Counterfactual States for Atari Agents via Generative Deep Learning

Although deep reinforcement learning agents have produced impressive results in many domains, their decision making is difficult to explain to humans. To address this problem, past work has mainly focused on explaining why an action was chosen in a given state. A different type of explanation that is useful is a counterfactual, which deals with “what if?” scenarios. In this work, we introduce the concept of a counterfactual state to help humans gain a better understanding of what would need to change (minimally) in an Atari game image for the agent to choose a different action. We introduce a novel method to create counterfactual states from a generative deep learning architecture. In addition, we evaluate the effectiveness of counterfactual states on human participants who are not machine learning experts. Our user study results suggest that our generated counterfactual states are useful in helping non-expert participants gain a better understanding of an agent’s decision making process

Redefining Counterfactual Explanations for Reinforcement Learning: Overview, Challenges and Opportunities

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 the adoption of methods from supervised in reinforcement learning. Finally, we redefine counterfactuals for RL and propose research directions for implementing counterfactuals in RL.Comment: 32 pages, 6 figure

ACTER: Diverse and Actionable Counterfactual Sequences for Explaining and Diagnosing RL Policies

Understanding how failure occurs and how it can be prevented in reinforcement learning (RL) is necessary to enable debugging, maintain user trust, and develop personalized policies. Counterfactual reasoning has often been used to assign blame and understand failure by searching for the closest possible world in which the failure is avoided. However, current counterfactual state explanations in RL can only explain an outcome using just the current state features and offer no actionable recourse on how a negative outcome could have been prevented. In this work, we propose ACTER (Actionable Counterfactual Sequences for Explaining Reinforcement Learning Outcomes), an algorithm for generating counterfactual sequences that provides actionable advice on how failure can be avoided. ACTER investigates actions leading to a failure and uses the evolutionary algorithm NSGA-II to generate counterfactual sequences of actions that prevent it with minimal changes and high certainty even in stochastic environments. Additionally, ACTER generates a set of multiple diverse counterfactual sequences that enable users to correct failure in the way that best fits their preferences. We also introduce three diversity metrics that can be used for evaluating the diversity of counterfactual sequences. We evaluate ACTER in two RL environments, with both discrete and continuous actions, and show that it can generate actionable and diverse counterfactual sequences. We conduct a user study to explore how explanations generated by ACTER help users identify and correct failure.Comment: 17 pages, 4 Figure

Building Machines That Learn and Think Like People

Recent progress in artificial intelligence (AI) has renewed interest in building systems that learn and think like people. Many advances have come from using deep neural networks trained end-to-end in tasks such as object recognition, video games, and board games, achieving performance that equals or even beats humans in some respects. Despite their biological inspiration and performance achievements, these systems differ from human intelligence in crucial ways. We review progress in cognitive science suggesting that truly human-like learning and thinking machines will have to reach beyond current engineering trends in both what they learn, and how they learn it. Specifically, we argue that these machines should (a) build causal models of the world that support explanation and understanding, rather than merely solving pattern recognition problems; (b) ground learning in intuitive theories of physics and psychology, to support and enrich the knowledge that is learned; and (c) harness compositionality and learning-to-learn to rapidly acquire and generalize knowledge to new tasks and situations. We suggest concrete challenges and promising routes towards these goals that can combine the strengths of recent neural network advances with more structured cognitive models.Comment: In press at Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Open call for commentary proposals (until Nov. 22, 2016). https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/information/calls-for-commentary/open-calls-for-commentar