Empirical Evaluation of Deep Learning Models for Knowledge Tracing: Of Hyperparameters and Metrics on Performance and Replicability
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
We review and evaluate a body of deep learning knowledge tracing (DLKT) models with openly available and widely-used data sets, and with a novel data set of students learning to program. The evaluated knowledge tracing models include Vanilla-DKT, two Long Short-Term Memory Deep Knowledge Tracing (LSTM-DKT) variants, two Dynamic Key-Value Memory Network (DKVMN) variants, and Self-Attentive Knowledge Tracing (SAKT). As baselines, we evaluate simple non-learning models, logistic regression and Bayesian Knowledge Tracing (BKT). To evaluate how different aspects of DLKT models influence model performance, we test input and output layer variations found in the compared models that are independent of the main architectures. We study maximum attempt count options, including filtering out long attempt sequences, that have been implicitly and explicitly used in prior studies. We contrast the observed performance variations against variations from non-model properties such as randomness and hardware. Performance of models is assessed using multiple metrics, whereby we also contrast the impact of the choice of metric on model performance. The key contributions of this work are: Evidence that DLKT models generally outperform more traditional models, but not necessarily by much and not always; Evidence that even simple baselines with little to no predictive value may outperform DLKT models, especially in terms of accuracy -- highlighting importance of selecting proper baselines for comparison; Disambiguation of properties that affect performance in DLKT models including metric choice, input and output layer variations, common hyperparameters, random seeding and hardware; Discussion of issues in replicability when evaluating DLKT models, including discrepancies in prior reported results and methodology. Model implementations, evaluation code, and data are published as a part of this work.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 30 of its 138 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Dec 2021.
Builds on
30 of 138 references.
References · 30
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
- 2019A Comprehensive Survey on Transfer Learningcited by 1,154
- 2015Effective Approaches to Attention-based Neural Machine Translationcited by 1,024
- 2014Neural Turing Machinescited by 630
- 2013Generating Sequences With Recurrent Neural Networkscited by 549
- 2014Memory Networkscited by 354
- 2015Deep Knowledge Tracingcited by 328
- 2016Key-Value Memory Networks for Directly Reading Documentscited by 223
- 2021Accounting for Variance in Machine Learning Benchmarkscited by 195
- 2020Context-Aware Attentive Knowledge Tracingcited by 172
- 2016Dynamic Key-Value Memory Networks for Knowledge Tracingcited by 170
18 more
- 2019A Self-Attentive model for Knowledge Tracingcited by 169
- 2015A Theoretically Grounded Application of Dropout in Recurrent Neural Networkscited by 161
- 2019EKT: Exercise-aware Knowledge Tracing for Student Performance Predictioncited by 109
- 2018Troubling Trends in Machine Learning Scholarshipcited by 107
- 2019EdNet: A Large-Scale Hierarchical Dataset in Educationcited by 106
- 2020Towards an Appropriate Query, Key, and Value Computation for Knowledge Tracingcited by 79
- 2019Patient Clustering Improves Efficiency of Federated Machine Learning to predict mortality and hospital stay time using distributed Electronic Medical Recordscited by 70
- 2020RKT : Relation-Aware Self-Attention for Knowledge Tracingcited by 62
- 2019Knowledge Tracing with Sequential Key-Value Memory Networkscited by 60
- 2020SAINT+: Integrating Temporal Features for EdNet Correctness Predictioncited by 57
- 2018Addressing Two Problems in Deep Knowledge Tracing via Prediction-Consistent Regularizationcited by 53
- 2018Knowledge Tracing Machines: Factorization Machines for Knowledge Tracingcited by 42
- 2019Exploiting Cognitive Structure for Adaptive Learningcited by 36
- 2019DAS3H: Modeling Student Learning and Forgetting for Optimally Scheduling Distributed Practice of Skillscited by 26
- 2021LSTM-SAKT: LSTM-Encoded SAKT-like Transformer for Knowledge Tracingcited by 5
- 2021Do we need to go Deep? Knowledge Tracing with Big Datacited by 4
- 2020Domain Adaption for Knowledge Tracingcited by 1
- 2021An Empirical Comparison of Deep Learning Models for Knowledge Tracing on Large-Scale Datasetcited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 5.
6 papers.
- 2023simpleKT: A Simple But Tough-to-Beat Baseline for Knowledge Tracingcited by 44
- 2024Towards Modeling Learner Performance with Large Language Modelscited by 20
- 2024Synthetic Students: A Comparative Study of Bug Distribution Between Large Language Models and Computing Studentscited by 6
- 2024Benchmarking Educational Program Repaircited by 2
- 2024Deep Learning for Educational Data Sciencecited by 1
- 2024Student Answer Forecasting: Transformer-Driven Answer Choice Prediction for Language Learningcited by 0
- 2024Synthetic Students: A Comparative Study of Bug Distribution Between Large Language Models and Computing Students11 Oct 2024
- 2024Student Answer Forecasting: Transformer-Driven Answer Choice Prediction for Language Learning30 May 2024
- 2024Benchmarking Educational Program Repair8 May 2024
- 2024Deep Learning for Educational Data Science12 Apr 2024
- 2024Towards Modeling Learner Performance with Large Language Models29 Feb 2024
- 2023simpleKT: A Simple But Tough-to-Beat Baseline for Knowledge Tracing14 Feb 2023