Papers › Conservative Q-Improvement: Reinforcement Learning for an Interpretable Decision-Tree Policy

Conservative Q-Improvement: Reinforcement Learning for an Interpretable Decision-Tree Policy

2 Jul 2019arXiv:1907.01180archive 2025-07-28

Aaron M. Roth, Nicholay Topin, Pooyan Jamshidi, Manuela Veloso

There is a growing desire in the field of reinforcement learning (and machine learning in general) to move from black-box models toward more "interpretable AI." We improve interpretability of reinforcement learning by increasing the utility of decision tree policies learned via reinforcement learning. These policies consist of a decision tree over the state space, which requires fewer parameters to express than traditional policy representations. Existing methods for creating decision tree policies via reinforcement learning focus on accurately representing an action-value function during training, but this leads to much larger trees than would otherwise be required. To address this shortcoming, we propose a novel algorithm which only increases tree size when the estimated discounted future reward of the overall policy would increase by a sufficient amount. Through evaluation in a simulated environment, we show that its performance is comparable or superior to traditional tree-based approaches and that it yields a more succinct policy. Additionally, we discuss tuning parameters to control the tradeoff between optimizing for smaller tree size or for overall reward.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

1 sample harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 1 has no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 1 sample are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from AMR-/Conservative-Q-Improvement. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections