Sparse Binary Representation Learning for Knowledge Tracing

Christine Preisach; Yahya Badran

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 23 references

Sparse Binary Representation Learning for Knowledge Tracing

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · 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 a sparse binary vector learned for each exercise can be extracted from a neural knowledge tracing model and plugged into Bayesian Knowledge Tracing, consistently raising its predictive accuracy on all tested datasets.

desk verdict The binarization trick is a real, reasonably clean contribution, but the headline BKT+aux result rests on an unspecified data split and single-run AUCs, so the transfer claim is not yet established. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09893 v1 pith:X35S3VW6 submitted 2025-01-17 cs.LG

Yahya Badran , Christine Preisach This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LG

keywords knowledgetracingsparsebinaryrepresentationauxiliaryconceptsBayesianlearningquantizationstraight-throughestimatoreducationaldatamining

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

Human-defined knowledge concepts (KCs) are the skill tags attached to exercises, and most knowledge tracing models depend on them; errors or missing tags limit how well such models can predict. This paper proposes SBRKT, which learns a sparse binary vector for every exercise from student response sequences, with each bit standing for a latent 'auxiliary KC.' The central claim is that these auxiliary KCs are reusable: adding them to Bayesian Knowledge Tracing (BKT) improves its AUC on all four datasets tested, with the largest gain on riiid2020, while BKT keeps its interpretable two-state structure. If the claim holds, incomplete human labels are not a hard ceiling for classical models, because a discrete representation learned by a neural network can be extracted and plugged into a simpler, transparent model.

What carries the argument

The central object is the quantization layer that produces each exercise's sparse binary vector. An exercise embedding $x_{Ex}\in\mathbb{R}^d$ is sent through a linear layer to a vector $e_{Ex}\in\mathbb{R}^M$; a mask keeps only the top $C_{\max}$ entries, an elementwise threshold maps positive entries to $1$ and non-positive ones to $0$, and two trainable scalars $\alpha$ and $\beta$, with $\alpha>\beta$, set the two output values. The result is a multi-hot vector $u_{Ex}\in\{\alpha,\beta\}^M$ that can be re-read as a $\{0,1\}^M$ label vector in downstream tasks. The straight-through estimator treats the threshold as identity in the backward pass, so the whole mapping is trainable by stochastic gradient descent. For prediction, the auxiliary vector is concatenated with the human-defined KC vector, fed through an LSTM, and scored by a sigmoid over the dot product of the combined vector with an output logit vector. The quantization is what makes the learned representation discrete, sparse, and portable.

What would settle it

Split the data by student rather than by interaction and retrain SBRKT, then compare BKT+aux with plain BKT on test exercises that were never seen during training. If BKT+aux's advantage disappears, or if the auxiliary vectors for test exercises cannot be generated because the exercises lack learned embeddings, the reported transfer gain is an artifact of the interaction-level split rather than a general property of the learned auxiliary KCs.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is that a discrete, sparse representation of exercises, learned end-to-end by a neural network, can serve as auxiliary knowledge concepts that transfer to other models. On its own, SBRKT matches or beats several dense-representation baselines on the four real datasets it tests. Its stronger result is the transfer: BKT+aux, a Bayesian Knowledge Tracing model trained with the learned auxiliary KCs, outperforms plain BKT on every dataset, for example moving AUC from 0.6923 to 0.7325 on ASSISTments2009 and from 0.6215 to 0.7173 on riiid2020. Because the auxiliary vectors are binary and sparse, BKT can treat them exactly like ordinary KC tags, so the gain comes without changing BKT's assumptions or sacrificing its interpretability.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the train/test split is at the interaction level, so every test exercise already has a learned embedding from the training data; with a student-level split or unseen questions, the auxiliary KC vector for a test exercise cannot be constructed, and the reported BKT+aux gains would not apply to new items.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any knowledge tracing model that consumes KC labels can consume the auxiliary KCs, because they are multi-hot binary vectors; the paper demonstrates this with both BKT and DKT.
BKT trained with auxiliary KCs outperforms plain BKT on every dataset in the paper, so the improvement does not require changing BKT's independence assumption or its two-state mastery structure.
DKT trained with auxiliary KCs outperforms plain DKT on three of four datasets, showing that the representation also helps a deep model.
The gain on riiid2020 is the largest of the four, with BKT's AUC rising from 0.6215 to 0.7173.

Reading between the lines

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

An implication the paper leaves implicit is a cold-start pipeline: new exercises without a learned embedding could get auxiliary KC vectors by transfer from text, metadata, or similar existing exercises.
A testable extension is to label each auxiliary KC by inspecting the exercises that share its bit, which would show whether the performance gain comes with curriculum-meaningful clusters.
The paper's interaction-level split means the transfer gains likely overstate what a deployed system would see on brand-new questions; a student-level split would quantify that gap.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Worth reading for the binarization scheme; read skeptically for the transfer claim. The genuinely new piece is the explicit hard quantization: top-Cmax selection, trainable alpha/beta levels, straight-through estimator, producing a sparse discrete exercise code that can be handed to BKT as auxiliary KCs. The ablations support this design — removing the quantization step degrades the model, and the variant comparisons in Tables 4 and 5 show the discretized version earns its place. The paper is also honest about prior work: Nakagawa et al. already learned binary question embeddings, and the authors say so, positioning their contribution as a hard-quantized variant with downstream BKT transfer. The soft spots are experimental, not architectural. Every reported AUC is a single run with no variance, no confidence intervals, no significance tests. The 0.0021 gain on Algebra2005 is noise. There is no code, no preprocessing details, and the closest binary-embedding baseline from Nakagawa et al. is not evaluated. The load-bearing issue is the split protocol in Section 5.1.3: "80% training, 10% validation, 10% testing" never says whether the split is by interaction, by student, or by question. This matters because exercise embeddings are per-exercise parameters. If the split is interaction-level, test exercises already have learned codes, and the large riiid BKT+aux gain (about 0.096 AUC) can be explained by transductive item memorization — the auxiliary codes simply encode item-level response statistics from training. If the split is student-level, the same exercises still appear in training, so the experiment does not test generalization to new questions. If the split is question-disjoint, the paper gives no rule for constructing auxiliary codes for unseen exercises, so BKT+aux cannot be applied as described. The paper needs to state the split, run a question-disjoint evaluation, and report variance across seeds. Who this is for: educational data mining researchers interested in interpretable KT representation learning. The binarization trick is a plausible bridge between deep representations and classical BKT, and the idea is worth engaging with, but the headline empirical claim is unproven until the evaluation protocol is fixed. I would send it to a serious referee, with a request for code or data, a question-disjoint experiment, and repeated-seed results. The architecture is coherent; the evidence just is not there yet.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SBRKT, a knowledge tracing model that learns a sparse binary vector for each exercise and interprets the bits as auxiliary knowledge concepts (KCs). The binary codes are produced by a linear projection, a top-Cmax mask, an elementwise threshold, and a straight-through estimator, then concatenated with the human-defined KC multi-hot vectors and fed to an LSTM to predict response correctness. After training, the binary codes are mapped to 0/1 and used as extra KC labels for downstream BKT and DKT models. The paper reports AUC results on ASSISTments2009, ASSISTments2017, Algebra2005, and a riiid2020 subset, claiming that SBRKT is competitive with deep baselines and that BKT augmented with the learned auxiliary KCs improves over plain BKT on all four datasets.

Significance. If the reported results are reproducible, the core idea is valuable: it offers a discrete, sparse, learned KC representation that can be plugged into an interpretable classical model such as BKT, and the ablation in Table 4 gives reasonable evidence that the quantization step itself matters. I do not see a definitional circularity in using the learned codes as auxiliary KCs, since they are model parameters optimized for prediction rather than quantities derived from BKT's own equations. However, the paper currently does not provide enough experimental protocol to establish the central transfer claim: the data split is unspecified, the way BKT consumes multi-hot auxiliary KCs is not described, and all results are single runs without variance or significance tests. The significance of the method is therefore conditional on correcting these issues.

major comments (4)

[Section 5.1.3 / Section 4.2.1] The 80/10/10 split is never specified as interaction-level, student-level, or question-level, and this determines whether the headline BKT+aux gains in Table 3 support a representation-learning claim. If the split is random at the interaction level, the same exercises appear in training and test, so the learned per-exercise embedding x_Ex and the resulting auxiliary code u_Ex can memorize item-level statistics such as difficulty or answer bias; the Table 3 gains would then be transductive rather than evidence of transferable latent KCs. If the split is question-disjoint, the paper provides no rule for constructing u_Ex for held-out questions, so BKT+aux cannot be applied as described. Please state the split explicitly, evaluate with held-out questions, and either provide a construction rule for unseen exercises or restrict the claims accordingly. The same ambiguity affects the SBRKT results in Table 2.
[Section 4.4 / Section 5.2.2] The paper never specifies how BKT is trained with multi-hot input. Section 3.1 defines BKT for a single KC with a binary latent state, while the auxiliary KCs and the original KCs are both multi-hot vectors (Sections 4.1 and 4.4). To reproduce BKT+aux, one needs to know whether each interaction is replicated for each active KC, whether a separate BKT model is fitted for every auxiliary bit, whether some aggregation over KCs is used, and how the per-KC predictions are combined into a single response prediction. Without this description, the central downstream experiment cannot be implemented from the paper alone.
[Section 5.2 / Tables 2 and 3] Every reported AUC is a single run with no standard deviation, confidence interval, or significance test. The claim that BKT+aux 'consistently enhances' BKT is not established by the numbers as reported; for example, on Algebra2005 the improvement is 0.7634 to 0.7655, a difference of 0.0021 that is within normal run-to-run noise for KT models. Please report means and standard deviations over multiple seeds and provide paired significance tests, at least for the BKT versus BKT+aux comparison and for the headline riiid2020 gain.
[Section 5.1.1 / Section 5.1.3] The paper provides insufficient reproducibility details for the empirical claims. There is no code, no exact preprocessing pipeline, no description of how the 'million entry' riiid2020 subset was selected, no hyperparameter settings for the baselines (e.g., hidden sizes for DKVMN, deepIRT, and QIKT), and no specification of the BKT implementation used. In addition, Table 1 labels Algebra2005 as having 173,650 'questions,' which is several orders of magnitude larger than the other datasets and appears more consistent with an interaction or transaction count; please clarify. These omissions make it impossible to independently verify the comparisons, and they should be addressed for a methodological paper whose main evidence is empirical.

minor comments (5)

