Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 41 references

Prompt Transfer for Dual-Aspect Cross Domain Cognitive Diagnosis

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that attaching learnable soft prompts to student and exercise representations and transferring them between domains substantially improves cross-domain cognitive diagnosis in both student-aspect and exercise-aspect…

desk verdict PromptCD is a sensible, well-tested application of soft-prompt transfer to cross-domain cognitive diagnosis, but the main comparison table has an unresolved fine-tuning symmetry question and a couple of data-reporting slips. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05004 v1 pith:JE4GLS2T submitted 2024-12-06 cs.LG cs.CY

Fei Liu , Yizhong Zhang , Shuochen Liu , Shengwei Ji , Kui Yu , Le Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.CY
keywords cognitivediagnosiscross-domainsoftprompttransferstudent-aspectCDCDexercise-aspecteducationaldataminingfew-shotfine-tuning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Cognitive diagnosis models predict whether a student will answer an exercise correctly, and they typically suffer accuracy drops when applied to a new school's students or a new subject's exercises, the cross-domain setting this paper targets. The paper claims that a simple, model-agnostic recipe called PromptCD fixes the drop: attach small learnable vectors (soft prompts) to student and exercise representations, train them on source domains, transfer them to the target domain, and fine-tune on only 20% of target records. Across four standard diagnosis backbones and two scenario families (student-aspect and exercise-aspect), the paper reports ranking-accuracy (AUC) gains of up to roughly 0.19, with the largest student-side jump from 0.687 to 0.879. If true, it offers a unified way to keep diagnosis accurate in a new domain without retraining from scratch, the condition under which personalized exercise recommendation and learning guidance become deployable in sparse-data settings.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair of soft prompts: a personalized prompt $p^o_i$ for each entity in the overlapping set $O$ and a shared, domain-level prompt $p^d_k$ for all non-overlapping entities of a source domain. Entities enter the diagnosis model as concatenations $o^{cat}_{k,i} = [p^o_i, o^{orig}_{k,i}]$ and $d^{cat}_{k,j} = [p^d_k, d^{orig}_{k,j}]$, projected by a linear aligned layer, so the prompt becomes part of the representation that the interaction function scores. Transfer is the second mechanism: personalized prompts pass through one-to-one, $\hat{p}^o_i = p^o_i$, while shared prompts from all source domains are fused by concatenation and a linear source-to-target map, $\hat{p}^d_t = \mathrm{Linear}_{s2t}(p^d_1 \oplus p^d_2 \oplus \cdots \oplus p^d_{|S|})$; an optional prompt-to-representation mapping, $o^{orig}_t = \mathrm{Linear}_{\mathrm{init}}(\hat{p}^o)$, initializes overlapping target entities from their prompts instead of random vectors. The two-stage training (source pre-training, target fine-tuning) is what makes the transfer efficient.

