Teaching People by Justifying Tree Search Decisions: An Empirical Study in Curling
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this research note we show that a simple justification system can be used to teach humans non-trivial strategies of the Olympic sport of curling. This is achieved by justifying the decisions of Kernel Regression UCT (KR-UCT), a tree search algorithm that derives curling strategies by playing the game with itself. Given an action returned by KR-UCT and the expected outcome of that action, we use a decision tree to produce a counterfactual justification of KR-UCT’s decision. The system samples other possible outcomes and selects for presentation the outcomes that are most similar to the expected outcome in terms of visual features and most different in terms of expected end-game value. A user study with 122 people shows that the participants who had access to the justifications produced by our system achieved much higher scores in a curling test than those who only observed the decision made by KR-UCT and those with access to the justifications of a baseline system. This is, to the best of our knowledge, the first work showing that a justification system is able to teach humans non-trivial strategies learned by an algorithm operating in self play.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it