[Section 4.2.2] The top-Cmax mask and the threshold f(x) are applied sequentially, so a selected coordinate with e_Ex <= 0 is mapped to beta rather than alpha; the resulting vector can have fewer than Cmax active auxiliary KCs. Please clarify whether this is intended and how it interacts with the description of Cmax as the maximum number of active auxiliary KCs.
[Section 5.3 / Table 4] The naming is inconsistent: the text defines SBRKTtanh and SBRKT10, but Table 4 uses SBRtanh and SBR10, and the text refers to 'QCKTdense' where the table uses 'SBRdense'. Please align the names.
[References] The bibliography entry for Stamper et al. contains a placeholder '[data set name]' instead of the actual dataset title; please complete the reference.
[Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including the duplicated sentence in the introduction ('This can help mitigate...'), 'the the likelihood' in Section 3.1, 'Theoy' for 'Theory' in Section 5.1.2, and 'prepossessing' in Table 1's caption. Please proofread the manuscript.
[Figure 1] Figure 1 is a schematic of the architecture but does not indicate dimensions, the straight-through estimator path, or the exact location of the sparsity mask; adding these details would make the figure more informative.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; auxiliary KCs are fitted inputs to an independently parameterized BKT, not derived from BKT's equations.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: SBRKT learns per-exercise binary vectors uEx by optimizing the KT prediction objective (Eqs. 6-17), and these vectors are then treated as ordinary KC multi-hot inputs to BKT, whose HMM parameters are independently estimated. Nothing in BKT's update equations is used to define uEx, and no result or uniqueness claim is imported from prior work by the authors. The only concern close to circularity is that the auxiliary representation is fitted to the same datasets and objective used in evaluation, so the BKT+aux gains in Table 3 are not independent evidence of latent skill discovery; a random interaction-level 80/10/10 split would let per-exercise embeddings memorize item statistics. That is a leakage and generalization risk, not a definitional reduction. The split is unspecified in Section 5.1.3, but this affects validity of the transfer claim rather than making the derivation equivalent to its inputs. No self-citations are load-bearing; the straight-through estimator and model components are standard external techniques.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on a few hand-chosen capacities (M, Cmax, embedding dimension, hidden size) and on the trained alpha/beta discretization levels. The auxiliary KCs are internal latent constructs with no external evidence. The unstated split protocol is an additional load-bearing assumption.

free parameters (5)

M (number of auxiliary KCs) = 32
Set by hand; determines the dimensionality of the binary representation and the capacity available to BKT in downstream experiments.
Cmax (maximum active auxiliary KCs per exercise) = 4
Set by hand; enforces sparsity and controls which binary features are nonzero for each exercise.
alpha and beta (discretization levels) = Trained via p_alpha and p_beta; values not reported
Learned scalars that define the two quantization levels; downstream tasks map alpha to 1 and beta to 0, so their trained values influence feature quality.
Embedding dimension d = 32
Chosen hyperparameter for exercise embeddings; it also fixes M when the linear layer output width is set to d.
LSTM hidden size h = 128
Chosen hyperparameter for sequence modeling capacity.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Auxiliary KCs are latent discrete skills that can be learned from interaction data and are useful beyond the training objective.
The whole method assumes readable binary tags exist and improve downstream models. Section 1 states this as motivation, but the paper provides no external validation of the learned tags.
domain assumption The straight-through estimator gives a usable gradient approximation for the top-Cmax quantization step.
Section 4.2.2 treats the discretization function as identity in the backward pass. This is an approximation from prior work, not proven for this architecture.
domain assumption Dataset splits are interaction-level, so every test exercise already has a learned embedding.
Section 5.1.3 specifies an 80/10/10 split but not the split unit. The architecture in Section 4.2.1 requires an embedding for every exercise; if test exercises are new, the auxiliary KC vector cannot be built.

invented entities (1)

Auxiliary knowledge concepts (auxiliary KCs)
purpose: Binary latent tags that augment human-defined KCs and can be fed into downstream KT models such as BKT and DKT.
They are learned entirely from the same training data and evaluated only by AUC on held-out responses from the same datasets. No external labels, no transfer experiment, and no interpretability study demonstrate that they correspond to real cognitive skills.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sparse Binary Representation Learning for Knowledge Tracing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X35S3VW6

@misc{pith2026250109893,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sparse Binary Representation Learning for Knowledge Tracing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X35S3VW6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09893}
}

