Not All Options Are Created Equal: Textual Option Weighting for Token-Efficient LLM-Based Knowledge Tracing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently emerged as promising tools for knowledge tracing due to their strong reasoning and generalization abilities. While recent LLM-based KT methods have introduced new prompt formats, they struggle to reflect the histories of example learners within a single prompt during in-context learning (ICL), leading to limited scalability and high computational cost under token constraints. In this work, we present \textit{LLM-based Option weighted Knowledge Tracing (LOKT)}, a simple yet effective LLM-based knowledge tracing framework that encodes the interaction histories of example learners in context as \textit{textual categorical option weights (TCOW)}. These are semantic labels (e.g., “inadequate”) assigned to the options selected by learners when answering questions helping understand LLM. Experiments on multiple-choice datasets show that LOKT outperforms existing LLM-based KT models in both warm-start and few-shot settings. Moreover, LOKT enables scalable and cost-efficient inference, performing strongly even under strict token constraints. Our code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/LOKT_model-3233
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".