Natural science: Active learning in dynamic physical microworlds

In this paper, we bring together research on active learning and intuitive physics to explore how people learn about “microworlds” with continuous spatiotemporal dynamics. Participants interacted with objects in simple two-dimensional worlds governed by a physics simulator, with the goal of identifying latent physical properties such as mass and forces of attraction or repulsion. We find an advantage for active learners over passive and yoked controls. Active participants spontaneously performed several kinds of “natural experiments” which reveal the objects’ properties with varying success. While yoked participants’ judgments were affected by the quality of the active participant they observed, they did not share the learning advantage, performing no better than passive controls overall. We discuss possible explanations for the divergence between active and yoked learners, and outline further steps to categorize and explore active learning in the wild.

[1]  Kevin A. Smith,et al.  Looking forwards and backwards: Similarities and differences in prediction and retrodiction , 2014, CogSci.

[2]  Illtyd Trethowan.  Causality , 1938 .

[3]  D. Markant,et al.  Is it better to select or to receive? Learning via active and passive hypothesis testing. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[4]  Doug Markant,et al.  Active learning strategies in a spatial concept learning game , 2009 .

[5]  J. Tenenbaum,et al.  Intuitive Theories , 2020, Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship.

[6]  Joshua B. Tenenbaum,et al.  Inferring causal networks from observations and interventions , 2003, Cogn. Sci..

[7]  Joshua B. Tenenbaum,et al.  Human-level concept learning through probabilistic program induction , 2015, Science.

[8]  David J. C. MacKay,et al.  Information-Based Objective Functions for Active Data Selection , 1992, Neural Computation.

[9]  Vikash K. Mansinghka,et al.  Reconciling intuitive physics and Newtonian mechanics for colliding objects. , 2013, Psychological review.

[10]  Caren A. Frosch,et al.  Children's use of interventions to learn causal structure. , 2016, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[11]  David M. Sobel,et al.  The importance of decision making in causal learning from interventions , 2006, Memory & cognition.

[12]  S. Sloman,et al.  The advantage of timely intervention. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[13]  Joshua B. Tenenbaum,et al.  How, whether, why: Causal judgments as counterfactual contrasts , 2015, CogSci.

[14]  Nick Chater,et al.  A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. , 1994 .

[15]  Todd M. Gureckis,et al.  Does the utility of information influence sampling behavior? , 2012, CogSci.

[16]  B. Rehder,et al.  Strategies to intervene on causal systems are adaptively selected , 2015, Cognitive Psychology.

[17]  Neil R. Bramley,et al.  Conservative forgetful scholars: How people learn causal structure through sequences of interventions. , 2015, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[18]  Noah D. Goodman,et al.  Learning physics from dynamical scenes , 2014 .

[19]  Todd M. Gureckis,et al.  Category Learning Through Active Sampling , 2010 .

[20]  Jessica B. Hamrick,et al.  Simulation as an engine of physical scene understanding , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[21]  Jonathan D. Nelson,et al.  Children’s sequential information search is sensitive to environmental probabilities , 2014, Cognition.

[22]  J. Sweller.  COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY, LEARNING DIFFICULTY, AND INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN , 1994 .

[23]  A. Caramazza,et al.  Curvilinear motion in the absence of external forces: naive beliefs about the motion of objects. , 1980, Science.

[24]  Kevin A. Smith,et al.  Sources of uncertainty in intuitive physics , 2012, CogSci.