While AI algorithms have shown remarkable success in various fields, their lack of transparency hinders their application to real-life tasks. Although explanations targeted at non-experts are necessary for user trust and human-AI collaboration, the majority of explanation methods for AI are focused on developers and expert users. Counterfactual explanations are local explanations that offer users advice on what can be changed in the input for the output of the black-box model to change. Counterfactuals are user-friendly and provide actionable advice for achieving the desired output from the AI system. While extensively researched in supervised learning, there are few methods applying them to reinforcement learning (RL). In this work, we explore the reasons for the underrepresentation of a powerful explanation method in RL. We start by reviewing the current work in counterfactual explanations in supervised learning. Additionally, we explore the differences between counterfactual explanations in supervised learning and RL and identify the main challenges that prevent adoption of methods from supervised in reinforcement learning. Finally, we redefine counterfactuals for RL and propose research directions for implementing counterfactuals in RL.
翻译:虽然大赦国际的算法在各个领域都取得了显著的成功,但它们缺乏透明度,妨碍了它们应用于现实生活任务。虽然针对非专家的解释对于用户信任和人类-大赦国际合作是必要的,但大赦国际的大多数解释方法都侧重于开发者和专家用户。反事实解释是当地的解释,为用户提供了建议,说明对黑盒模型产出的投入可以作什么改变。反事实解释方便用户,为实现大赦国际系统所期望的产出提供了可操作的建议。虽然在监督的学习中进行了广泛的研究,但用于强化学习的方法很少(RL)。在这项工作中,我们探索了当前在受监督的学习中以反事实解释的方式审查当前工作的原因。此外,我们探讨了监督学习中的反事实解释与RL的反事实解释之间的差异,并确定了妨碍在强化学习中采用方法的主要挑战。最后,我们重新定义了RL的反事实,并提出了实施RL反事实的研究方向。