skip to main content
10.1145/3589334.3645437acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswwwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Free Access

Towards the Identifiability and Explainability for Personalized Learner Modeling: An Inductive Paradigm

Authors Info & Claims
Published:13 May 2024Publication History

ABSTRACT

Personalized learner modeling using cognitive diagnosis (CD), which aims to model learners' cognitive states by diagnosing learner traits from behavioral data, is a fundamental yet significant task in many web learning services. Existing cognitive diagnosis models (CDMs) follow theproficiency-response paradigm that views learner traits and question parameters as trainable embeddings and learns them through learner performance prediction. However, we notice that this paradigm leads to the inevitable non-identifiability and explainability overfitting problem, which is harmful to the quantification of learners' cognitive states and the quality of web learning services. To address these problems, we propose an identifiable cognitive diagnosis framework (ID-CDF) based on a novelresponse-proficiency-response paradigm inspired by encoder-decoder models. Specifically, we first devise the diagnostic module of ID-CDF, which leverages inductive learning to eliminate randomness in optimization to guarantee identifiability and captures the monotonicity between overall response data distribution and cognitive states to prevent explainability overfitting. Next, we propose a flexible predictive module for ID-CDF to ensure diagnosis preciseness. We further present an implementation of ID-CDF, i.e., ID-CDM, to illustrate its usability. Extensive experiments on four real-world datasets with different characteristics demonstrate that ID-CDF can effectively address the problems without loss of diagnosis preciseness. Our code is available at https://github.com/CSLiJT/ID-CDF.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

