+ Doing More with Less : Student Modeling and Performance Prediction with Reduced Content Models Yun Huang, University of Pittsburgh Yanbo Xu, Carnegie.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Random Forest Predrag Radenković 3237/10
Advertisements

Integrated Instance- and Class- based Generative Modeling for Text Classification Antti PuurulaUniversity of Waikato Sung-Hyon MyaengKAIST 5/12/2013 Australasian.
Analysis of Algorithms
Imbalanced data David Kauchak CS 451 – Fall 2013.
CPSC 502, Lecture 15Slide 1 Introduction to Artificial Intelligence (AI) Computer Science cpsc502, Lecture 15 Nov, 1, 2011 Slide credit: C. Conati, S.
Search Engines Information Retrieval in Practice All slides ©Addison Wesley, 2008.
Yue Han and Lei Yu Binghamton University.
Comparing Twitter Summarization Algorithms for Multiple Post Summaries David Inouye and Jugal K. Kalita SocialCom May 10 Hyewon Lim.
FilterBoost: Regression and Classification on Large Datasets Joseph K. Bradley 1 and Robert E. Schapire 2 1 Carnegie Mellon University 2 Princeton University.
Proactive Learning: Cost- Sensitive Active Learning with Multiple Imperfect Oracles Pinar Donmez and Jaime Carbonell Pinar Donmez and Jaime Carbonell Language.
Chapter 7 – Classification and Regression Trees
Learning on Probabilistic Labels Peng Peng, Raymond Chi-wing Wong, Philip S. Yu CSE, HKUST 1.
Exploring Reduction for Long Web Queries Niranjan Balasubramanian, Giridhar Kuamaran, Vitor R. Carvalho Speaker: Razvan Belet 1.
Software Quality Ranking: Bringing Order to Software Modules in Testing Fei Xing Michael R. Lyu Ping Guo.
Validation and Monitoring Measures of Accuracy Combining Forecasts Managing the Forecasting Process Monitoring & Control.
Karl Schnaitter and Neoklis Polyzotis (UC Santa Cruz) Serge Abiteboul (INRIA and University of Paris 11) Tova Milo (University of Tel Aviv) Automatic Index.
CAP 252 Lecture Topic: Requirement Analysis Class Exercise: Use Cases.
Three Papers: AUC, PFA and BIOInformatics The three papers are posted online.
Predictive Automatic Relevance Determination by Expectation Propagation Yuan (Alan) Qi Thomas P. Minka Rosalind W. Picard Zoubin Ghahramani.
Supervised classification performance (prediction) assessment Dr. Huiru Zheng Dr. Franscisco Azuaje School of Computing and Mathematics Faculty of Engineering.
1 Ranked Queries over sources with Boolean Query Interfaces without Ranking Support Vagelis Hristidis, Florida International University Yuheng Hu, Arizona.
Scalable Text Mining with Sparse Generative Models
Classification and Prediction: Regression Analysis
Ensemble Learning (2), Tree and Forest
Handwritten Character Recognition using Hidden Markov Models Quantifying the marginal benefit of exploiting correlations between adjacent characters and.
Statistical Natural Language Processing. What is NLP?  Natural Language Processing (NLP), or Computational Linguistics, is concerned with theoretical.
Selective Sampling on Probabilistic Labels Peng Peng, Raymond Chi-Wing Wong CSE, HKUST 1.
Learning at Low False Positive Rate Scott Wen-tau Yih Joshua Goodman Learning for Messaging and Adversarial Problems Microsoft Research Geoff Hulten Microsoft.
Host Load Prediction in a Google Compute Cloud with a Bayesian Model Sheng Di 1, Derrick Kondo 1, Walfredo Cirne 2 1 INRIA 2 Google.
MASTERS THESIS DEFENSE QBANK A Web-Based Dynamic Problem Authoring Tool BY ANN PAUL ADVISOR: PROFESSOR CLIFF SHAFFER JUNE 2013 Computer Science Department.
Transfer Learning From Multiple Source Domains via Consensus Regularization Ping Luo, Fuzhen Zhuang, Hui Xiong, Yuhong Xiong, Qing He.
A Genetic Algorithm-Based Approach for Building Accurate Decision Trees by Z. Fu, Fannie Mae Bruce Golden, University of Maryland S. Lele, University of.
Issues with Data Mining
Tag Clouds Revisited Date : 2011/12/12 Source : CIKM’11 Speaker : I- Chih Chiu Advisor : Dr. Koh. Jia-ling 1.
CS4723 Software Validation and Quality Assurance
by B. Zadrozny and C. Elkan
Iterative Readability Computation for Domain-Specific Resources By Jin Zhao and Min-Yen Kan 11/06/2010.
Event Detection using Customer Care Calls 04/17/2013 IEEE INFOCOM 2013 Yi-Chao Chen 1, Gene Moo Lee 1, Nick Duffield 2, Lili Qiu 1, Jia Wang 2 The University.
Bug Localization with Machine Learning Techniques Wujie Zheng
 Text Representation & Text Classification for Intelligent Information Retrieval Ning Yu School of Library and Information Science Indiana University.
GA-Based Feature Selection and Parameter Optimization for Support Vector Machine Cheng-Lung Huang, Chieh-Jen Wang Expert Systems with Applications, Volume.
Feature selection LING 572 Fei Xia Week 4: 1/29/08 1.
윤언근 DataMining lab.  The Web has grown exponentially in size but this growth has not been isolated to good-quality pages.  spamming and.
Weka: Experimenter and Knowledge Flow interfaces Neil Mac Parthaláin
A hybrid SOFM-SVR with a filter-based feature selection for stock market forecasting Huang, C. L. & Tsai, C. Y. Expert Systems with Applications 2008.
Automatically Repairing Broken Workflows for Evolving GUI Applications Sai Zhang University of Washington Joint work with: Hao Lü, Michael D. Ernst.
Combining multiple learners Usman Roshan. Bagging Randomly sample training data Determine classifier C i on sampled data Goto step 1 and repeat m times.
Exploiting Context Analysis for Combining Multiple Entity Resolution Systems -Ramu Bandaru Zhaoqi Chen Dmitri V.kalashnikov Sharad Mehrotra.
Stefan Mutter, Mark Hall, Eibe Frank University of Freiburg, Germany University of Waikato, New Zealand The 17th Australian Joint Conference on Artificial.
A Novel Local Patch Framework for Fixing Supervised Learning Models Yilei Wang 1, Bingzheng Wei 2, Jun Yan 2, Yang Hu 2, Zhi-Hong Deng 1, Zheng Chen 2.
Guest lecture: Feature Selection Alan Qi Dec 2, 2004.
Class Imbalance in Text Classification
Improved Video Categorization from Text Metadata and User Comments ACM SIGIR 2011:Research and development in Information Retrieval - Katja Filippova -
Data mining with DataShop Ken Koedinger CMU Director of PSLC Professor of Human-Computer Interaction & Psychology Carnegie Mellon University.
Brian Lukoff Stanford University October 13, 2006.
Chapter. 3: Retrieval Evaluation 1/2/2016Dr. Almetwally Mostafa 1.
NTU & MSRA Ming-Feng Tsai
Learning Photographic Global Tonal Adjustment with a Database of Input / Output Image Pairs.
Identifying “Best Bet” Web Search Results by Mining Past User Behavior Author: Eugene Agichtein, Zijian Zheng (Microsoft Research) Source: KDD2006 Reporter:
Learning to Rank: From Pairwise Approach to Listwise Approach Authors: Zhe Cao, Tao Qin, Tie-Yan Liu, Ming-Feng Tsai, and Hang Li Presenter: Davidson Date:
Instance Discovery and Schema Matching With Applications to Biological Deep Web Data Integration Tantan Liu, Fan Wang, Gagan Agrawal {liut, wangfa,
CSC 212 – Data Structures Lecture 15: Big-Oh Notation.
Tree and Forest Classification and Regression Tree Bagging of trees Boosting trees Random Forest.
1 Machine Learning Lecture 8: Ensemble Methods Moshe Koppel Slides adapted from Raymond J. Mooney and others.
Paul van Mulbregt Sheera Knecht Jon Yamron Dragon Systems Detection at Dragon Systems.
Erasmus University Rotterdam
Binghui Wang, Le Zhang, Neil Zhenqiang Gong
Graph-based Security and Privacy Analytics via Collective Classification with Joint Weight Learning and Propagation Binghui Wang, Jinyuan Jia, and Neil.
GANG: Detecting Fraudulent Users in OSNs
Happiness and Stocks Ali Javed, Tim Stevens
Presentation transcript:

+ Doing More with Less : Student Modeling and Performance Prediction with Reduced Content Models Yun Huang, University of Pittsburgh Yanbo Xu, Carnegie Mellon University Peter Brusilovsky, University of Pittsburgh

+ This talk… What? More effective student modeling and performance prediction How? A novel framework reducing content model without loss of quality Why? Better and cheaper Reduced to 10%~20% while maintaining or improving performance (up to 8% better AUC) Beat expert based reduction

+ Outline Motivation Content Model Reduction Experiments and Results Conclusion and Future Work

+ Motivation In some domains and some types of learning content, each content problem (item) is related to large number of domain concepts (Knowledge Component, KCs) It complicates modeling due to increasing noise and decreasing efficiency We argue that we only need a subset of the most important KCs !

+ Content model The focus of this study: Java Each problem involves a complete program and relates to many concepts Original content model Each problem is indexed by a set of Java concepts from ontology In our context of study, number of concepts per problem can range from 9 to 55!

+ An example of original content model 1. class definition 2. static method 3. public class 4. public method 5. void method 6. String array 7. int type variable declaration 8. int type variable initialization 9. for statement 10. assignment 11. increment 12. multiplication 13. less or equal 14. nested loop

+ Challenges Select best concepts to model problems Traditional feature selection focuses on selecting a subset of features for all datapoints (a domain). item level not domain level

+ Our intuitions of reduction methods Three types of methods from different information sources and intuitions: Intuition 1 “for statement” appears 2 times in this problem -- it should be important for this problem! “assignment” appears in a lot of problems -- it should be trivial for this problem! Intuition 2: When “nested loops” appears, students always get it wrong -- it should be important for this problem! Intuition 3: Expert labeled “assignment”, “less than” as prerequisite concepts, while “nested loops”, “for statement” as outcome concepts --- outcome concepts should be the important ones for current problem!

+ Reduction Methods Content-based methods A problem = a document, a KC = a word Use IDF and TFIDF keyword weighting approach to compute KC importance score. Response-based Method Train a logistic regression (PFA) to predict student response Use the coefficient representing the initial easiness (EASINESS-COEF) of a KC. Expert-based Method Use only the OUTCOME concepts as the KCs for an item.

+ Item-level ranking of KC importance For each method, we define SCORE function assigning a score to a KC in an item The higher the score, the more important a KC is in an item. Then, we do item-level ranking : a KC's importance can be differentiated by different score values, or/and by its different ranking positions in different items

+ Reduction Sizes What is the best number of KCs each method should reduce to? Reducing non-adaptively to items (TopX): Select x KCs per item with the highest importance scores. Reducing adaptively to items (TopX%): Select x% KCs per item with the highest importance scores

+ Evaluating Reduction on PFA and KT We evaluate by the prediction performance of two popular student modeling and performance prediction models Performance Factor Analysis (PFA): logistic regression model predicting student response Knowledge Tracing (KT): Hidden Markov Models predicting student response and inferring student knowledge level *We select a variant that can handle multiple KCs.

+ Outline Motivation Content Model Reduction Experiments and Results Conclusion and Future Work

+ Tutoring System Collected from JavaGuide, a tutor for learning Java programming. Each question is generated from a template, and students can try multiple attempts Students give values for a variable or the output Java code

+ Experimental Setup Dataset 19, 809 observations, about 69.3% correct 132 students on 94 question templates (items) A problem is indexed into 9 ~ 55 KCs, 124 KCs in total Classification metric: Area Under Curve (AUC) 1: perfect classifier, 0.5: random classifier Cross-validation: Two runs of 5-fold CV where in each run 80% of the users are in train, and the remaining are in test. We list the mean AUC on test sets across the 10 runs, and use Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test (alpha = 0.05) to test AUC comparison significance.

+ Reduction v.s. original on PFA Flat (or roughly in bell shapes) with fluctuations Reduction to a moderate size can provide comparable or even better prediction than using original content models. Reduction could hurt if the size goes too small (e.g. < 5), possibly because PFA was designed for fitting items with multiple KCs.

+ Reduction v.s. original on KT Reduction provides gain ranging a much bigger span and scale! KT achieves the best performance when the reduction size is small: it may be more sensitive than PFA to the size! Our reduction methods have selected promising KCs that are the important ones for KT making predictions!

+ Automatic v.s. expert-based (OUTCOME) reduction method IDF and TFIDF can be comparable to or outperform OUTCOME method! E-COEF provides much gain on KT than PFA, suggesting PFA coefficients can provide useful extra information for reducing the KT content models. (+/ − : signicantly better/worse than OUTCOME,  : the optimal mean AUC)

+ Outline Motivation Content Model Reduction Experiments and Results Conclusion and Future Work

+ “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” -- Albert Einstein

+ Conclusion “Content model should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Given the proper reduction size, reduction enables prediction performance better! Different model reacts to reduction differently! KT is more sensitive to reduction than PFA Different models achieve the best balance between model complexity and model fit in different ranges We are the first to explore reduction extensively! More ideas for selecting important KCs? Larger datasets? Other domains?

+ Acknowledgement Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative ( LearnLab 2013 Summer School at CMU (Dr. Kenneth R. Koedinger, Dr. Jose P. Gonzalez-Brenes, Dr. Zachary A. Pardos for advising and initiating the project)

+ Thank you for listening !