intervene, imitation learning, and counterfactual learning. These tasks lead to a broader view of counterfactual learning and suggest great potential for studying causal inference and reinforcement learning side by side, which we call causal reinforcement learning (CRL).

Learning Explicit Behavioral Models with Adaptive Questions and World-Model Probes

Interactive agents trained only against task return can achieve high scores while failing to represent the mechanisms that make their actions succeed. This makes brittle behavior difficult to diagnose and limits adaptation when environment dynamics change. Existing LLM reflection and policy-code repair can revise behavior from failed trajectories, but questions and world-understanding tests are usually used only after training. We introduce an Explicit Symbolic Behavioral Model (ESBM), a trainable behavioral model that couples task performance with evidence-grounded question answering and executable mechanism prediction. An ESBM represents behavior through typed predicates, weighted rules, bounded options and mechanism memory; the mechanism layer predicts symbolic events, object changes, rewards and terminal consequences under action interventions. After each rollout, adaptive questions and active world-model probes convert score failures, QA errors and transition-prediction errors into constraints for local ESBM edits. Candidate models are selected by a multi-criterion rule that jointly evaluates task score, answerability and active world-model consistency. Under the tested Atari-style protocols, ESBM learns high-scoring policies while producing explicit answers and executable mechanism predictions, indicating that adaptive questions can serve as both training pressure and reusable benchmarks for mechanistic policy learning in this setting.