Although explainable reinforcement learning (XRL) has made significant progress, policy explanation still lacks a unified classification framework and standardized evaluation criteria. Based on a structured review of XRL works related to policy explanation, this paper identifies this gap and proposes a comprehensive taxonomy for policy explanation methods, organized along primary axes of decision-making mechanisms and explanation scope, supplemented by secondary axes and five main method families. To elucidate the inter-connections among components in the explanation process, we introduce an integrated pipeline: Decompose → Score → Select → Explain → Validate , highlighting the interaction and information flow between stages. In addition, a standardized evaluation framework with quantitative metrics is proposed to assess explanation quality. Three case studies were conducted to validate these contributions; results show that the taxonomy facilitates the positioning of existing methods, the pipeline demonstrates a transparent process for generating and validating explanations, and the evaluation framework enables objective assessment of key attributes, thereby supporting the production of transparent and systematically assessable policy explanations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nguyen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: