Spaces:
Running
Running
Update README.md
Browse files
README.md
CHANGED
|
@@ -7,4 +7,58 @@ sdk: static
|
|
| 7 |
pinned: false
|
| 8 |
---
|
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
pinned: false
|
| 8 |
---
|
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
+
# Knowledge Tracing with Math Solutions
|
| 11 |
+
|
| 12 |
+
## Motivation
|
| 13 |
+
Knowledge Tracing (KT) is a core research task that models the evolution of a learner’s knowledge state based on their problem-solving history.
|
| 14 |
+
This capability is essential for **Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS)** to provide adaptive feedback and personalized guidance.
|
| 15 |
+
|
| 16 |
+
Traditional KT research has primarily relied on student–item interactions in the form of binary correctness (1/0).
|
| 17 |
+
While deep learning-based models such as **DKT, SAINT, and AKT** have brought notable improvements,
|
| 18 |
+
they still face **limitations in transferability and generalization** across datasets.
|
| 19 |
+
|
| 20 |
+
---
|
| 21 |
+
|
| 22 |
+
## Challenges
|
| 23 |
+
KT continues to face long-standing issues:
|
| 24 |
+
- **Cold start problem**
|
| 25 |
+
- **Lack of interpretability**
|
| 26 |
+
|
| 27 |
+
Recent approaches have introduced natural language as a new modality:
|
| 28 |
+
- **LKT**: models questions as natural language prompts to mitigate cold start
|
| 29 |
+
- **EFKT**: applies cognitive frameworks to enhance interpretability
|
| 30 |
+
- **LBMKT**: uses LLM encoders to summarize a learner’s knowledge state in natural language
|
| 31 |
+
|
| 32 |
+
These works suggest the potential of natural language to overcome KT limitations, but their performance gains remain modest.
|
| 33 |
+
|
| 34 |
+
---
|
| 35 |
+
|
| 36 |
+
## Related Progress in Programming Education
|
| 37 |
+
Programming education has seen stronger improvements by leveraging **richer interaction data** such as:
|
| 38 |
+
- Students’ code submissions
|
| 39 |
+
- Textual questions
|
| 40 |
+
|
| 41 |
+
Recent studies integrating these signals into KT architectures have shown significant improvements.
|
| 42 |
+
For example, an **ACL 2025 paper** demonstrated that student question texts yielded **state-of-the-art performance** in programming education KT.
|
| 43 |
+
|
| 44 |
+
---
|
| 45 |
+
|
| 46 |
+
## Advances in LLMs
|
| 47 |
+
Recent LLMs have enabled more **systematic and consistent step-by-step reasoning** through reinforcement learning and alignment:
|
| 48 |
+
- **Math-Shepherd**: leveraged verifiable reward signals → substantial gains on GSM8K and MATH
|
| 49 |
+
- **PRM-Guided GFlowNets**: improved reasoning trace quality and diversity → better generalization on unseen datasets
|
| 50 |
+
|
| 51 |
+
---
|
| 52 |
+
|
| 53 |
+
## Our Approach
|
| 54 |
+
Building on these developments, our project integrates **LLM-generated step-by-step math solutions** into KT inputs.
|
| 55 |
+
This provides **richer interaction signals** beyond simple correctness.
|
| 56 |
+
|
| 57 |
+
**Hypothesis:**
|
| 58 |
+
Modeling student–item interactions with synthesized solutions can break through the current performance ceiling of KT models.
|
| 59 |
+
|
| 60 |
+
---
|
| 61 |
+
|
| 62 |
+
## Research Question
|
| 63 |
+
> Can incorporating LLM-generated mathematical solutions into KT inputs
|
| 64 |
+
> push Knowledge Tracing beyond its existing limitations?
|