analiza aiqbench
This research demonstrates that a single numerical mastery threshold cannot be universally applied across different knowledge tracing models, as Bayesian and neural approaches interpret cutoffs differently due to their distinct output probabilities. Consequently, educational systems must recalibrate these thresholds whenever switching models or adjusting instructional priorities to ensure fair advancement rates and balanced practice burdens for all students.
One Mastery Threshold Does Not Fit All Knowledge Tracing Models
arXiv:2610.00095v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Tutoring systems use mastery thresholds to decide when students can stop practicing and advance, but the same numerical threshold can lead to very different decisions when the underlying knowledge tracing (KT) model changes. We examine six KT models across four public educational datasets and evaluate 12 thresholds from 0.50 to 0.99 using post-advancement performance, advancement coverage, practice burden, and disparities across prior-performance groups. We also identify thresholds that balance performance, extra practice, and advancement under 30 predefined instructional settings. Bayesian Knowledge Tracing (BKT) is relatively insensitive to threshold changes, while neural models become much more selective as thresholds increase. This partly reflects different model outputs: BKT estimates latent mastery probability, whereas neural models estimate the probability of a correct next response, so the same cutoff does not represent the same level of mastery. The best-balanced threshold varied substantially across models and settings. In half of the tested settings, neural models and BKT differed by more than 0.10 in their selected thresholds, although this gap became smaller when greater priority was placed on reducing extra practice and allowing more students to advance. Stricter thresholds also did not reliably reduce performance gaps and could disproportionately restrict advancement, with stronger-prior students advancing up to 3.26 times as often as weaker-prior students. These results show that mastery thresholds should be recalibrated when the KT model or instructional priorities change and evaluated by their effects on performance, practice, advancement, and access.
Abstract:Tutoring systems use mastery thresholds to decide when students can stop practicing and advance, but the same numerical threshold can lead to very different decisions when the underlying knowledge tracing (KT) model changes. We examine six KT models across four public educational datasets and evaluate 12 thresholds from 0.50 to 0.99 using post-advancement performance, advancement coverage, practice burden, and disparities across prior-performance groups. We also identify thresholds that balance performance, extra practice, and advancement under 30 predefined instructional settings. Bayesian Knowledge Tracing (BKT) is relatively insensitive to threshold changes, while neural models become much more selective as thresholds increase. This partly reflects different model outputs: BKT estimates latent mastery probability, whereas neural models estimate the probability of a correct next response, so the same cutoff does not represent the same level of mastery. The best-balanced threshold varied substantially across models and settings. In half of the tested settings, neural models and BKT differed by more than 0.10 in their selected thresholds, although this gap became smaller when greater priority was placed on reducing extra practice and allowing more students to advance. Stricter thresholds also did not reliably reduce performance gaps and could disproportionately restrict advancement, with stronger-prior students advancing up to 3.26 times as often as weaker-prior students. These results show that mastery thresholds should be recalibrated when the KT model or instructional priorities change and evaluated by their effects on performance, practice, advancement, and access.
Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2610.00095 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2610.00095v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.00095 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 328 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
[AINews] High Taste Testers Ep. 1
Latent Space · 17 oct. 2026

Open-Source AI & Open Models Reading List
Interconnects · 11 sept. 2026

Query claims in natural language with Amazon Bedrock Knowledge Bases
AWS · 30 sept. 2026
[AINews] Modal’s $1B ARR, $16B Series D makes it NYC’s newest AI Infra Decacorn, 3x usage and 3x valuation in 5 months, 15x in 1 yr
Latent Space · 15 oct. 2026