Papers › Reasoning about Counterfactuals to Improve Human Inverse Reinforcement Learning
Reasoning about Counterfactuals to Improve Human Inverse Reinforcement Learning
Michael S. Lee, Henny Admoni, Reid Simmons
To collaborate well with robots, we must be able to understand their decision making. Humans naturally infer other agents' beliefs and desires by reasoning about their observable behavior in a way that resembles inverse reinforcement learning (IRL). Thus, robots can convey their beliefs and desires by providing demonstrations that are informative for a human learner's IRL. An informative demonstration is one that differs strongly from the learner's expectations of what the robot will do given their current understanding of the robot's decision making. However, standard IRL does not model the learner's existing expectations, and thus cannot do this counterfactual reasoning. We propose to incorporate the learner's current understanding of the robot's decision making into our model of human IRL, so that a robot can select demonstrations that maximize the human's understanding. We also propose a novel measure for estimating the difficulty for a human to predict instances of a robot's behavior in unseen environments. A user study finds that our test difficulty measure correlates well with human performance and confidence. Interestingly, considering human beliefs and counterfactuals when selecting demonstrations decreases human performance on easy tests, but increases performance on difficult tests, providing insight on how to best utilize such models.
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
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
1 archive task tag without a task page not shown.
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