Command-Space Counterfactual Explanations for Pareto-Conditioned Reinforcement Learning

We give an attribution method for neural combinatorial-optimisation (CO) policies that (i) decomposes a decision by constraint families via LP-relaxation duals, (ii) certifies counterfactuals through a combinatorial feasibility model (implemented as a CSP feasibility-decision model), and (iii) bounds the size of a PAC-sufficient explanation with a Bonferroni-corrected Hoeffding sufficient-subset test along a greedy ordering. Across three CO problems and three seeds, our LP-anchored $Λ$-attribution matches the CF-derived signal at 96.5% on CVRPTW (n_cert=344) and 77.2% on the Orienteering Problem (n_cert=281) vs 75.0% and 35.2% for proxy gradient (paired diffs +0.215 and +0.420; McNemar exact $p \le 10^{-14}$). In the rank-aligned regime of the Flexible Job-Shop Scheduling Problem, both backends agree on every CSP-certified flip (n_cert=59), confirming the no-gain prediction. Bonferroni-PAC subsets average 5.0 nodes per step ($M=70$, $\varepsilon=δ=0.2$, $k_{\max}=25$). Reference implementation: https://github.com/sohaibafifi/neuro-co-cax

Intrinsic rewards are designed to guide exploration in reinforcement learning by assigning value to an agent's experience, for example through prediction error or learning progress. However, maximizing these rewards need not produce the most informative experience available. We propose a formal criterion for exploration that compares policies by the counterfactual information they acquire: how well their histories can substitute for experience under alternative policies. We construct a single, simple environment in which specified count-based, prediction-error, empowerment, and information-gain objectives have maximizing policies that are Pareto-suboptimal at acquiring counterfactual information. We explain these failures and establish conditions under which existing intrinsic rewards successfully encourage optimal exploration. We also construct an objective that assigns a higher value whenever exploration strictly improves under our criterion.

Reinforcement Learning (RL) has demonstrated its ability to solve complex decision-making problems in a variety of domains, by optimizing reward signals obtained through interaction with an environment. However, many real-world scenarios involve multiple, potentially conflicting objectives that cannot be easily represented by a single scalar reward. Multi-Objective Reinforcement Learning (MORL) addresses this limitation by enabling agents to optimize several objectives simultaneously, explicitly reasoning about trade-offs between them. However, the ``black box" nature of the RL models makes the decision process behind chosen objective trade-offs unclear. Current Explainable Reinforcement Learning (XRL) methods are typically designed for single scalar rewards and do not account for explanations with respect to distinct objectives or user preferences. To address this gap, in this paper we propose TREX, a Trajectory based Explainability framework to explain Multi-objective Reinforcement Learning policies, based on trajectory attribution. TREX generates trajectories directly from the learned expert policy, across different user preferences and clusters them into semantically meaningful temporal segments. We quantify the influence of these behavioural segments on the Pareto trade-off by training complementary policies that exclude specific clusters, measuring the resulting relative deviation on the observed rewards and actions compared to the original expert policy. Experiments on multi-objective MuJoCo environments - HalfCheetah, Ant and Swimmer, demonstrate the framework's ability to isolate and quantify the specific behavioural patterns.