We argue that among other things, the ranked list of states can help explain and understand the policy. As the ranking method is statistical, a direct evaluation of its quality is hard.

Policies trained via Reinforcement Learning (RL) without human intervention are often needlessly complex, making them difficult to analyse and interpret. In a run with n time steps, a policy will make n decisions on actions to take; we conjecture that only a small subset of these decisions delivers value over selecting a simple default action. Given a trained policy, we propose a novel black-box method based on statistical fault localisation that ranks the states of the environment according to the importance of decisions made in those states. We argue that among other things, the ranked list of states can help explain and understand the policy. As the ranking method is statistical, a direct evaluation of its quality is hard.

Policies trained via reinforcement learning (RL) are often very complex even for simple tasks. In an episode with $n$ time steps, a policy will make $n$ decisions on actions to take, many of which may appear non-intuitive to the observer. Moreover, it is not clear which of these decisions directly contribute towards achieving the reward and how significant is their contribution. Given a trained policy, we propose a black-box method based on counterfactual reasoning that estimates the causal effect that these decisions have on reward attainment and ranks the decisions according to this estimate. In this preliminary work, we compare our measure against an alternative, non-causal, ranking procedure, highlight the benefits of causality-based policy ranking, and discuss potential future work integrating causal algorithms into the interpretation of RL agent policies.