read the original abstract

Knowledge tracing (KT) models aim to predict students' future performance based on their historical interactions. Most existing KT models rely exclusively on human-defined knowledge concepts (KCs) associated with exercises. As a result, the effectiveness of these models is highly dependent on the quality and completeness of the predefined KCs. Human errors in labeling and the cost of covering all potential underlying KCs can limit model performance. In this paper, we propose a KT model, Sparse Binary Representation KT (SBRKT), that generates new KC labels, referred to as auxiliary KCs, which can augment the predefined KCs to address the limitations of relying solely on human-defined KCs. These are learned through a binary vector representation, where each bit indicates the presence (one) or absence (zero) of an auxiliary KC. The resulting discrete representation allows these auxiliary KCs to be utilized in training any KT model that incorporates KCs. Unlike pre-trained dense embeddings, which are limited to models designed to accept such vectors, our discrete representations are compatible with both classical models, such as Bayesian Knowledge Tracing (BKT), and modern deep learning approaches. To generate this discrete representation, SBRKT employs a binarization method that learns a sparse representation, fully trainable via stochastic gradient descent. Additionally, SBRKT incorporates a recurrent neural network (RNN) to capture temporal dynamics and predict future student responses by effectively combining the auxiliary and predefined KCs. Experimental results demonstrate that SBRKT outperforms the tested baselines on several datasets and achieves competitive performance on others. Furthermore, incorporating the learned auxiliary KCs consistently enhances the performance of BKT across all tested datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09893 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[1]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTIO...
[2]

Badrinath, A., Wang, F., and Pardos, Z. A. (2021). pybkt: An accessible library of bayesian knowledge tracing models. In Hsiao, S. I., Sahebi, S. S., Bouchet, F., and Vie, J., editors, Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, EDM 2021, virtual, June 29 - July 2, 2021 . International Educational Data Mining Society

work page 2021
[3]

Bengio, Y., Courville, A., and Vincent, P. (2013a). Representation learning: A review and new perspectives. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 35(8):1798--1828

work page 2013
[4]

Bengio, Y., L \'e onard, N., and Courville, A. C. (2013b). Estimating or propagating gradients through stochastic neurons for conditional computation. ArXiv , abs/1308.3432

arXiv 2013
[5]

N., Gorgun, G., and Pardos, Z

Bulut, O., Shin, J., Yildirim-Erbasli, S. N., Gorgun, G., and Pardos, Z. A. (2023). An introduction to bayesian knowledge tracing with pybkt. Psych , 5(3):770--786

work page 2023
[6]

Chen, J., Liu, Z., Huang, S., Liu, Q., and Luo, W. (2023). Improving interpretability of deep sequential knowledge tracing models with question-centric cognitive representations. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 37(12):14196--14204

work page 2023
[7]

Choi, Y., Lee, Y., Shin, D., Cho, J., Park, S., Lee, S., Baek, J., Bae, C., Kim, B., and Heo, J. (2020). Ednet: A large-scale hierarchical dataset in education. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education , pages 69--73, Morocco. Springer

work page 2020
[8]

Corbett, A. T. and Anderson, J. R. (1994). Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge. User modeling and user-adapted interaction , 4:253--278

work page 1994

Show all 23 references

[9]

Gervet, T., Koedinger, K., Schneider, J., Mitchell, T., et al. (2020). When is deep learning the best approach to knowledge tracing? Journal of Educational Data Mining , 12(3):31--54

2020
[10]

Ghosh, A., Heffernan, N., and Lan, A. S. (2020). Context-aware attentive knowledge tracing. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining , KDD '20, page 2330–2339, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery

2020
[11]

M., Lindsey, R

Khajah, M. M., Lindsey, R. V., and Mozer, M. C. (2016). How deep is knowledge tracing? ArXiv , abs/1604.02416

2016 arXiv
[12]

and Wang, Z

Li, L. and Wang, Z. (2023). Calibrated q-matrix-enhanced deep knowledge tracing with relational attention mechanism. Applied Sciences , 13(4):2541

2023
[13]

Liu, Y., Yang, Y., Chen, X., Shen, J., Zhang, H., and Yu, Y. (2020). Improving knowledge tracing via pre-training question embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.05031

2020 arXiv
[14]

Liu, Z., Liu, Q., Chen, J., Huang, S., Tang, J., and Luo, W. (2022). pykt: A python library to benchmark deep learning based knowledge tracing models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 35, pages 18542--18555. Curran Associates, Inc

2022
[15]

