Enterprise AI Analysis
A systematic review of human-centered explainability in reinforcement learning: transferring the RCC framework to support epistemic trustworthiness
Maximilian Moll & John Dorsch
Executive Impact Summary
This systematic review applies and extends the Reasons, Confidence, and Counterfactuals (RCC) framework to explainable Reinforcement Learning (XRL), focusing on human-centered evaluation. It identifies two main explanatory strategies – constructive and supportive – and highlights critical human factor considerations like task complexity and explanation formats. A key finding is that the improvement of decision quality is rarely measured, and confidence metrics are the least developed. The paper emphasizes the need for XRL systems to achieve 'epistemic trustworthiness' by clearly articulating rationale, system certainty, and alternative actions.
Literature Review Period
Papers Screened Initially
RCC Confidence Papers
RCC Counterfactuals (Constructive)
Deep Analysis & Enterprise Applications
Select a topic to dive deeper, then explore the specific findings from the research, rebuilt as interactive, enterprise-focused modules.
Introducing the RCC Framework for XRL
The Reasons, Confidence, and Counterfactuals (RCC) framework, originally developed for supervised learning, is extended to Reinforcement Learning (RL) contexts. Its core idea is to align explainability with human epistemic norms, focusing on why decisions are made (Reasons), how confident the system is (Confidence), and what alternative decisions could have been made (Counterfactuals).
This framework is crucial for enabling 'epistemic trustworthiness' in RL agents, allowing users to understand, scrutinize, and appropriately calibrate their reliance on AI systems in high-stakes decision-making.
Explanatory Strategies for 'Reasons'
| Strategy | Description | Examples/Features |
|---|---|---|
| Constructive | Explicit explanations are directly generated by the system, often based on causal models. |
|
| Supportive | Users must infer reasoning from provided visual or textual cues, placing more burden on the user. |
|
Least Mature
RCC Dimension
Interpreting System Confidence
Confidence, representing the system's certainty, is crucial for trust calibration. In RL, it can be inferred from Q-value gaps (value-based methods) or probability distributions (policy-gradient methods). However, studies show that presenting confidence scores too early can bias users.
A significant challenge is the conflation of 'importance of a state' and 'confidence in the decision.' Many metrics used for one are also applied to the other, leading to ambiguity. Furthermore, there is a lack of fundamental links between confidence displays and improved human decision quality.
Counterfactuals: Why Not That?
Counterfactuals explain why a different action was not chosen, revealing how the system weighs alternatives. They aim to provide contrastive clarity (e.g., 'A ground assault was not chosen because its success rate is 25% lower than an airstrike').
In constructive approaches, users can often select alternative actions to see their counterfactuals. In supportive approaches, counterfactuals are mostly inferred indirectly, often through example behaviors, but lack contrastive examples.
Evaluation of counterfactuals in RL is still limited, with few studies allowing users to actively interrogate them. Their benefits, compared to supervised learning, are less understood.
Key Human Factor Considerations in XRL
Enterprise Process Flow
Task Complexity
→
Explanation Modality (Text vs. Visual)
→
Evaluation Measures (Likert, Action Prediction)
→
Decision Quality (Rarely Measured)
Guiding Future Research Questions
To advance epistemically trustworthy AI systems, future research should address:
- How to develop unified confidence metrics that distinguish uncertainty, importance, and risk in RL.
- How to integrate constructive and supportive approaches into cohesive explanatory interfaces, potentially combining textual and visual modalities.
- How to enhance experimental rigor with standardized benchmark tasks reflecting realistic decision complexity.
- How to employ objective evaluation measures focusing on actual decision quality, not just subjective impressions.
Calculate Your Potential AI ROI
Estimate the impact of human-centered AI explanations on your operational efficiency and decision quality.
Your Enterprise AI Implementation Roadmap
Our structured approach ensures successful integration and measurable impact for your business.
Phase 1: Foundational Analysis
Conduct a comprehensive review of existing XRL methodologies and human-centered evaluation frameworks. Identify gaps and opportunities for applying or extending the RCC framework.
Phase 2: RCC Framework Adaptation
Develop specific mechanisms to generate Reasons, Confidence scores, and Counterfactuals tailored to RL's sequential decision-making dynamics and long-term strategic reasoning.
Phase 3: Prototype Development & Testing
Build prototype XRL systems incorporating the adapted RCC framework. Conduct controlled user studies with diverse human participants to evaluate the effectiveness and epistemic trustworthiness of the explanations.
Phase 4: Refinement & Integration
Iteratively refine the XRL system based on user feedback and empirical results. Explore integration into real-world high-stakes decision-support applications, focusing on robust evaluation of decision quality.
Ready to Build Trustworthy AI?
Connect with our AI ethics and explainability experts to design and implement human-centered XRL solutions tailored for your enterprise needs.
Ready to Get Started?
Book Your Free Consultation.
Let's Discuss Your AI Strategy!
Lets Discuss Your Needs
Select a Date
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat