Survey of Loss Augmented Knowledge Tracing

Altun Shukurlu

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 23 references

Survey of Loss Augmented Knowledge Tracing

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that adding contrastive or consistency terms to the loss function improves deep knowledge tracing, with reported AUC gains over standard DKT.

desk verdict A readable but thin survey of five loss-augmented KT models whose central AUC comparison table is unverifiable without per-row sources, data splits, and error bars. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15163 v1 pith:X2EMPMXQ submitted 2025-04-21 cs.LG

Altun Shukurlu This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LG

keywords knowledgetracingdeepcontrastivelearninglossfunctionregularizationASSISTments2009studentmodelingAUC

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

This survey claims that the choice of loss function is an underused lever in deep knowledge tracing. It reviews five recent algorithms that augment the standard prediction loss with contrastive terms or a temporal-consistency regularizer, and reports that all five achieve higher AUC than plain DKT on ASSISTments 2009, with values from 0.762 to 0.857 against DKT's 0.740. The paper's point is that loss design, not just architecture, drives how well a model learns student knowledge states from sparse, noisy interaction data. A sympathetic reader would take from it that loss augmentation is a promising direction for more robust and generalizable student modeling.

What carries the argument

The central object is the augmented loss function. The paper defines and catalogues a family of auxiliary loss terms added to a base DKT objective: a contrastive term built on dot-product similarity between student-skill embedding pairs, optional triplet or margin penalties, dynamic self-paced weights, and a temporal consistency regularizer penalizing abrupt changes in predicted knowledge state across consecutive time steps. These loss terms carry the argument: the survey attributes the reported AUC gains to them rather than to architectural changes in the underlying knowledge tracing model.

What would settle it

Run Bi-CLKT, SP-CLKT, CL4KT, CoSKT, prediction-consistent DKT, and plain DKT on the same ASSISTments 2009 train/test split and compare AUC; if any loss-augmented model fails to beat plain DKT, or the reported gaps shrink to noise, the survey's central comparison fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that augmenting the loss function with contrastive or prediction-consistent terms produces better deep knowledge tracing models. The five surveyed models—Bi-CLKT, SP-CLKT, CL4KT, CoSKT, and prediction-consistent DKT—share a base DKT-style predictor and differ mainly in the auxiliary loss, yet Table 2 reports every one of them beating DKT's AUC of 0.740, with Bi-CLKT highest at 0.857. The paper therefore treats loss design as an independent and meaningful axis of improvement in knowledge tracing, useful especially when student response data are sparse and noisy. It also positions contrastive methods as relational, because they compare student trajectories, and regularization methods as individual, because they stabilize predictions over time.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes the AUC numbers in Table 2, gathered from different papers, are measured on the same data split, preprocessing, and evaluation protocol, so that the ranking is meaningful.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Loss function design should be treated as a first-class decision in knowledge tracing research, alongside architecture selection.
Contrastive objectives that pull similar student-response embeddings together and push dissimilar ones apart can yield higher AUC than plain DKT on ASSISTments 2009.
Prediction-consistent regularization, which penalizes abrupt jumps in predicted knowledge state, can improve DKT's robustness on noisy and sparse interaction data.
The reported ranking suggests Bi-CLKT's bi-graph contrastive formulation is the strongest of the surveyed loss-augmented approaches on ASSISTments 2009.
The survey points to hybrid loss strategies and context-aware modeling as the next directions for loss-augmented knowledge tracing.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the five surveyed models differ in architecture as well as loss, an exact attribution of the reported gains to the loss term alone would require a controlled ablation holding the base DKT architecture fixed; the survey's comparison cannot fully separate these effects.
A testable extension is to combine a contrastive term with temporal consistency in a single objective; the survey lists hybrid loss strategies as future work, and such a combined loss could be evaluated directly on ASSISTments 2009 against the reported point estimates.
The framing suggests that loss augmentation may transfer to other sparse, noisy sequential prediction tasks, such as dropout prediction or response-time modeling, where representation quality is limited by data quantity rather than architecture.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a short survey that groups five loss-augmented knowledge tracing papers into contrastive and consistency-regularized buckets. The taxonomy is sensible as an organizational device, and the prose is clear. But the central comparison is not verifiable: Table 2 reports AUC values with no source citation, no data split, no preprocessing, and no error bars, so the headline claim that loss augmentation beats plain DKT is not established.

What the paper does well: it gives a compact, mostly faithful summary of Bi-CLKT, CL4KT, SP-CLKT, CoSKT, and prediction-consistent DKT, and it makes a fair point that loss design is under-explored relative to architecture in knowledge tracing. For someone who wants a quick map of these five methods, the text is useful as a starting point.

