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.
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.
Sabine Rieder, Stefan Pranger, Debraj Chakraborty +2
Explainability remains a key issue in reinforcement learning (RL). Distilling an interpretable policy from an agent trained in a complex environment is particularly challenging when the action space is continuous. We introduce ORCAID, a novel method for extracting interpretable rule-based policies from RL agents operating in mixed continuous-discrete environments with continuous action spaces. Our main contribution is an efficient oblique decision tree training algorithm that partitions the state space by hyperplanes and fits local linear models. The key idea lies in a three-stage split search: efficient random initialization, local refinement, and backward elimination. Finally, adjacent leaves are merged to yield a concise set of interpretable rules describing a given deep RL policy. We evaluate ORCAID across multiple RL environments, demonstrating that the extracted rule-based policies maintain strong performance with a low number of parameters and can even be used to improve the performance of the original deep RL policy.
Ignacio D. Lopez-Miguel, Ezio Bartocci, Thomas Eiter +1
Reinforcement Learning (RL) enables autonomous agents to learn policies from experience, but realistic problems often involve enormous state spaces, making learning and generalisation challenging. Abstraction and approximation are therefore essential. Relational Reinforcement Learning (RRL) offers a way to reason about objects and their relations, and the CARCASS framework by Martijn van Otterlo demonstrates how logical representations can model Markov Decision Processes (MDPs) in first-order domains. Originally implemented in Prolog, CARCASS leverages domain knowledge to create powerful abstractions. We explore Answer-Set Programming (ASP), which is a rich and, contrary to Prolog, fully declarative modelling language, to realise CARCASS abstractions. We evaluate our ASP-based implementation in case studies of two domains, viz. Blocks World and Minigrid. Our results indicate that CARCASS with ASP provides a promising approach to constructing abstractions for RL, especially when domain knowledge is available.