Knowledge Tracing (KT) infers a student's knowledge state from past interactions to predict future performance. Conventional Deep Learning (DL)-based KT models are typically tied to platform-specific identifiers and latent representations, making them hard to transfer and interpret. Large Language Model (LLM)-based methods can be either ungrounded under prompting or overly domain-dependent under fine-tuning. In addition, most existing KT methods are developed and evaluated under a same-distribution assumption. In real deployments, educational data often arise from heterogeneous platforms with substantial distribution shift, which often degrades generalization. To this end, we propose RAG-KT, a retrieval-augmented paradigm that frames cross-platform KT as reliable context constrained inference with LLMs. It builds a unified multi-source structured context with cross-source alignment via Question Group abstractions and retrieves complementary rich and reliable context for each prediction, enabling grounded prediction and interpretable diagnosis. Experiments on three public KT benchmarks demonstrate consistent gains in accuracy and robustness, including strong performance under cross-platform conditions.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of KT paradigms. Traditional models struggle with cross-platform shifts, while prompt-based LLMs are prone to hallucinations. RAG-KT overcomes these by leveraging multi-view retrieval to enable reliable, grounded inference.
Figure 2: The RAG-KT framework, notation like Stgt\textendashKtgt indicates the target student’s performance on the target concept, while Ssim\textendashKtgt represents similar students’ aggregated performance on that dimension. QG is a collection of semantically equivalent Q from different data sources.
Type
Baselines
ASSIST09
ASSIST12
DBE-KT22
ACC
AUC
F1
ACC
AUC
F1
ACC
AUC
F1
DL-based Methods
DKT
72.18
81.82
78.12
70.86
69.12
74.98
71.08
72.26
74.52
DKT+
72.64
82.47
78.65
71.34
70.16
75.42
71.76
73.42
75.06
AT-DKT
72.62
82.96
79.16
71.58
71.28
75.84
72.32
74.18
75.48
DKVMN
71.32
81.28
77.92
70.51
68.73
74.76
71.47
72.03
74.65
Deep-IRT
71.96
80.98
77.84
71.02
69.19
75.03
72.04
72.81
75.09
Table 1: Main results on three benchmark datasets. Bold values denote the best performance; bold and underlined values indicate the second-best. RAG-KTLLM employs different LLMs as the final prediction model.
Methods
ASSIST09
ASSIST12
DBE-KT22
ACC
AUC
F1
ACC
AUC
F1
ACC
AUC
F1
Full
80.00
85.74
85.75
74.80
73.89
82.60
78.89
76.32
86.80
w/o Similar Students
77.28
81.07
83.60
69.53
71.47
78.13
77.40
73.98
84.17
w/o Question Groups
76.73
84.25
83.32
70.01
72.33
78.67
77.94
75.50
85.16
w/o KC Interest Subgraph
77.46
85.49
84.23
70.01
73.06
78.54
77.40
75.23
85.08
w/o Structural Path Subgraph
78.50
84.16
84.89
72.40
71.54
80.67
76.71
75.98
85.32
Table 2: Ablation results on three benchmark datasets. Each row removes or alters a key component of the full RAG-KT framework to assess its impact.
Figure 3: Parameter sensitivity analysis of RAG-KT on three datasets.
Type
Baselines
Eedi
ACC
AUC
F1
DL-based Methods
DKT
49.54
50.23
49.61
DKT+
49.98
50.62
49.84
DKVMN
51.58
51.20
52.64
AKT
53.55
49.69
47.68
LLM-based Methods (Cold-start)
LOKT
6 5.88
6 5.52
5 7.90
Table 3: Cold-start Results
Figure 4: A case for our RAG-KT. The student answers this question correctly. The red font represents positive analysis and the green font represents negative analysis.
Baselines
Len.
Exp.
Read.
Edu.
Rig.