What would settle it

Re-run the student-aspect A-bin experiment giving each baseline (Origin, Tech, Zero, CCLMF) the identical 20% of target records for fine-tuning that PromptCD receives; if the baselines' AUCs rise toward the reported 0.87-0.88, the gap is a fine-tuning effect rather than prompt transfer. A complementary check is to ablate the prompts inside PromptCD, keeping only the aligned linear layers and the same fine-tuning budget, and compare the resulting AUC against the full prompt version.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that cross-domain transfer in cognitive diagnosis can be carried entirely by learnable prompts, leaving the diagnosis model itself unchanged. Entities present in both source and target domains (the overlapping set $O$) each receive a personalized prompt $p^o_i$, while groups of entities unique to a domain (the non-overlapping set $D$) share one domain prompt $p^d_k$; the enhanced representations $o^{cat} = [p^o_i, o^{orig}]$ and $d^{cat} = [p^d_k, d^{orig}]$ are aligned by a linear layer and fed to the diagnosis model. Pre-training learns these prompts on source interaction records, and fine-tuning on a 20% slice of target records adapts them: personalized prompts transfer one-to-one, shared prompts from all sources are concatenated and mapped through a linear layer, and an optional prompt-to-representation mapping initializes overlapping target entities from their source prompts. The paper reports that PromptCD and its Ours+ variant beat the untransferred backbones and the prior cross-domain methods TechCD, ZeroCD, and CCLMF across exercise-aspect targets (humanities and sciences) and student-aspect targets (four school-ability bins), for IRT, MIRT, NeuralCD, and KSCD alike, with Nemenyi tests claimed to confirm the significance.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes every baseline received the same target-domain fine-tuning as PromptCD, but the paper does not state whether the baseline models were tuned on the same 20% of target records or only trained on source data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A school or platform adopting PromptCD gains a working cross-domain diagnosis model with only about 20% of the new domain's interaction records, because the reported gains hold even at a 10% fine-tuning ratio.
  • Because the framework is model-agnostic, the improvements carry over to classic latent-trait models (IRT, MIRT) and neural models (NeuralCD, KSCD) alike, so institutions need not switch diagnosis backbones to benefit.
  • Multi-source settings help: using two source domains outperforms one in the paper's ablation, so pooling several schools or subjects should further improve target-domain diagnosis.
  • The prompt-to-representation mapping variant (Ours+) consistently edges out the base version, indicating that personalized prompts trained on overlapping entities carry reusable identity information for initializing new-domain representations.
  • Cross-domain drops between dissimilar subjects (such as sciences to humanities) shrink but remain slightly larger than within-discipline transfers, giving a practical ordering of which transfers are worth attempting.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • My inference: the mechanism implies that what transfers across domains is a compact per-entity identity code, not the diagnostic interaction function; if so, the same prompts learned for one backbone could seed a different backbone without re-running the source pre-training.
  • My inference: the shared-prompt fusion step (concatenation plus a linear map) is one of many possible fusion rules; attention-weighted or adversarial fusion of source prompts is a testable variant that might scale better beyond two source domains.
  • My inference: the personalized/shared prompt split should generalize beyond education to any two-sided prediction problem with partially overlapping entities, such as recommendation across user cohorts or item catalogs, where the overlapping side can carry personalized prompts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes PromptCD, a soft-prompt-transfer framework for cross-domain cognitive diagnosis (CDCD) that handles both student-aspect (PromptCD-S) and exercise-aspect (PromptCD-E) scenarios. The framework augments backbone cognitive diagnosis models (IRT, MIRT, NeuralCD, KSCD) with personalized prompts for overlapping entities and shared domain prompts for non-overlapping entities, using a two-stage pre-train-on-source/fine-tune-on-target training scheme. Experiments on the SLP dataset across multiple target domains and four metrics report that PromptCD consistently outperforms the origin backbones and the TechCD, ZeroCD, and CCLMF baselines, with claimed gains such as IRT AUC from 0.736 to 0.864 on Chinese and NeuralCD AUC from 0.687 to 0.879 on the A-bin student target. The manuscript also includes ablation studies on fine-tuning ratios, prompt dimensions, source-domain choice, and a feature-visualization analysis.