Nakagawa, H., Iwasawa, Y., and Matsuo, Y. (2018). End-to-end deep knowledge tracing by learning binary question-embedding. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW) , pages 334--342. IEEE

2018
[16]

Pel \' a nek, R. (2017). Bayesian knowledge tracing, logistic models, and beyond: an overview of learner modeling techniques. User Model. User Adapt. Interact. , 27(3-5):313--350

2017
[17]

J., and Sohl-Dickstein, J

Piech, C., Bassen, J., Huang, J., Ganguli, S., Sahami, M., Guibas, L. J., and Sohl-Dickstein, J. (2015). Deep knowledge tracing. Advances in neural information processing systems , 28

2015
[18]

Stamper, J., Niculescu-Mizil, A., Ritter, S., Gordon, G., and Koedinger, K. (2010). [data set name]. [challenge/development] data set from kdd cup 2010 educational data mining challenge. Retrieved from http://pslcdatashop.web.cmu.edu/KDDCup/downloads.jsp

2010
[19]

Wang, W., Ma, H., Zhao, Y., and Li, Z. (2024). Pre-training question embeddings for improving knowledge tracing with self-supervised bi-graph co-contrastive learning. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data , 18(4):1--20

2024
[20]

Wang, W., Ma, H., Zhao, Y., Li, Z., and He, X. (2021). Relevance-aware q-matrix calibration for knowledge tracing. In Artificial Neural Networks and Machine Learning--ICANN 2021: 30th International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks, Bratislava, Slovakia, September 14--1...

2021
[21]

Wang, W., Ma, H., Zhao, Y., Li, Z., and He, X. (2022). Tracking knowledge proficiency of students with calibrated q-matrix. Expert Systems with Applications , 192:116454

2022
[22]

Yeung, C. (2019). Deep-irt: Make deep learning based knowledge tracing explainable using item response theory. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Educational Data Mining , Montr \' e al, Canada. International Educational Data Mining Society (IEDMS)

2019
[23]

Zhang, J., Shi, X., King, I., and Yeung, D. (2017). Dynamic key-value memory networks for knowledge tracing. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web , pages 765--774, Perth, Australia. ACM

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTIO...

[2] [2]

Badrinath, A., Wang, F., and Pardos, Z. A. (2021). pybkt: An accessible library of bayesian knowledge tracing models. In Hsiao, S. I., Sahebi, S. S., Bouchet, F., and Vie, J., editors, Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, EDM 2021, virtual, June 29 - July 2, 2021 . International Educational Data Mining Society

work page 2021

[3] [3]

Bengio, Y., Courville, A., and Vincent, P. (2013a). Representation learning: A review and new perspectives. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 35(8):1798--1828

work page 2013

[4] [4]

Bengio, Y., L \'e onard, N., and Courville, A. C. (2013b). Estimating or propagating gradients through stochastic neurons for conditional computation. ArXiv , abs/1308.3432

arXiv 2013

[5] [5]

N., Gorgun, G., and Pardos, Z

Bulut, O., Shin, J., Yildirim-Erbasli, S. N., Gorgun, G., and Pardos, Z. A. (2023). An introduction to bayesian knowledge tracing with pybkt. Psych , 5(3):770--786

work page 2023

[6] [6]

Chen, J., Liu, Z., Huang, S., Liu, Q., and Luo, W. (2023). Improving interpretability of deep sequential knowledge tracing models with question-centric cognitive representations. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 37(12):14196--14204

work page 2023

[7] [7]

Choi, Y., Lee, Y., Shin, D., Cho, J., Park, S., Lee, S., Baek, J., Bae, C., Kim, B., and Heo, J. (2020). Ednet: A large-scale hierarchical dataset in education. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education , pages 69--73, Morocco. Springer

work page 2020

[8] [8]

Corbett, A. T. and Anderson, J. R. (1994). Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge. User modeling and user-adapted interaction , 4:253--278

work page 1994