Soft spots, in order of severity. First, Table 2 is load-bearing and uncheckable. In this literature, ASSISTments 2009 AUC varies by 0.03–0.05 across standard splits; the gap between DKT (0.740) and CL4KT (0.762) is smaller than that. Without a common protocol or at least per-row sources, the ranking is not trustworthy. Second, Table 1’s loss formulas appear simplified or wrong for some methods; readers should not take those equations at face value without checking the originals. Third, reference [22] is garbled—it looks like a mangled CLIP citation with an invented author list. That kind of error suggests the reference list was not checked carefully. Finally, calling the survey “comprehensive” overstates it: five papers with no stated selection criteria is a selective overview.

There is no new math or data here, so the paper’s value is purely organizational. The idea that loss augmentation is an under-used lever is probably right, but this paper does not add evidence beyond what the five cited papers already report. I would not cite it for the AUC numbers. A newcomer could use it as a pointer to the original papers, provided they treat both tables with suspicion.

Recommendation: the paper is fixable but should not be accepted as is. If the authors add per-row citations, splits, error bars, correct the formulas, and fix the references, it becomes a reasonable small survey. As a desk decision, I would condition on those revisions rather than reject outright—the subject is real and the paper is not incoherent. It deserves a serious referee if the requested repairs are plausible; otherwise it is a minor contribution that can be skipped.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This survey reviews five deep knowledge tracing (KT) methods that augment the standard prediction loss with contrastive or regularization terms: Bi-CLKT, SP-CLKT, CL4KT, CoSKT, and prediction-consistent DKT. It introduces the notation of contrastive loss and prediction-consistent regularization, summarizes the loss functions of the five methods in Table 1, and presents AUC values on ASSISTments 2009 in Table 2. The paper's abstract claims that these loss-augmented algorithms improve over prior KT techniques, and the conclusion frames loss design as an underused lever in KT research, ending with future directions such as multimodal learning and lifelong learning.

Significance. If the comparative evidence were properly sourced and reproducible, this survey would fill a real gap: recent KT surveys emphasize architectural innovations, and a focused review of loss-function design could be genuinely useful to practitioners. The paper provides a compact taxonomy and a unified notation for five recent methods, and it correctly identifies a set of representative works. However, as written, the central quantitative claim rests entirely on a single table of AUC point estimates with no per-row citations and no experimental protocol, so the survey's main message is not verifiable. The paper does not claim to perform new experiments, which is appropriate for a survey, but the reliability of a survey depends on faithful reporting of the original results; in its current form, Table 2 does not meet that standard.

major comments (3)

[Section 5, Table 2] Table 2 reports AUC point estimates for BKT 0.648, DKT 0.740, CL4KT 0.762, CoSKT 0.7925, SP-CLKT 0.82, Bi-CLKT 0.857, and prediction-consistent DKT 0.8227 on ASSISTments 2009, but it gives no per-row citations to the source tables or figures, no data split (skill vs. problem, student-level vs. interaction-level), and no preprocessing or evaluation protocol. In the KT literature, reported AUC on ASSISTments 2009 varies by roughly 0.03-0.05 across splits, so the gap between DKT (0.740) and CL4KT (0.762) in the table may be within cross-paper variance. Because this table is the sole quantitative support for the abstract's claim that loss-augmented models improve over prior techniques, the central claim is not established as written. Please add the source for each value, the exact evaluation protocol for each row, and, where available, standard deviations or significance tests.
[Section 4.1, Table 1] The loss formulas in Table 1 are presented in a single logistic-contrastive template that does not faithfully represent at least one source paper. For example, the row for prediction-consistent regularization [8] writes the regularizer as a symmetric L1 penalty |K_t - K_{t+1}|, whereas [8] proposes a sign-aware penalty that pushes predictions upward after correct responses and downward after incorrect responses; the symmetric form also contradicts the squared L2 form given in Section 3. Similarly, the CL4KT row includes a triplet term lambda max(0, gamma - <z_i,z_j>) that does not appear to match the objective in [5]. Please either quote the original loss functions exactly, or explicitly label Table 1 as a simplified schematic and cite the specific equations in the source papers.
[Section 5 opening paragraph] The section states that the comparison is based on 'accuracy, convergence speed, generalizability, and interpretability,' but Table 2 only provides AUC values and no evidence about convergence speed, generalizability, or interpretability is reported anywhere in the paper. This mismatch overstates the scope of the comparison; please either add the promised metrics or revise the description to state that the quantitative comparison is limited to AUC.

minor comments (5)

[Section 2] In the discussion of memory-augmented models, the phrase 'concept-specific knowledge tracking' appears twice in succession: 'concept-specific knowledge tracking.concept-specific knowledge tracking.' Please remove the duplication.
[Section 3] The sentence 'Formally, given predicted probabilities y_t and y_{t+1} at two consecutive time steps, the consistency defined below where it is added to the standard task loss...' is grammatically incomplete and should be rewritten. In addition, the squared L2 consistency term defined in this section is inconsistent with the absolute-value term used later in Table 1 and Section 4.2.
[Table 1] The third row labels the model 'CLKT' while the running text and reference [5] use 'CL4KT'; please make the names consistent throughout the paper.
[References] Reference [22] appears to have a garbled author list for the CLIP paper; the names should be corrected and the citation format made consistent with the other entries.
[Section 5, Table 2] The table would be easier to read if the rows were sorted consistently by AUC or grouped by method family, and if each row included the source table or figure from the original paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: survey aggregates external published AUC results; no fitted parameters, no self-citations, and no definitional reduction.

full rationale

This manuscript is a survey and performs no new experiments, fits no parameters, and defines no metric in terms of the quantities it reports. The central comparative claim, that loss-augmented knowledge tracing models outperform standard DKT, rests on Table 2, which compiles AUC values from the original papers (Bi-CLKT, CL4KT, SP-CLKT, CoSKT, prediction-consistent DKT, plus BKT and DKT baselines). Those numbers are external results, not outputs of the present paper, so the survey is not predicting a fitted quantity or deriving an input by construction. The generic loss formulas in Section 3 and Table 1 are descriptions of previously published objectives, not derivations from the survey's own definitions, and no cited result is authored by the survey's author. The absence of data-split, preprocessing, and per-row source details in Table 2 is a reproducibility and comparability concern, but it is a correctness/evidence-quality issue, not circularity: the paper does not define contrastive loss in terms of the reported AUCs, nor does it fit anything to make the ranking come out. Under the rubric, relying on others' reported numbers without independent verification is not a circular reduction. Therefore no circular steps were found.

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

This survey introduces no free parameters, no new theoretical constructs, and no invented entities. Its central comparative claim rests on two external premises: that the loss equations are accurately transcribed from the original papers, and that the compiled AUC numbers are comparable across different experimental setups. Both premises are plausible but unverified within the paper.

assumptions (2)

domain assumption The loss function formulas transcribed in Table 1 and Section 4 are accurate representations of the original papers' objectives.
The survey provides no cross-check against the original implementations or papers; any transcription error would be propagated into the comparison. This premise is invoked throughout Section 4.
domain assumption The AUC values in Table 2 are comparable across models because the underlying evaluations used similar protocols.
The table lists point estimates from different papers without stating data splits, preprocessing, or hyperparameters, yet uses them to rank models. This premise enters at Section 5, Table 2.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Survey of Loss Augmented Knowledge Tracing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X2EMPMXQ

@misc{pith2026250415163,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Survey of Loss Augmented Knowledge Tracing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X2EMPMXQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15163}
}

read the original abstract

The training of artificial neural networks is heavily dependent on the careful selection of an appropriate loss function. While commonly used loss functions, such as cross-entropy and mean squared error (MSE), generally suffice for a broad range of tasks, challenges often emerge due to limitations in data quality or inefficiencies within the learning process. In such circumstances, the integration of supplementary terms into the loss function can serve to address these challenges, enhancing both model performance and robustness. Two prominent techniques, loss regularization and contrastive learning, have been identified as effective strategies for augmenting the capacity of loss functions in artificial neural networks. Knowledge tracing is a compelling area of research that leverages predictive artificial intelligence to facilitate the automation of personalized and efficient educational experiences for students. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive review of the deep learning-based knowledge tracing (DKT) algorithms trained using advanced loss functions and discuss their improvements over prior techniques. We discuss contrastive knowledge tracing algorithms, such as Bi-CLKT, CL4KT, SP-CLKT, CoSKT, and prediction-consistent DKT, providing performance benchmarks and insights into real-world deployment challenges. The survey concludes with future research directions, including hybrid loss strategies and context-aware modeling.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

[22]

Learning transferable visual models from natural l anguage supervision

Alec Radford, Jongwei Kim, Chris Xu, Eric Choi, May Chen , Raj Pann, Ilya Mishkov, and Rish Yu. Learning transferable visual models from natural l anguage supervision. Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , 2021

work page 2021
[8]

Addressing two proble ms in deep knowledge tracing via prediction-consistent regularization

Chun-Kit Yeung and Dit-Yan Yeung. Addressing two proble ms in deep knowledge tracing via prediction-consistent regularization. CoRR, abs/1806.02180, 2018. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02180

arXiv 2018
[5]

Contrastive learning for knowledge tracing

Wonsung Lee, Jaeyoon Chun, Youngmin Lee, Kyoungsoo Park , and Sungrae Park. Contrastive learning for knowledge tracing. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Confer- ence 2022 , WWW ’22, page 2330–2338, New York, NY, USA, 2022. Associati on for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450390965. doi: 10.1145/34 85447.3512105. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3485447.3512105

arXiv 2022
[1]

Deep Learning

Ian Goodfellow, Yoshua Bengio, and Aaron Courville. Deep Learning. MIT Press, 2016

2016
[2]

F.A. Gers, J. Schmidhuber, and F. Cummins. Learning to fo rget: continual prediction with lstm. In 1999 Ninth International Conference on Artiﬁcial Neural Ne tworks ICANN 99. (Conf. Publ. No. 470) , volume 2, pages 850–855 vol.2, 1999. doi: 10.1049/cp:1999 1218

work page doi:10.1049/cp:1999 1999
[3]

Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoﬀr ey E. Hinton. A simple frame- work for contrastive learning of visual representations. CoRR, abs/2002.05709, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.05709

arXiv 2002
[4]

Bi-CLKT: Bi-Graph Contrastive Learning based Knowledge Tracing

Xiangyu Song, Jianxin Li, Qi Lei, Wei Zhao, Yunliang Chen , and Ajmal Mian. Bi-clkt: Bi-graph contrastive learning based knowledge tracing. CoRR, abs/2201.09020, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.09020

work page Pith review arXiv 2022
[6]

Self- paced contrastive learning for knowledge tracing

Huan Dai, Yue Yun, Yupei Zhang, Rui An, Wenxin Zhang, and X uequn Shang. Self- paced contrastive learning for knowledge tracing. Neurocomputing, 609:128366, 2024. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2024.128366

arXiv 2024

Show all 23 references

[7]

CoSKT: A Collaborative Self-Supervised Learning Metho d for Knowledge Tracing

Chunyun Zhang, Hebo Ma, Chaoran Cui, Yumo Yao, Weiran Xu, Yunfeng Zhang, and Yuling Ma. CoSKT: A Collaborative Self-Supervised Learning Metho d for Knowledge Tracing. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 17:1476–1488, 2024. doi: 10.1109/TLT.2024.3386750

2024
[9]

Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge

Albert T Corbett and John R Anderson. Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge. User modeling and user-adapted interaction , 4:253–278, 1994. 10

1994
[10]

Guibas, and Jascha Sohl-Dickstein

Chris Piech, Jonathan Spencer, Jonathan Huang, Surya G anguli, Mehran Sahami, Leonidas J. Guibas, and Jascha Sohl-Dickstein. Deep knowledge tracing . CoRR, abs/1506.05908, 2015. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.05908

2015 arXiv
[11]

Context- aware attentive knowledge tracing

Aritra Ghosh, Neil Heﬀernan, and Andrew S Lan. Context- aware attentive knowledge tracing. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD international conferenc e on knowledge discovery & data mining , pages 2330–2339, 2020

2020
[12]

The relative eﬀectiveness of human tutor ing, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems

Kurt VanLehn. The relative eﬀectiveness of human tutor ing, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational psychologist, 46(4):197–221, 2011

2011
[13]

Modeling individu alization in a bayesian networks implementation of knowledge tracing

Zachary A Pardos and Neil T Heﬀernan. Modeling individu alization in a bayesian networks implementation of knowledge tracing. In User Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization: 18th International Conference, UMAP 2010, Big Island, HI, USA, J une 20-24, 2010. Proceedings 18, pa...

2010
[14]

Aug- menting knowledge tracing by considering forgetting behav ior

Kohei Nagatani, Xiaojie Liu, Quanming Yao, Naonori Ued a, and Takeshi Kurashima. Aug- menting knowledge tracing by considering forgetting behav ior. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence , 2019

2019
[15]

Deep know ledge tracing and dynamic student classiﬁcation for knowledge tracing

Chankyu Minn, Hyeongju Yu, and Kyunghyun Lee. Deep know ledge tracing and dynamic student classiﬁcation for knowledge tracing. In Proceedings of the 18th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 2018

2018
[16]

Going deeper with deep knowledge tracing

Xinyu Xiong, Likang Zhao, Eric Van Inwegen, and Joseph B eck. Going deeper with deep knowledge tracing. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Educati onal Data Mining (EDM) , 2016

2016
[17]

Koedinger

Ran Liu, Rony Patel, and Kenneth R. Koedinger. Modeling common misconceptions in learning process data. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Learn ing Analytics & Knowledge , LAK ’16, page 369–377, New York, NY, USA, 2016. Association for Computing Machinery...

