Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Limits of Actor-Critic Algorithms for Decision Tree Policies Learning in IBMDPs

Hector Kohler, Riad Akrour, Philippe Preux

TL;DR

The paper investigates learning compact Decision Trees via Iterative Bounding MDPs (IBMDPs), revealing that asymmetric actor-critic (AAC) methods can fail on simple supervised tasks. It shows that reframing the problem as a fully observable MDP enables exact, tractable learning of optimal DTs through entropy-regularized policy iteration (ERPI), with convergence guarantees in the supervised setting. Empirical results on iris and wine demonstrate ERPI and DT-based methods can outperform greedy approaches like CART in balancing interpretability and accuracy. The work thus transforms the discrete DT optimization into a principled RL problem with provable trade-offs, and outlines scalability avenues (e.g., MCTS) and extensions beyond standard DTs. The findings highlight the potential of discrete policy optimization for interpretable AI and provide concrete guidance for building reliable, compact decision policies.

Abstract

Interpretability of AI models allows for user safety checks to build trust in such AIs. In particular, Decision Trees (DTs) provide a global look at the learned model and transparently reveal which features of the input are critical for making a decision. However, interpretability is hindered if the DT is too large. To learn compact trees, a recent Reinforcement Learning (RL) framework has been proposed to explore the space of DTs using deep RL. This framework augments a decision problem (e.g. a supervised classification task) with additional actions that gather information about the features of an otherwise hidden input. By appropriately penalizing these actions, the agent learns to optimally trade-off size and performance of DTs. In practice, a reactive policy for a partially observable Markov decision process (MDP) needs to be learned, which is still an open problem. We show in this paper that deep RL can fail even on simple toy tasks of this class. However, when the underlying decision problem is a supervised classification task, we show that finding the optimal tree can be cast as a fully observable Markov decision problem and be solved efficiently, giving rise to a new family of algorithms for learning DTs that go beyond the classical greedy maximization ones.

Limits of Actor-Critic Algorithms for Decision Tree Policies Learning in IBMDPs

TL;DR

The paper investigates learning compact Decision Trees via Iterative Bounding MDPs (IBMDPs), revealing that asymmetric actor-critic (AAC) methods can fail on simple supervised tasks. It shows that reframing the problem as a fully observable MDP enables exact, tractable learning of optimal DTs through entropy-regularized policy iteration (ERPI), with convergence guarantees in the supervised setting. Empirical results on iris and wine demonstrate ERPI and DT-based methods can outperform greedy approaches like CART in balancing interpretability and accuracy. The work thus transforms the discrete DT optimization into a principled RL problem with provable trade-offs, and outlines scalability avenues (e.g., MCTS) and extensions beyond standard DTs. The findings highlight the potential of discrete policy optimization for interpretable AI and provide concrete guidance for building reliable, compact decision policies.

Abstract

Interpretability of AI models allows for user safety checks to build trust in such AIs. In particular, Decision Trees (DTs) provide a global look at the learned model and transparently reveal which features of the input are critical for making a decision. However, interpretability is hindered if the DT is too large. To learn compact trees, a recent Reinforcement Learning (RL) framework has been proposed to explore the space of DTs using deep RL. This framework augments a decision problem (e.g. a supervised classification task) with additional actions that gather information about the features of an otherwise hidden input. By appropriately penalizing these actions, the agent learns to optimally trade-off size and performance of DTs. In practice, a reactive policy for a partially observable Markov decision process (MDP) needs to be learned, which is still an open problem. We show in this paper that deep RL can fail even on simple toy tasks of this class. However, when the underlying decision problem is a supervised classification task, we show that finding the optimal tree can be cast as a fully observable Markov decision problem and be solved efficiently, giving rise to a new family of algorithms for learning DTs that go beyond the classical greedy maximization ones.
Paper Structure (31 sections, 6 theorems, 22 equations, 12 figures)

This paper contains 31 sections, 6 theorems, 22 equations, 12 figures.

Key Result

Proposition 4.1

For an IBMDP, if $p+1$ is prime then there is a mapping $\Omega \mapsto \mathbb{N}$ that maps any feature bound to the number of consecutive IGAs taken since the last base action.

Figures (12)

  • Figure 1: Example IBMDP trajectory: at first in \ref{['fig:a']} the IBMDP is initialised: the base state $\phi$ is drawn at random from the base MDP and the feature bounds $o$ are set to $(0,0,1,1)$. Then, in \ref{['fig:b']} an agent takes the IGA $(\phi_2 ,0.5)$; the base part $\phi$ of the state remains unchanged but the observation part is updated to $o = (0,0,1,0.5)$ because $\phi_2 = 0.23\leq 0.5$. Antother IGA is taken in \ref{['fig:d']}. Finally, in \ref{['fig:f']}, an agent takes a base action, so a new base state $\phi$ is drawn from the base transition function and the feature bounds are reset: $o = (0,0,1,1)$.
  • Figure 2: Study of AAC algorithms ability to retrieve DTs for simple supervised classification tasks by learning a reactive policy maximizing the cumulative reward of IBMDPs. See Sec. \ref{['appendix:supibmdp']} for details about the IBMDPs
  • Figure 3: DTs obtained by ERPI and CART on the wine dataset.
  • Figure 4: Interpretability-performance trade-offs of ERPI and asymmetric PPO on real world datasets as a function of $\zeta$
  • Figure 5: Depth 2 binary Decision Trees
  • ...and 7 more figures

Theorems & Definitions (6)

  • Proposition 4.1
  • Proposition 4.2
  • Lemma 5.1
  • Theorem 5.2
  • Theorem 5.3
  • Proposition 5.4