← Back to all news
arXiv AI By L\'eo Sauli\`eres

A Survey of Explainable Reinforcement Learning: Targets, Methods and Needs

Read the original on arXiv AI →

A survey paper titled "A Survey of Explainable Reinforcement Learning: Targets, Methods and Needs" reviews over 250 studies in the sub‑domain of eXplainable AI focused on reinforcement learning (XRL). The authors introduce a taxonomy based on the questions "What" (the target of explanation) and "How" (the method of explanation) and use it to organize the state‑of‑the‑art literature. They also highlight related domains that warrant further attention and outline key needs for advancing the field of XRL.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

Related stories

arXiv AI
Jul 17

Position: Explainability Research Must Prioritize Foundations over Ad-hoc Methods

arXiv:2607. 14123v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Despite the proliferation of Explainable AI (XAI) techniques -- from feature attributions to sparse autoencoders -- explanations rarely influence real-world workflows.

By Michal Moshkovitz, Suraj Srinivas, Lesia Semenova, Nave Frost, Cyrus Rashtchian, Valentyn Boreiko, Shichang Zhang, Himabindu Lakkaraju, Cynthia Rudin, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan
More like this →
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 23

xWhyL: Causal Interactive Learning

arXiv:2609.26037v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Explanations are central to causal reasoning, and cognitive science has long established that the human drive to explain is itself a mechanism for lear...

By Nicholas Tagliapietra, Florian Peter Busch, Moritz Willig, Matej Ze\v{c}evi\'c, Lavdim Halilaj, Juergen Luettin, Kristian Kersting
More like this →
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 7

From Plausible to Actionable: A Position on LLM Self-Explanations

The paper discusses how Large Language Models can produce natural language self‑explanations that appear plausible but may not accurately reflect the model’s reasoning. It critiques current evaluation methods for such explanations and offers practical guidelines to assess their plausibility and faithfulness. Additionally, it argues that evaluation should also consider the actionability of these explanations, showing how they can aid decision‑making for various stakeholders.

By Elize Herrewijnen, Benedetta Muscato, Gizem Gezici, Fosca Giannotti
llms
More like this →
arXiv AI
Jul 17

Towards a Unified Multidimensional Explainability Metric: Evaluating Trustworthiness in AI Models

arXiv:2607. 14315v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: In this paper, we present a comprehensive framework for assessing the explainability of various XAI methods, such as LIME and SHAP, across multiple datasets and machine learning models, with the ultimate goal of creating a unified multidimensional explainability score.

By Georgios Makridis, Georgios Fatouros, Athanasios Kiourtis, Dimitrios Kotios, Vasileios Koukos, Dimosthenis Kyriazis, Jonh Soldatos
ragbenchmarks
More like this →