Cited by 53Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Reinforcement Learning in RoboticsAI-based Problem Solving and Planning

Local and global explanations of agent behavior: Integrating strategy summaries with saliency maps

Open access
Huber, Tobias, Weitz, Katharina, André, Elisabeth, Amir, Ofra·2021·Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

With advances in reinforcement learning (RL), agents are now being developed in high-stakes application domains such as healthcare and transportation. Explaining the behavior of these agents is challenging, as the environments in which they act have large state spaces, and their decision-making can be affected by delayed rewards, making it difficult to analyze their behavior. To address this problem, several approaches have been developed. Some approaches attempt to convey the global behavior of the agent, describing the actions it takes in different states. Other approaches devised local explanations which provide information regarding the agent's decision-making in a particular state. In this paper, we combine global and local explanation methods, and evaluate their joint and separate contributions, providing (to the best of our knowledge) the first user study of combined local and global explanations for RL agents. Specifically, we augment strategy summaries that extract important trajectories of states from simulations of the agent with saliency maps which show what information the agent attends to. Our results show that the choice of what states to include in the summary (global information) strongly affects people's understanding of agents: participants shown summaries that included important states significantly outperformed participants who were presented with agent behavior in a set of world-states that are likely to appear during gameplay. We find mixed results with respect to augmenting demonstrations with saliency maps (local information), as the addition of saliency maps, in the form of raw heat maps, did not significantly improve performance in most cases. However, we do find some evidence that saliency maps can help users better understand what information the agent relies on during its decision-making, suggesting avenues for future work that can further improve explanations of RL agents.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.artint.2021.103571

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Taking together results from other studies, no clear conclusions can be drawn because studies are scarce and recent, show mixed results, vary in quality, contexts, and study design and constructs measured.

    “Additionally, taking together results from other studies, no clear conclusions can be drawn, as studies ( i ) are scarce and recent, ( ii ) show mixed results, ( iii ) vary in quality, as also criticized by Kenny et al. (2021), ( iv ) vary in contexts, for instance artificial and abstract tasks such as number recognition (Kenny et al., 2021), nutrition (Buçinca et al., 2020), and video game play (”

    From Effects of Explainable Artificial Intelligence on trust and human behavior in a high-risk decision task (2023) · cites this paper as Huber, Weitz, André, & Amir, 2021

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huber, T., Weitz, K., André, E., & Amir, O.
Affiliations
  • University of Augsburg (DE)
  • Technion – Israel Institute of Technology (IL)
Corresponding author
Huber, Tobias
Venue
Artificial Intelligence
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-12
Volume
301
Pages
103571
ISSN
0004-3702 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3025195025
Cited by
53
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2
FWCI
3.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • OPUS (Augsburg University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • ISF (2185/20)
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (392401413)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Keywords
explainable AI, reinforcement learning agents, saliency maps, local and global explanations, heatmaps, delayed rewards, large state spaces, user study

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review