跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

论文库

检索计算机领域论文,按研究方向、作者或关键词筛选。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+0新增论文
+0其中 AI 相关
+2已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-15 08:47 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-14 15:09各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-14 08:59 — 2026-11-15 08:59(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-15 08:47最近发现新增版本:2026-11-14 15:09库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-13 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

23,348 已收录论文19,580 AI 相关6,729 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-15 08:46(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.15507

ReShap: Interpretable Reinforcement Learning for High-Dimensional Multi-Action Settings

Yiyu Qian, Pengfei Guo, Liyuan Zhao

原文摘要

Deep Reinforcement Learning (RL) plays a crucial role in tackling complex tasks, yet its reliance on deep neural networks makes the learned policies opaque. To enhance the trustworthiness of RL policies, existing work (e.g., the SILVER framework [Li et al., 2025]) has focused on Shapley-based interpretability, but is typically restricted to low-dimensional state spaces, binary-action settings, and a single class of linear surrogate. We propose ReShap, a policy-distillation framework that extends Shapley-based interpretability to high-dimensional, multi-action environments. ReShap extracts compact feature representations from raw image observations, performs SHAP-based feature attribution to characterize how each feature contributes to the policy's decisions, and distills the deep RL policy into an interpretable surrogate trained on the full set of (state, policy-action) pairs along the policy's visited distribution. We instantiate the surrogate with three interpretable model families (decision trees, linear regression, and logistic regression) and compare their fidelity and task return. We evaluate ReShap on Atari and Box2D environments using three deep RL algorithms and conduct a human-subject study to assess the clarity and trustworthiness of the resulting policies. Results show that ReShap preserves competitive task performance, that decision trees generally outperform linear and logistic regression, and that linear regression is weakest in most settings.

cs.LG · cs.AI