rfp0679.mp4

Supplemental video

mp4

13.2 MB

References

  1. Markus Bayer, Marc-André Kaufhold, and Christian Reuter. 2023. A Survey on Data Augmentation for Text Classification. ACM Comput. Surv., Vol. 55, 7 (2023), 146:1--146:39. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544558Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. George Casella Berger, Roger. 2024. Statistical Inference 2 ed.). Chapman and Hall/CRC, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Justyna Brzezinska. 2020. Item response theory models in the measurement theory. Commun. Stat. Simul. Comput., Vol. 49, 12 (2020), 3299--3313.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Lei Chen, Le Wu, Kun Zhang, Richang Hong, Defu Lian, Zhiqiang Zhang, Jun Zhou, and Meng Wang. 2023. Improving Recommendation Fairness via Data Augmentation. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023 (Austin, TX, USA) (WWW '23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1012--1020. https://doi.org/10.1145/3543507.3583341Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Kyunghyun Cho, Bart van Merrienboer, cC aglar Gü lcc ehre, Dzmitry Bahdanau, Fethi Bougares, Holger Schwenk, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Learning Phrase Representations using RNN Encoder-Decoder for Statistical Machine Translation. In EMNLP. ACL, 1724--1734.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Susan Craw. 2010. Manhattan Distance. Springer US, Boston, MA, 639--639. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0--387--30164--8_506Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Jimmy de la Torre. 2009. DINA Model and Parameter Estimation: A Didactic. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, Vol. 34, 1 (2009), 115--130.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Mingyu Feng, Neil T. Heffernan, and Kenneth R. Koedinger. 2009. Addressing the assessment challenge with an online system that tutors as it assesses. User Model. User Adapt. Interact., Vol. 19, 3 (2009), 243--266.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Gerhard H. Fischer. 1995. Derivations of the Rasch Model. Springer New York, New York, NY, 15--38.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Francc ois Fouss, Alain Pirotte, Jean-Michel Renders, and Marco Saerens. 2007. Random-Walk Computation of Similarities between Nodes of a Graph with Application to Collaborative Recommendation. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., Vol. 19, 3 (2007), 355--369.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Yingqiang Ge, Juntao Tan, Yan Zhu, Yinglong Xia, Jiebo Luo, Shuchang Liu, Zuohui Fu, Shijie Geng, Zelong Li, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2022. Explainable Fairness in Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (Madrid, Spain) (SIGIR '22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 681--691. https://doi.org/10.1145/3477495.3531973Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Alan E. Gelfand and Adrian F. M. Smith. 1990. Sampling-Based Approaches to Calculating Marginal Densities. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc., Vol. 85, 410 (1990), 398--409.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Golnaz Ghiasi, Yin Cui, Aravind Srinivas, Rui Qian, Tsung-Yi Lin, Ekin D. Cubuk, Quoc V. Le, and Barret Zoph. 2021. Simple Copy-Paste Is a Strong Data Augmentation Method for Instance Segmentation. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2021, virtual, June 19--25, 2021. Computer Vision Foundation / IEEE, 2918--2928. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR46437.2021.00294Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Mark Gierl and Jacqueline Leighton (Eds.). 2007. Cognitive Diagnostic Assessment for Education: Theory and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611186Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Xavier Glorot and Yoshua Bengio. 2010. Understanding the difficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks. In AISTATS (JMLR Proceedings, Vol. 9). JMLR.org, 249--256.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. W. K. Hastings. 1970. Monte Carlo Sampling Methods Using Markov Chains and Their Applications. Biometrika, Vol. 57, 1 (1970), 97--109.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Stamper J., Niculescu-Mizil A., Ritter S., G.J. Gordon, and Koedinger K.R. 2010. Algebra | 2006--2007. Development data set from KDD Cup 2010 Educational Data Mining Challenge. (2010). http://pslcdatashop.web.cmu.edu/KDDCup/downloads.jspGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Taegwan Kang, Hwanhee Lee, Byeongjin Choe, and Kyomin Jung. 2021. Entangled Bidirectional Encoder to Autoregressive Decoder for Sequential Recommendation. In SIGIR. ACM, 1657--1661.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization. In ICLR (Poster).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Sheng Li, Quanlong Guan, Liangda Fang, Fang Xiao, Zhenyu He, Yizhou He, and Weiqi Luo. 2022. Cognitive Diagnosis Focusing on Knowledge Concepts. In CIKM. ACM, 3272--3281.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Xiaopeng Li and James She. 2017. Collaborative Variational Autoencoder for Recommender Systems. In KDD. ACM, 305--314.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Qi Liu. 2021. Towards a New Generation of Cognitive Diagnosis. In IJCAI. ijcai.org, 4961--4964.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Qi Liu, Run-ze Wu, Enhong Chen, Guandong Xu, Yu Su, Zhigang Chen, and Guoping Hu. 2018. Fuzzy Cognitive Diagnosis for Modelling Examinee Performance. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol., Vol. 9, 4 (2018), 48:1--48:26.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Jinwei Luo, Mingkai He, Weike Pan, and Zhong Ming. 2023. BGNN: Behavior-aware graph neural network for heterogeneous session-based recommendation. Frontiers of Computer Science, Vol. 17, 5 (12 Jan 2023), 175336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11704-022--2100-yGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Leland McInnes, John Healy, and James Melville. 