Significance. If the reported results hold, PromptCD is a simple, backbone-agnostic method for CDCD that covers both student- and exercise-aspect scenarios, which is a useful and timely contribution to educational data mining. The paper ships a public implementation, which is a concrete strength that aids reproducibility and follow-up work. The experimental breadth is substantial: four backbones, multiple target domains, four metrics, and several ablations. However, the central claim of consistent state-of-the-art performance is currently not fully supported by the manuscript as written: the baseline training protocol is ambiguous with respect to target-domain fine-tuning, and the statistical-significance evidence is under-reported. The feature-visualization section also contains a clear inconsistency between the text and the reported table.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V-A2/V-A4, Tables II and III, Algorithm 1] The manuscript specifies in Section V-A4 that 20% of the target-domain interaction records are randomly selected for fine-tuning, but it never states whether the baselines (Origin, Tech, Zero, CCLMF) are also fine-tuned on those same target records. For PromptCD, Algorithm 1 explicitly fine-tunes all trainable parameters, including prompts and aligned layers, on the target few-shot data. If the baselines are trained only on source data and evaluated on target test data, then the reported gains (e.g., IRT-Origin 0.736 vs. IRT-Ours 0.864 for Chinese in Table II; NeuralCD-Origin 0.687 vs. NeuralCD-Ours 0.879 for A-bin in Table III) may reflect the presence or absence of target-domain fine-tuning rather than the benefit of prompt transfer. This is load-bearing for the Section V-B claim that PromptCD consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines. Please state explicitly whether every baseline receives the same 20% target fine-tuning, and if it does not, rerun the comparison with identical target-domain fine-tuning for all methods.
  2. [Section V-D, Table VI] The sentence 'the inter-cluster and intra-cluster distances are significantly smaller after introducing prompts compared to before' contradicts the numbers in Table VI. The table shows that intra-cluster distances decrease (e.g., exercise embedding 6.6352 → 2.8690; student embedding 7.8856 → 2.9120), but inter-cluster distances increase markedly (exercise 0.2911 → 12.2945; student 0.6041 → 13.0087). The correct reading is that prompts increase inter-cluster separation while reducing intra-cluster variance; the text as written misreports the evidence. Please correct the wording to match the table.
  3. [Section V-B, 'Significance Analysis', Tables II–III] The main results tables report only single numbers with no variance across random seeds or data splits, and the manuscript states that Nemenyi tests were conducted but provides no quantitative details (number of runs, critical difference values, p-values, or exact test procedure). The statement that PromptCD 'significantly outperforms' other models is therefore not verifiable from the information given. Please report mean and standard deviation over at least five seeds and provide the full Nemenyi test results, including the underlying per-run metrics.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section V-A4 / Section V-C] In Section V-A4 the paper says '20% of the interaction records in the target domain are randomly selected for fine-tuning' but does not specify the random seed or whether the same split is used across all methods; please state this. In Section V-C, 'Various Cross-Domain Types' says 'in both cases' while Table V contains four scenarios; please make the description consistent.
  2. [Equation (7), Section III-C] Equation (7), o_orig_t = Linear_init(p_o), uses assignment-like notation for an initialization; it would be clearer to state that the initial values of the target original embeddings are computed as Linear_init(p_o), to avoid confusion with an equality constraint.
  3. [Section V-D, Table VI] The inter-cluster and intra-cluster distances are not defined in the text; please specify how these quantities are computed (e.g., mean pairwise distances within and between clusters).
  4. [Algorithms 1, 2, 3] There is a typo in Algorithm 1 line 2 and Algorithms 2 and 3 line 1: 'doamin' should be 'domain'. Also, the algorithms refer to 'epoch' limits but the exact epoch numbers and learning-rate settings are not given in the experimental section; please include these details for reproducibility.
  5. [Figure 6] Figure 6, referenced in the significance analysis, is not included in the text of the manuscript; ensure that the figure is present in the final version and that its contents (Nemenyi diagrams) are legible and self-explanatory.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: PromptCD's prompts are learned from source interaction data and fine-tuned on a held-out 20% target subset, with evaluation on the remaining target records; the reported gains are empirical test-set comparisons, not consequences of the method's definitions.

full rationale

The paper makes an empirical performance claim, not a derivation. PromptCD's construction (Section III) defines prompts as learnable parameters concatenated with entity embeddings, pre-trained on source domains, and fine-tuned on a 20% target-domain subset; test metrics are computed on the remaining target records (Section V-A4). Nothing in the method defines a prediction in terms of the target test outcome, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The few self-citations (e.g., reference [4] for exercise recommendation context) are background and not load-bearing for the main claim. The strongest concern is experimental-protocol ambiguity: Section V-A4 does not explicitly state whether Origin, Tech, Zero, and CCLMF baselines receive the same 20% target fine-tuning as PromptCD, so the reported AUC gains could partly reflect a fine-tuning effect. That is a benchmarking fairness question, not circular reasoning, because the comparison protocol is not baked into the method's definitions or equations. The central claim therefore has independent content and is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claim rests on the SLP dataset and on the baseline protocol; no physical constants or new entities are introduced. The main hand-chosen settings are the prompt dimension per backbone and the 20% target fine-tuning ratio.

