Understanding the Role of Adaptivity in Machine Teaching: The Case of Version Space Learners

In real-world applications of education, an effective teacher adaptively chooses the next example to teach based on the learner’s current state. However, most existing work in algorithmic machine teaching focuses on the batch setting, where adaptivity plays no role. In this paper, we study the case of teaching consistent, version space learners in an interactive setting. At any time step, the teacher provides an example, the learner performs an update, and the teacher observes the learner’s new state. We highlight that adaptivity does not speed up the teaching process when considering existing models of version space learners, such as the “worst-case” model (the learner picks the next hypothesis randomly from the version space) and the “preference-based” model (the learner picks hypothesis according to some global preference). Inspired by human teaching, we propose a new model where the learner picks hypotheses according to some local preference defined by the current hypothesis. We show that our model exhibits several desirable properties, e.g., adaptivity plays a key role, and the learner’s transitions over hypotheses are smooth/interpretable. We develop adaptive teaching algorithms, and demonstrate our results via simulation and user studies.

[1]  Lisa Hellerstein,et al.  Discrete Stochastic Submodular Maximization: Adaptive vs. Non-adaptive vs. Offline , 2015, CIAC.

[2]  Andreas Krause,et al.  Near-Optimally Teaching the Crowd to Classify , 2014, ICML.

[3]  茂呂 雄二 発達の最近接領域(Zone of Proximal Development, ZPD, Zoped、最近接発達領域) , 2002 .

[4]  Shai Shalev-Shwartz,et al.  Online Learning and Online Convex Optimization , 2012, Found. Trends Mach. Learn..

[5]  Laurence A. Wolsey,et al.  An analysis of the greedy algorithm for the submodular set covering problem , 1982, Comb..

[6]  Sandra Zilles,et al.  Models of Cooperative Teaching and Learning , 2011, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[7]  Mihaela van der Schaar,et al.  eTutor: Online learning for personalized education , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP).

[8]  Lydia B. Chilton,et al.  Personalized Online Education - A Crowdsourcing Challenge , 2012, HCOMP@AAAI.

[9]  Sebastian Tschiatschek,et al.  Teaching Inverse Reinforcement Learners via Features and Demonstrations , 2018, NeurIPS.

[10]  Gabriel J. Brostow,et al.  Becoming the expert - interactive multi-class machine teaching , 2015, 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).

[11]  Thomas L. Griffiths,et al.  Faster Teaching via POMDP Planning , 2016, Cogn. Sci..

[12]  Ming-Hsuan Yang,et al.  Incremental Learning for Robust Visual Tracking , 2008, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[13]  Andreas Krause,et al.  Adaptive Submodularity: Theory and Applications in Active Learning and Stochastic Optimization , 2010, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[14]  Frank J. Balbach,et al.  Measuring teachability using variants of the teaching dimension , 2008, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[15]  Thomas Zeugmann,et al.  Incremental Learning from Positive Data , 1996, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[16]  Andreas Krause,et al.  Teaching Multiple Concepts to a Forgetful Learner , 2018, NeurIPS.

[17]  Jason Weston,et al.  Curriculum learning , 2009, ICML '09.

[18]  M. Levine A cognitive theory of learning: Research on hypothesis testing. , 1975 .

[19]  Deyu Meng,et al.  A theoretical understanding of self-paced learning , 2017, Inf. Sci..

[20]  Bernhard Hengst,et al.  Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning , 2017, Encyclopedia of Machine Learning and Data Mining.

[21]  Xiaojin Zhu,et al.  Machine Teaching for Bayesian Learners in the Exponential Family , 2013, NIPS.

[22]  Sandra Zilles,et al.  An Overview of Machine Teaching , 2018, ArXiv.

[23]  Amin Karbasi,et al.  On Actively Teaching the Crowd to Classify , 2013, NIPS 2013.

[24]  Sanjit A. Seshia,et al.  A theory of formal synthesis via inductive learning , 2015, Acta Informatica.

[25]  Xiaojin Zhu,et al.  Machine Teaching: An Inverse Problem to Machine Learning and an Approach Toward Optimal Education , 2015, AAAI.

[26]  Hans Ulrich Simon,et al.  Preference-based Teaching , 2016, COLT.

[27]  Hans Ulrich Simon,et al.  Recursive teaching dimension, VC-dimension and sample compression , 2014, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[28]  Xiaojin Zhu,et al.  The Teaching Dimension of Linear Learners , 2015, ICML.

[29]  David G. Kirkpatrick,et al.  Preference-based Teaching of Unions of Geometric Objects , 2017, ALT.

[30]  M. Kearns,et al.  On the complexity of teaching , 1991, COLT '91.

[31]  Paul E. Utgoff,et al.  Incremental Learning , 2017, Encyclopedia of Machine Learning and Data Mining.

[32]  Le Song,et al.  Iterative Machine Teaching , 2017, ICML.

[33]  Xiaojin Zhu,et al.  Using Machine Teaching to Identify Optimal Training-Set Attacks on Machine Learners , 2015, AAAI.

[34]  Pietro Perona,et al.  Near-Optimal Machine Teaching via Explanatory Teaching Sets , 2018, AISTATS.

[35]  Thomas Zeugmann,et al.  Teaching randomized learners with feedback , 2011, Inf. Comput..

[36]  Thomas L. Griffiths,et al.  Win-Stay, Lose-Sample: A simple sequential algorithm for approximating Bayesian inference , 2014, Cognitive Psychology.

[37]  E. Mark Gold,et al.  Language Identification in the Limit , 1967, Inf. Control..

[38]  Thomas Zeugmann,et al.  Teaching Learners with Restricted Mind Changes , 2005, ALT.

[39]  Manuel Lopes,et al.  Algorithmic and Human Teaching of Sequential Decision Tasks , 2012, AAAI.