Modeling a Student's Behavior in a Tutorial-<i>Like</i> System Using Learning Automata
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
This paper presents a new philosophy to model the behavior of a student in a tutorial- like system using learning automata (LAs). The model of the student in our system is inferred using a higher level LA, referred to as a meta-LA , which attempts to characterize the learning model of the students (or student simulators), while the latter use the tutorial-like system. The meta-LA , in turn, uses LAs as a learning mechanism to try to determine if the student in question is a fast, normal, or slow learner. The ultimate long-term goal of the exercise is the following: if the tutorial- like system can understand how the student perceives and processes knowledge, it will be able to customize the way by which it communicates the knowledge to the student to attain an optimal teaching strategy. The proposed meta-LA scheme has been tested for numerous environments, including the established benchmarks, and the results obtained are remarkable. Indeed, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first published result that infers the learning model of an LA when it is externally treated as a black box, whose outputs are the only observable quantities. Additionally, our paper represents a new class of multiautomata systems, where the meta-LA synchronously communicates with the students, also modeled using LAs. The meta-LA's environment "observes" the progress of the student LA, and the response of the latter to the meta-LA actions is based on these observations. This paper also discusses the learning system implications of such a meta-LA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it