free parameters (2)
  • Prompt dimension per backbone = IRT: 5, MIRT: 10, NeuralCD/KSCD: 20
    Set in Section V-A4; the sensitivity analysis in Figure 7 shows prompt dimension affects AUC, so the chosen values are not neutral.
  • Target fine-tuning ratio = 0.2 (main experiments); 0.1 to 0.3 in sensitivity
    The paper selects 20% of target interaction records for fine-tuning in Section V-A4; Figure 7 shows performance varies with this ratio.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Predictive accuracy on held-out responses is a valid proxy for cognitive diagnosis quality.
    The paper states in Section V-A3 that since proficiency is unobservable, models are evaluated by predicting students' future responses; the whole comparison depends on this proxy.
  • domain assumption The SLP dataset's school bins and subject splits form representative CDCD domains.
    Section V-A1 constructs all benchmarks from one dataset and bins schools by average score; whether findings generalize to other educational datasets is untested.
  • domain assumption Adding prompts and a linear projection before the diagnosis module preserves the diagnostic meaning of the backbone.
    Equations (3) and (4) insert a linear layer whose weights are not constrained non-negative, while Section II-A motivates NeuralCD's monotonicity via positive weights; the paper does not discuss whether this projection can distort ability ordering.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Prompt Transfer for Dual-Aspect Cross Domain Cognitive Diagnosis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JE4GLS2T

@misc{pith2026241205004,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Prompt Transfer for Dual-Aspect Cross Domain Cognitive Diagnosis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JE4GLS2T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05004}
}
read the original abstract

Cognitive Diagnosis (CD) aims to evaluate students' cognitive states based on their interaction data, enabling downstream applications such as exercise recommendation and personalized learning guidance. However, existing methods often struggle with accuracy drops in cross-domain cognitive diagnosis (CDCD), a practical yet challenging task. While some efforts have explored exercise-aspect CDCD, such as crosssubject scenarios, they fail to address the broader dual-aspect nature of CDCD, encompassing both student- and exerciseaspect variations. This diversity creates significant challenges in developing a scenario-agnostic framework. To address these gaps, we propose PromptCD, a simple yet effective framework that leverages soft prompt transfer for cognitive diagnosis. PromptCD is designed to adapt seamlessly across diverse CDCD scenarios, introducing PromptCD-S for student-aspect CDCD and PromptCD-E for exercise-aspect CDCD. Extensive experiments on real-world datasets demonstrate the robustness and effectiveness of PromptCD, consistently achieving superior performance across various CDCD scenarios. Our work offers a unified and generalizable approach to CDCD, advancing both theoretical and practical understanding in this critical domain. The implementation of our framework is publicly available at https://github.com/Publisher-PromptCD/PromptCD.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05004 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Performance comparison of MIRT in in-domain scenarios A and B [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Traditional cognitive diagnosis versus cross-domain cognitive diag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of overlapping and non-overlapping sets in CDCD. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overall architecture of the proposed PromptCD framework, including the pre-training and fine-tuning stages. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The average score distribution across different schools and subjects [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of Significance Test Results for Evaluation Metrics [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Performance comparisons with (a-b) different tuning ratios and (c-d) different prompt dimensions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visualization of (a, c) origin representations without prompt and (b, d) our representations with prompt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    New development of cognitive diagnosis models

