Local and global explanations of agent behavior: Integrating strategy summaries with saliency maps
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
Barredo Arrieta, A., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Del Ser, J., Bennetot, A., Tabik, S., Barbado, A., Garcia, S., Gil-Lopez, S., Molina, D., Benjamins, R., et al. (2020) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012 · Cited by 10,423 · see citing works
Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance
Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392 · Cited by 6,605 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In all plots, the error bars correspond to the 95% confidence intervals To make sure that the participants involved in our analysis did in fact watch the videos of the agents, we recorded whether they clicked play on each video in addition to how often each video was paused.”
BackgroundExplanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences
Miller, T. (2019) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2018.07.007 · Cited by 5,302 · see citing works
Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learning
Doshi-Velez, F., & Kim, B. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1702.08608 · Cited by 3,121 · see citing works
Metrics for explainable AI: challenges and prospects
Hoffman, R. R., Mueller, S. T., Klein, G., & Litman, J. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1812.04608 · Cited by 518 · see citing works
Counterfactuals in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Evidence from Human Reasoning
Byrne, R. M. J. (2019) · Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2019/876 · Cited by 285 · see citing works
Learning Functional Causal Models with Generative Neural Networks
Goudet, O., Kalainathan, D., Caillou, P., Guyon, I., Lopez-Paz, D., & Sebag, M. (2018) · The Springer Series on Challenges in Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-98131-4_3 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
Establishing Appropriate Trust via Critical States
Huang, S. H., Bhatia, K., Abbeel, P., & Dragan, A. D. (2018) · 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) · doi:10.1109/iros.2018.8593649 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Explainable Reinforcement Learning through a Causal Lens
Madumal, P., Miller, T., Sonenberg, L., & Vetere, F. (2020) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i03.5631 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Leichtmann, B., Humer, C., Hinterreiter, A., Streit, M., & Mara, M. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107539 · Cited by 200 · see citing works
Mertes, S., Huber, T., Weitz, K., Heimerl, A., & André, E. (2022) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2022.825565 · Cited by 119 · see citing works
Self-citation
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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