Explainability of deep reinforcement learning algorithms in robotic domains by using Layer-wise Relevance Propagation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A key component to the recent success of reinforcement learning is the introduction of neural networks for representation learning. Doing so allows for solving challenging problems in several domains, one of which is robotics. However, a major criticism of deep reinforcement learning (DRL) algorithms is their lack of explainability and interpretability. This problem is even exacerbated in robotics as they oftentimes cohabitate space with humans, making it imperative to be able to reason about their behavior. In this paper, we propose to analyze the learned representation in a robotic setting by utilizing Graph Networks (GNs). Using the GN and Layer-wise Relevance Propagation (LRP), we represent the observations as an entity-relationship to allow us to interpret the learned policy. We evaluate our approach in two environments in MuJoCo. These two environments were delicately designed to effectively measure the value of knowledge gained by our approach to analyzing learned representations. This approach allows us to analyze not only how different parts of the observation space contribute to the decision-making process but also differentiate between policies and their differences in performance. This difference in performance also allows for reasoning about the agent’s recovery from faults. These insights are key contributions to explainable deep reinforcement learning in robotic settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it