    Yingjie Liu, Tiancheng Zhang, Xuecen Wang, Ge Yu, and Tao Li. New development of cognitive diagnosis models. FCS, 17(1):171604, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Neural cognitive diagnosis for intelligent education systems

    Fei Wang, Qi Liu, Enhong Chen, Zhenya Huang, Yuying Chen, Yu Yin, Zai Huang, and Shijin Wang. Neural cognitive diagnosis for intelligent education systems. In AAAI, pages 6153–6161, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Knowledge-sensed cognitive diagnosis for intelligent education platforms

    Haiping Ma, Manwei Li, Le Wu, Haifeng Zhang, Yunbo Cao, Xingyi Zhang, and Xuemin Zhao. Knowledge-sensed cognitive diagnosis for intelligent education platforms. In CIKM, pages 1451–1460, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Meta multi-agent exercise recommendation: A game application perspective

    Fei Liu, Xuegang Hu, Shuochen Liu, Chenyang Bu, and Le Wu. Meta multi-agent exercise recommendation: A game application perspective. In SIGKDD, page 1441–1452, New York, NY , USA, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Exploring multi-objective exercise recommen- dations in online education systems

    Zhenya Huang, Qi Liu, Chengxiang Zhai, Yu Yin, Enhong Chen, Weibo Gao, and Guoping Hu. Exploring multi-objective exercise recommen- dations in online education systems. In CIKM, pages 1261–1270, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Contrastive personalized exercise recommendation with reinforcement learning

    Siyu Wu, Jun Wang, and Wei Zhang. Contrastive personalized exercise recommendation with reinforcement learning. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 2023

    2023

  7. [7]

    Interpretable mooc recommendation: a multi-attention network for personalized learn- ing behavior analysis

    Ju Fan, Yuanchun Jiang, Yezheng Liu, and Yonghang Zhou. Interpretable mooc recommendation: a multi-attention network for personalized learn- ing behavior analysis. Internet Research, 32(2):588–605, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Quality meets diversity: A model-agnostic framework for computerized adaptive testing

    Haoyang Bi, Haiping Ma, Zhenya Huang, Yu Yin, Qi Liu, Enhong Chen, Yu Su, and Shijin Wang. Quality meets diversity: A model-agnostic framework for computerized adaptive testing. In ICDM, pages 42–51. IEEE, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Modeling exercise relationships in e-learning: A unified approach

    Haw-Shiuan Chang, Hwai-Jung Hsu, and Kuan-Ta Chen. Modeling exercise relationships in e-learning: A unified approach. In EDM, pages 532–535, 2015

    2015

  2. [10]

    Turner, Richard G

    Zichao Wang, Angus Lamb, Evgeny Saveliev, Pashmina Cameron, Yordan Zaykov, Jos ´e Miguel Hern ´andez-Lobato, Richard E. Turner, Richard G. Baraniuk, Craig Barton, Simon Peyton Jones, Simon Wood- head, and Cheng Zhang. Instructions and guide for diagnostic questions: The neurip...

    2020

  3. [11]

    Pardos, Haiping Ma, Mengxiao Zhu, Shijin Wang, and Enhong Chen

    Qi Liu, Yan Zhuang, Haoyang Bi, Zhenya Huang, Weizhe Huang, Jiatong Li, Junhao Yu, Zirui Liu, Zirui Hu, Yuting Hong, Zachary A. Pardos, Haiping Ma, Mengxiao Zhu, Shijin Wang, and Enhong Chen. Survey of computerized adaptive testing: A machine learning perspec- tive. CoRR, abs/...

