Learning Curricula for Humans: An Empirical Study with Puzzles from The Witness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The combination of tree search and neural networks has achieved super-human performance in challenging domains. We are interested in transferring to humans the knowledge these learning systems generate. We hypothesize the process in which neural-guided tree search algorithms learn how to solve a set of problems can be used to generate curricula for helping human learners. In this paper we show how the Bootstrap learning system can be modified to learn curricula for humans in a puzzle domain. We evaluate our system in two curriculum learning settings. First, given a small set of problem instances, our system orders the instances to ease the learning process of human learners. Second, given a large set of problem instances, our system returns a small ordered subset of the initial set that can be presented to human learners. We evaluate our curricula with a user study where participants learn how to solve a class of puzzles from the game `The Witness.' The user-study results suggest one of the curricula our system generates compares favorably with simple baselines and is competitive with the curriculum from the original `The Witness' game in terms of user retention and effort.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".