2016
[18]

Gr aph-based knowledge tracing: Modeling student proﬁciency using graph neural network

Hiromi Nakagawa, Yusuke Iwasawa, and Yutaka Matsuo. Gr aph-based knowledge tracing: Modeling student proﬁciency using graph neural network. In IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence , WI ’19, page 156–163, New York, NY, USA, 2019. Associa- tion for Computing...

2019
[19]

Dynamic key-value memory network for knowledge tracing

Jiani Zhang, Xingjian Shi, Irwin King, and Dit-Yan Yeun g. Dynamic key-value memory network for knowledge tracing. CoRR, abs/1611.08108, 2016. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1611.08108. 11

2016 arXiv
[20]

Knowledge tracing: A survey

Ghodai Abdelrahman, Qing Wang, and Bernardo Pereira Nu nes. Knowledge tracing: A survey. CoRR, abs/2201.06953, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.06953

2022 arXiv
[21]

A self-attentive mo del for knowledge tracing

Shalini Pandey and George Karypis. A self-attentive mo del for knowledge tracing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.06837, 2019

1907 arXiv
[23]

Diﬃculty-focused contrastive learnin g for knowledge tracing with a large language model-based diﬃculty prediction

Unggi Lee, Sungjun Yoon, Joon Seo Yun, Kyoungsoo Park, Y oungHoon Jung, Damji Stratton, and Hyeoncheol Kim. Diﬃculty-focused contrastive learnin g for knowledge tracing with a large language model-based diﬃculty prediction. In Nicoletta Ca lzolari, Min-Yen Kan, Veronique Hoste...

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [22]

Learning transferable visual models from natural l anguage supervision

Alec Radford, Jongwei Kim, Chris Xu, Eric Choi, May Chen , Raj Pann, Ilya Mishkov, and Rish Yu. Learning transferable visual models from natural l anguage supervision. Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , 2021

work page 2021

[2] [8]

Addressing two proble ms in deep knowledge tracing via prediction-consistent regularization

Chun-Kit Yeung and Dit-Yan Yeung. Addressing two proble ms in deep knowledge tracing via prediction-consistent regularization. CoRR, abs/1806.02180, 2018. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02180

arXiv 2018

[3] [5]

Contrastive learning for knowledge tracing

Wonsung Lee, Jaeyoon Chun, Youngmin Lee, Kyoungsoo Park , and Sungrae Park. Contrastive learning for knowledge tracing. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Confer- ence 2022 , WWW ’22, page 2330–2338, New York, NY, USA, 2022. Associati on for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450390965. doi: 10.1145/34 85447.3512105. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3485447.3512105

arXiv 2022

[4] [1]

Deep Learning

Ian Goodfellow, Yoshua Bengio, and Aaron Courville. Deep Learning. MIT Press, 2016

2016

[5] [2]

F.A. Gers, J. Schmidhuber, and F. Cummins. Learning to fo rget: continual prediction with lstm. In 1999 Ninth International Conference on Artiﬁcial Neural Ne tworks ICANN 99. (Conf. Publ. No. 470) , volume 2, pages 850–855 vol.2, 1999. doi: 10.1049/cp:1999 1218

work page doi:10.1049/cp:1999 1999

[6] [3]

Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoﬀr ey E. Hinton. A simple frame- work for contrastive learning of visual representations. CoRR, abs/2002.05709, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.05709

arXiv 2002

[7] [4]

Bi-CLKT: Bi-Graph Contrastive Learning based Knowledge Tracing

Xiangyu Song, Jianxin Li, Qi Lei, Wei Zhao, Yunliang Chen , and Ajmal Mian. Bi-clkt: Bi-graph contrastive learning based knowledge tracing. CoRR, abs/2201.09020, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.09020

work page Pith review arXiv 2022

[8] [6]

Self- paced contrastive learning for knowledge tracing

Huan Dai, Yue Yun, Yupei Zhang, Rui An, Wenxin Zhang, and X uequn Shang. Self- paced contrastive learning for knowledge tracing. Neurocomputing, 609:128366, 2024. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2024.128366

arXiv 2024