    2024

  4. [12]

    A survey of models for cognitive diagnosis: New developments and future directions, 2024

    Fei Wang, Weibo Gao, Qi Liu, Jiatong Li, Guanhao Zhao, Zheng Zhang, Zhenya Huang, Mengxiao Zhu, Shijin Wang, Wei Tong, and Enhong Chen. A survey of models for cognitive diagnosis: New developments and future directions, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Modeling context-aware features for cognitive diagnosis in student learning

    Yuqiang Zhou, Qi Liu, Jinze Wu, Fei Wang, Zhenya Huang, Wei Tong, Hui Xiong, Enhong Chen, and Jianhui Ma. Modeling context-aware features for cognitive diagnosis in student learning. In SIGKDD, pages 2420–2428, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Rcd: Relation map driven cognitive diagnosis for intelligent education systems

    Weibo Gao, Qi Liu, Zhenya Huang, Yu Yin, Haoyang Bi, Mu-Chun Wang, Jianhui Ma, Shijin Wang, and Yu Su. Rcd: Relation map driven cognitive diagnosis for intelligent education systems. In SIGIR, pages 501–510, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Neuralcd: A general framework for cognitive diagnosis

    Fei Wang, Qi Liu, Enhong Chen, Zhenya Huang, Yu Yin, Shijin Wang, and Yu Su. Neuralcd: A general framework for cognitive diagnosis. TKDE, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Using knowledge concept aggregation towards accurate cognitive diagnosis

    Xinping Wang, Caidie Huang, Jinfang Cai, and Liangyu Chen. Using knowledge concept aggregation towards accurate cognitive diagnosis. In CIKM, pages 2010–2019, 2021

    2010

  9. [17]

    Hiercdf: A bayesian network-based hierarchical cognitive diagnosis framework

    Jiatong Li, Fei Wang, Qi Liu, Mengxiao Zhu, Wei Huang, Zhenya Huang, Enhong Chen, Yu Su, and Shijin Wang. Hiercdf: A bayesian network-based hierarchical cognitive diagnosis framework. In SIGKDD, pages 904–913, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Incremental cognitive diagnosis for intelligent education

    Shiwei Tong, Jiayu Liu, Yuting Hong, Zhenya Huang, Le Wu, Qi Liu, Wei Huang, Enhong Chen, and Dan Zhang. Incremental cognitive diagnosis for intelligent education. In SIGKDD, pages 1760–1770, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Multidimensional item response theory models

    Mark D Reckase and Mark D Reckase. Multidimensional item response theory models. Springer, 2009

    2009

  12. [20]

    Slp: A multi-dimensional and consecutive dataset from k-12 education

    Yu Lu, Yang Pian, Ziding Shen, et al. Slp: A multi-dimensional and consecutive dataset from k-12 education. In 29th international conference on computers in education (ICCE 2021), volume 1, pages 261–266, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Leveraging transferable knowledge concept graph embedding for cold-start cognitive diagnosis

    Weibo Gao, Hao Wang, Qi Liu, Fei Wang, Xin Lin, Linan Yue, Zheng Zhang, Rui Lv, and Shijin Wang. Leveraging transferable knowledge concept graph embedding for cold-start cognitive diagnosis. In SIGIR, pages 983–992, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Zero-1-to-3: JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL

    Weibo Gao, Qi Liu, Hao Wang, Linan Yue, Haoyang Bi, Yin Gu, Fangzhou Yao, Zheng Zhangm Xin Li, and Yuanjing He. Zero-1-to-3: JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 1, NO. 1, NOVEMBER 2024 12 Domain-level zero-shot cognitive diagnosis via one batch of early-bird students towards th...

    2024

  15. [23]

    Pre-train, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing

    Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. Pre-train, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(9):1–35, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Domain adaptation via prompt learning

    Chunjiang Ge, Rui Huang, Mixue Xie, Zihang Lai, Shiji Song, Shuang Li, and Gao Huang. Domain adaptation via prompt learning. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Prompt learning with cross-modal feature align- ment for visual domain adaptation

    Jinxing Liu, Junjin Xiao, Haokai Ma, Xiangxian Li, Zhuang Qi, Xiangxu Meng, and Lei Meng. Prompt learning with cross-modal feature align- ment for visual domain adaptation. In CAAI International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 416–428. Springer, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Adversarial soft prompt tuning for cross- domain sentiment analysis