2020. UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reduction. arxiv: 1802.03426 [stat.ML]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Qiong Nan, Juan Cao, Yongchun Zhu, Yanyan Wang, and Jintao Li. 2021. MDFEND: Multi-domain Fake News Detection. In CIKM. ACM, 3343--3347.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Radek Pelánek. 2017. Bayesian knowledge tracing, logistic models, and beyond: an overview of learner modeling techniques. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, Vol. 27, 3 (Dec. 2017), 313--350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-017--9193--2Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Shaina Raza and Chen Ding. 2022. Fake news detection based on news content and social contexts: a transformer-based approach. Int. J. Data Sci. Anal., Vol. 13, 4 (2022), 335--362.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Mark D. Reckase. 2009. Multidimensional Item Response Theory Models. Springer New York, New York, NY, 79--112.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Suvash Sedhain, Aditya Krishna Menon, Scott Sanner, and Lexing Xie. 2015. AutoRec: Autoencoders Meet Collaborative Filtering. In WWW (Companion Volume). ACM, 111--112.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Nitish Srivastava, Geoffrey E. Hinton, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2014. Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. J. Mach. Learn. Res., Vol. 15, 1 (2014), 1929--1958.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Kikumi K. Tatsuoka. 1983. Rule Space: An Approach for Dealing with Misconceptions Based on Item Response Theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, Vol. 20, 4 (1983), 345--354.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Fei Wang, Qi Liu, Enhong Chen, Zhenya Huang, Yu Yin, Shijin Wang, and Yu Su. 2022. NeuralCD: A General Framework for Cognitive Diagnosis. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (2022), 1--16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Jinze Wu, Qi Liu, Zhenya Huang, Yuting Ning, Hao Wang, Enhong Chen, Jinfeng Yi, and Bowen Zhou. 2021. Hierarchical Personalized Federated Learning for User Modeling. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021 (Ljubljana, Slovenia) (WWW '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 957--968. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442381.3449926Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Lianwei Wu, Yuan Rao, Cong Zhang, Yongqiang Zhao, and Ambreen Nazir. 2023. Category-Controlled Encoder-Decoder for Fake News Detection. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., Vol. 35, 2 (2023), 1242--1257.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Mike Wu, Richard Lee Davis, Benjamin W. Domingue, Chris Piech, and Noah D. Goodman. 2020. Variational Item Response Theory: Fast, Accurate, and Expressive. In EDM. International Educational Data Mining Society.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Yao Wu, Christopher DuBois, Alice X. Zheng, and Martin Ester. 2016. Collaborative Denoising Auto-Encoders for Top-N Recommender Systems. In WSDM. ACM, 153--162.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Gongjun Xu. 2019. Identifiability and Cognitive Diagnosis Models. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 333--357.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Gongjun Xu and Stephanie Zhang. 2016. Identifiability of Diagnostic Classification Models. Psychometrika, Vol. 81, 3 (Sept. 2016), 625--649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-015--9471-zGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Peng Xu and Michel C. Desmarais. 2018. An Empirical Research on Identifiability and Q-matrix Design for DINA model. In EDM. International Educational Data Mining Society (IEDMS).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Chun-Kit Yeung. 2019. Deep-IRT: Make Deep Learning Based Knowledge Tracing Explainable Using Item Response Theory. In EDM. International Educational Data Mining Society (IEDMS).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Shengjun Yin, Kailai Yang, and Hongzhi Wang. 2020. A MOOC Courses Recommendation System Based on Learning Behaviours. In ACM TUR-C'20: ACM Turing Celebration Conference, Hefei, China, May 22--24, 2020. ACM, 133--137. https://doi.org/10.1145/3393527.3393550Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Jifan Yu, Yuquan Wang, Qingyang Zhong, Gan Luo, Yiming Mao, Kai Sun, Wenzheng Feng, Wei Xu, Shulin Cao, Kaisheng Zeng, Zijun Yao, Lei Hou, Yankai Lin, Peng Li, Jie Zhou, Bin Xu, Juanzi Li, Jie Tang, and Maosong Sun. 2021. MOOCCubeX: A Large Knowledge-Centered Repository for Adaptive Learning in MOOCs. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management (Virtual Event, Queensland, Australia) (CIKM '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 4643--4652. https://doi.org/10.1145/3459637.3482010Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Chuang Zhao, Hongke Zhao, Ming HE, Jian Zhang, and Jianping Fan. 2023. Cross-domain recommendation via user interest alignment. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023 (Austin, TX, USA) (WWW '23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 887--896.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Towards the Identifiability and Explainability for Personalized Learner Modeling: An Inductive Paradigm

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        WWW '24: Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024
        May 2024
        4826 pages
        ISBN:9798400701719
        DOI:10.1145/3589334

        Copyright © 2024 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 13 May 2024

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate1,899of8,196submissions,23%
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)29
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)29

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader