Some Improvements of Deep Knowledge Tracing
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
Deep Knowledge Tracing (DKT), along with other machine learning approaches, are biased toward data used during the training step. Thus, for problems where we have few amounts of data for training, the generalization power will be low, the models will tend to give good results on classes containing many examples and poor results on those with few examples. Theses problems are frequent in educational data where for example, there are skills that are very difficult (floor) or very easy to master (ceiling). There will be less data on students that correctly answered questions related to difficult knowledge and that incorrectly answered questions related to knowledge easy to master. In that case, the DKT is unable to correctly predict the student's answers to questions associated with those skills. To improve the DKT, we penalize the model using a 'cost-sensitive' technique. To overcome the problem of the few amounts of data, we propose a hybrid model combining the DKT and expert knowledge. Thus, the DKT is combined with a Bayesian Network (built from domain experts) by using the attention mechanism. The resulting model can accurately track knowledge of students in Logic-Muse Intelligent Tutoring System (ITS), compared to the BKT and the original DKT.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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