Total
CIKT
690
4.22
4.68
4.50
3.83
17.23
EFKT
82
2.70
2.69
2.40
2.26
10.05
HISE-KT
350
4.72
4.48
4.35
4.53
18.08
RAG-KTDeepSeek-R1
297
4.90
4.56
4.88
4.90
19.24
Table 4: Scores for report quality evaluation on four dimensions: Explainability, Readability, Educational Usefulness, and Rigorousness
Knowledge Tracing (KT) models students' knowledge states based on learning interactions to predict performance. While deep learning-based KT models have boosted predictive accuracy, most models rely on deterministic vector embeddings and opaque latent state transitions, limiting interpretability regarding how specific past behaviors influence predictions. To address this limitation, we propose Probabilistic Logical Knowledge Tracing (PLKT), an interpretable KT framework that formulates prediction as a goal-conditioned evidence reasoning process over historical learning behaviors. Instead of representing knowledge states as deterministic vector embeddings, PLKT employs robust Beta-distributed probabilistic embeddings to represent student knowledge states. This probabilistic foundation allows us to model the uncertainty of historical behaviors and perform explicit logical operations (e.g., conjunction), constructing transparent reasoning paths that reveal how specific past interactions contribute to the prediction. Extensive experiments show that PLKT outperforms state-of-the-art KT methods while achieving superior interpretability. Our code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/PLKT-D3CE/.
Siyu Wu, Cong Xu, Wei Zhang
1Shanghai Institute of AI Education, East China Normal University, Shanghai, 200241, China · 2Shool of Computer Sicence and Technology, East China Normal University, Shanghai, 200241, China
Knowledge Tracing (KT) models students' evolving knowledge states to predict future performance, serving as a foundation for personalized education. While traditional deep learning models achieve high accuracy, they often lack interpretability. Large Language Models (LLMs) offer strong reasoning capabilities but struggle with limited context windows and hallucinations. Furthermore, existing LLM-based methods typically require expensive fine-tuning, limiting scalability and adaptability to new data. We propose MERIT (Memory-Enhanced Retrieval for Interpretable Knowledge Tracing), a training-free framework combining frozen LLM reasoning with structured pedagogical memory. Rather than updating parameters, MERIT transforms raw interaction logs into an interpretable memory bank. The framework uses semantic denoising to categorize students into latent cognitive schemas and constructs a paradigm bank where representative error patterns are analyzed offline to generate explicit Chain-of-Thought (CoT) rationales. During inference, a hierarchical routing mechanism retrieves relevant contexts, while a logic-augmented module applies semantic constraints to calibrate predictions. By grounding the LLM in interpretable memory, MERIT achieves state-of-the-art performance on real-world datasets without gradient updates. This approach reduces computational costs and supports dynamic knowledge updates, improving the accessibility and transparency of educational diagnosis.
Runze Li, Kedi Chen, Guwei Feng +3
School of Computer Science and Technology, East China Normal University, China · Shanghai Innovation Institute, China · WeChat AI, Tencent, China
Predicting future student responses to questions is particularly valuable for educational learning platforms where it enables effective interventions. One of the key approaches to do this has been through the use of knowledge tracing (KT) models. These are small, domain-specific, temporal models trained on student question-response data. KT models are optimised for high accuracy on specific educational domains and have fast inference and scalable deployments. The rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) motivates us to ask the following questions: (1) How well can LLMs perform at predicting students' future responses to questions? (2) Are LLMs scalable for this domain? (3) How do LLMs compare to KT models on this domain-specific task? In this paper, we compare multiple LLMs and KT models across predictive performance, deployment cost, and inference speed to answer the above questions. We show that KT models outperform LLMs with respect to accuracy and F1 scores on this domain-specific task. Further, we demonstrate that LLMs are orders of magnitude slower than KT models and cost orders of magnitude more to deploy. This highlights the importance of domain-specific models for education prediction tasks and the fact that current closed source LLMs should not be used as a universal solution for all tasks.
Prarthana Bhattacharyya, Joshua Mitton, Ralph Abboud +1