    Hui Wu and Xiaodong Shi. Adversarial soft prompt tuning for cross- domain sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (V olume 1: Long Papers), pages 2438–2447, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Spc: Soft prompt construction for cross domain generalization

    Wenbo Zhao, Arpit Gupta, Tagyoung Chung, and Jing Huang. Spc: Soft prompt construction for cross domain generalization. In Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP (RepL4NLP 2023), pages 118–130, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Adpl: Adversarial prompt- based domain adaptation for dialogue summarization with knowledge disentanglement

    Lulu Zhao, Fujia Zheng, Weihao Zeng, Keqing He, Ruotong Geng, Huixing Jiang, Wei Wu, and Weiran Xu. Adpl: Adversarial prompt- based domain adaptation for dialogue summarization with knowledge disentanglement. In Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Res...

    2022

  21. [29]

    Item response theory

    Susan E Embretson and Steven P Reise. Item response theory. Psychol- ogy Press, 2013

    2013

  22. [30]

    Ptadisc: a cross-course dataset supporting personalized learning in cold-start scenarios

    Liya Hu, Zhiang Dong, Jingyuan Chen, Guifeng Wang, Zhihua Wang, Zhou Zhao, and Fei Wu. Ptadisc: a cross-course dataset supporting personalized learning in cold-start scenarios. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS ’...

    2024

  23. [31]

    Dina model and parameter estimation: A didactic

    Jimmy De La Torre. Dina model and parameter estimation: A didactic. Journal of educational and behavioral statistics, 34(1):115–130, 2009

    2009

  24. [32]

    Language models as knowledge bases? arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.01066, 2019

    Fabio Petroni, Tim Rockt ¨aschel, Patrick Lewis, Anton Bakhtin, Yuxiang Wu, Alexander H Miller, and Sebastian Riedel. Language models as knowledge bases? arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.01066, 2019

    1909 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Prompt learning for news recommen- dation

    Zizhuo Zhang and Bang Wang. Prompt learning for news recommen- dation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05263, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Gpt4rec: A generative framework for personal- ized recommendation and user interests interpretation

    Jinming Li, Wentao Zhang, Tian Wang, Guanglei Xiong, Alan Lu, and Gerard Medioni. Gpt4rec: A generative framework for personal- ized recommendation and user interests interpretation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03879, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Large language models are zero-shot rankers for recommender systems

    Yupeng Hou, Junjie Zhang, Zihan Lin, Hongyu Lu, Ruobing Xie, Julian McAuley, and Wayne Xin Zhao. Large language models are zero-shot rankers for recommender systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.08845, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Towards personalized cold-start recommendation with prompts

    Xuansheng Wu, Huachi Zhou, Wenlin Yao, Xiao Huang, and Ninghao Liu. Towards personalized cold-start recommendation with prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.17256, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Personalized prompt learning for explainable recommendation

    Lei Li, Yongfeng Zhang, and Li Chen. Personalized prompt learning for explainable recommendation. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 41(4):1–26, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Ppt: Pre-trained prompt tuning for few-shot learning

    Yuxian Gu, Xu Han, Zhiyuan Liu, and Minlie Huang. Ppt: Pre-trained prompt tuning for few-shot learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.04332, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Large language models are human-level prompt engineers

    Yongchao Zhou, Andrei Ioan Muresanu, Ziwen Han, Keiran Paster, Silviu Pitis, Harris Chan, and Jimmy Ba. Large language models are human-level prompt engineers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.01910, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Design guidelines for prompt engi- neering text-to-image generative models

    Vivian Liu and Lydia B Chilton. Design guidelines for prompt engi- neering text-to-image generative models. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pages 1–23, 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    Multitask prompted training enables zero-shot task generalization

    Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen H Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Teven Le Scao, Arun Raja, et al. Multitask prompted training enables zero-shot task generalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08207, 2021. SUPPLEMENTS P...

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.