Learning and Teaching as a Game: A Sabotage Approach
In formal approaches to inductive learning, the ability to learn is understood as the ability to single out a correct hypothesis from a range of possibilities. Although most of the existing research focuses on the characteristics of the learner, in many paradigms the significance of the teacher’s abilities and strategies is in fact undeniable. Motivated by this observation, this paper highlights the interactive nature of learning by showing its relation with games. We show how learning can be seen as a sabotage-type game between Teacher and Learner, and we present different variants based on the level of cooperativeness and the actions available to the players, characterizing the existence of winning strategies by formulas of Sabotage Modal Logic and analyzing their complexity. We also give a two-way conceptual account of how to further combine games and learning: we propose to use game theory to analyze the grammar inference approach, and moreover, we indicate that existing inductive inference games can be analyzed using learning theory tools. Our work aims at unifying game-theoretical and logical approach to formal learning theory.
KeywordsFormal learning theory game theory modal logic sabotage games inductive inference games learning algorithms
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Jain, S., Osherson, D., Royer, J.S., Sharma, A.: Systems that Learn. MIT Press, Chicago (1999)Google Scholar
- 4.Looney, A., Cooper, J., Heath, K., Davenport, J., Looney, K.: Playing with Pyramides. Looneylabs (1997)Google Scholar
- 5.Matuszek, D.: New eleusis (1995), http://matuszek.org/eleusis1.html
- 8.van Benthem, J.: An essay on sabotage and obstruction. In: Mechanizing Mathematical Reasoning, Essays in Honor of Jörg H. Siekmann on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday, pp. 268–276 (2005)Google Scholar
- 9.Gierasimczuk, N., Kurzen, L., Velázquez-Quesada, F.R.: Games for learning: a sabotage approach (2008), http://www.illc.uva.nl/Publications/ResearchReports/PP-2009-30.text.pdf
- 10.Löding, C., Rohde, P.: Solving the sabotage game is PSPACE-hard. Technical report, Aachener Informatik Berichte, Rwth Aachen (2003)Google Scholar
- 12.Dietterich, T.G.: Applying general induction methods to the card game eleusis. In: Proceedings of AAAI 1980, Stanford, CA, pp. 218–220 (1980)Google Scholar
- 13.Dietterich, T.G., Michalski, R.S.: Learning to predict sequences. In: Michalski, R., Carbonell, J., Mitchell, T. (eds.) Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, vol. II, pp. 63–106. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Los Altos (1986)Google Scholar
- 14.Klein, D., Radmacher, F.G., Thomas, W.: The complexity of reachability in randomized sabotage games. In: Proceedings of FSEN 2009. LNCS. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
- 15.Scott, D., de Bakker, W.: A theory of programs. Unpublished manuscript, IBM, Vienna (1969)Google Scholar