instruction:
In this task, you are given a part of an article. Your task is to generate headline (title) for this text. Preferred headlines are under fifteen words.
question:
Estimating student proficiency is an important task for computer based learning systems. We compare a family of IRTbased proficiency estimation methods to Deep Knowledge Tracing (DKT), a recently proposed recurrent neural network model with promising initial results. We evaluate how well each model predicts a student’s future response given previous responses using two publicly available and one proprietary data set. We find that IRT-based methods consistently matched or outperformed DKT across all data sets at the finest level of content granularity that was tractable for them to be trained on. A hierarchical extension of IRT that captured item grouping structure performed best overall. When data sets included non-trivial autocorrelations in student response patterns, a temporal extension of IRT improved performance over standard IRT while the RNNbased method did not. We conclude that IRT-based models provide a simpler, better-performing alternative to existing RNN-based models of student interaction data while also affording more interpretability and guarantees due to their formulation as Bayesian probabilistic models.
answer:
Back to the basics: Bayesian extensions of IRT outperform neural networks for proficiency estimation


question:
In this work, we propose CLass-Enhanced Attentive Response (CLEAR): an approach to visualize and understand the decisions made by deep neural networks (DNNs) given a specific input. CLEAR facilitates the visualization of attentive regions and levels of interest of DNNs during the decision-making process. It also enables the visualization of the most dominant classes associated with these attentive regions of interest. As such, CLEAR can mitigate some of the shortcomings of heatmap-based methods associated with decision ambiguity, and allows for better insights into the decision-making process of DNNs. Quantitative and qualitative experiments across three different datasets demonstrate the efficacy of CLEAR for gaining a better understanding of the inner workings of DNNs during the decision-making process.
answer:
Explaining the Unexplained: A CLass-Enhanced Attentive Response (CLEAR) Approach to Understanding Deep Neural Networks


question:
We address the problem of belief revision of logic programs, i.e., how to incorporate to a logic program P a new logic program Q. Based on the structure of SE interpretations, Delgrande et al. (2008; 2013b) adapted the well-known AGM framework (1985) to logic program (LP) revision. They identified the rational behavior of LP revision and introduced some specific operators. In this paper, a constructive characterization of all rational LP revision operators is given in terms of orderings over propositional interpretations with some further conditions specific to SE interpretations. It provides an intuitive, complete procedure for the construction of all rational LP revision operators and makes easier the comprehension of their semantic and computational properties. We give a particular consideration to logic programs of very general form, i.e., the generalized logic programs (GLPs). We show that every rational GLP revision operator is derived from a propositional revision operator satisfying the original AGM postulates. Interestingly, the further conditions specific to GLP revision are independent from the propositional revision operator on which a GLP revision operator is based. Taking advantage of our characterization result, we embed the GLP revision operators into structures of Boolean lattices, that allow us to bring to light some potential weaknesses in the adapted AGM postulates. To illustrate our claim, we introduce and characterize axiomatically two specific classes of (rational) GLP revision operators which arguably have a drastic behavior. We additionally consider two more restricted forms of logic programs, i.e., the disjunctive logic programs (DLPs) ∗ This is a revised and full version (including proofs of propositions) of (Schwind and Inoue 2013). 2 N. Schwind and K. Inoue and the normal logic programs (NLPs) and adapt our characterization result to DLP and NLP revision operators.
answer:

Characterization of Logic Program Revision as an Extension of Propositional Revision∗