Explaining Learned Reward Functions with Counterfactual Trajectories

Overview

• Learning rewards from human behavior or feedback is a promising approach to aligning AI systems with human values, but it can fail to consistently extract the correct reward functions.
• Interpretability tools could help users understand and evaluate potential flaws in learned reward functions.
• The paper proposes a method called Counterfactual Trajectory Explanations (CTEs) to interpret reward functions in reinforcement learning.

Plain English Explanation

Reinforcement learning is a type of machine learning where an AI system learns to make decisions by receiving rewards or penalties for its actions. One approach to aligning AI systems with human values is to have the system learn its reward function from human behavior or feedback.

However, this approach doesn't always work perfectly, as the system may fail to learn the correct reward function. To address this, the researchers propose using interpretability tools to help users understand and evaluate the reward function learned by the AI.

The specific tool they introduce is called Counterfactual Trajectory Explanations (CTEs). CTEs work by contrasting an original trajectory (a sequence of actions and states) with a "counterfactual" trajectory - one that is slightly different. The researchers then look at the rewards the AI system gives to each of these trajectories and use this information to help explain the reward function.

By understanding the reward function better, users can identify and fix any flaws or issues with it, helping to align the AI system with human values.

Technical Explanation

The paper proposes a method called Counterfactual Trajectory Explanations (CTEs) to interpret reward functions in reinforcement learning. CTEs work by contrasting an original partial trajectory with a counterfactual partial trajectory and analyzing the rewards they each receive.

The researchers derive six quality criteria for good CTEs, including that they should be concise, informative, and highlight key differences between the trajectories. They then propose a novel Monte-Carlo-based algorithm for generating CTEs that optimizes these quality criteria.

To evaluate the CTEs, the researchers train a proxy-human model on the generated explanations and measure how informative the model finds them. They show that the CTEs are demonstrably informative, increasing the similarity between the proxy-human model's predictions and the true reward function on unseen trajectories. The proxy-human model also learns to accurately judge differences in rewards between trajectories and generalizes to out-of-distribution examples.

Critical Analysis

While the CTEs do not lead to a perfect understanding of the reward function, the researchers present this method as a promising approach for interpreting learned reward functions. One limitation is that the evaluation relies on a proxy-human model, rather than actual human users. Further research would be needed to see how well CTEs perform with real human users.

Additionally, the paper does not address how CTEs could be adapted or extended to handle more complex or high-dimensional reward functions, which may be an important area for future work. There are also open questions about the scalability of the Monte-Carlo-based algorithm used to generate the CTEs.

Overall, the paper makes a valuable contribution by introducing CTEs as a new interpretability tool for reinforcement learning. However, more research is needed to fully understand the strengths, weaknesses, and practical applications of this approach.

Conclusion

This paper proposes a novel method called Counterfactual Trajectory Explanations (CTEs) to help interpret reward functions learned by reinforcement learning systems. CTEs contrast an original trajectory with a counterfactual one to highlight key differences in the rewards the system assigns, providing users with informative explanations.

While CTEs do not lead to perfect understanding of the reward function, the researchers present this as a promising approach for improving the interpretability of reinforcement learning systems and helping align them with human values. Further research is needed to explore the practical applications and limitations of this method.