Locating acts of mechanistic reasoning in student team conversations with mechanistic machine learning
Authors: Kaitlin Gili, Mainak Nistala, Kristen Wendell, Michael C. Hughes
Organizations: Department of Computer Science, Tufts University, Medford, MA, U.S.A. · Departments of Mechanical Engineering and Education, Tufts University, Medford, MA, U.S.A.
Abstract
STEM education researchers are often interested in identifying moments of students' mechanistic reasoning for deeper analysis, but have limited capacity to search through many team conversation transcripts to find segments with a high concentration of such reasoning. We offer a solution in the form of an interpretable machine learning model that outputs time-varying probabilities that individual students are engaging in acts of mechanistic reasoning, leveraging evidence from their own utterances as well as contributions from the rest of the group. Using the toolkit of intentionally-designed probabilistic models, we introduce a specific inductive bias that steers the probabilistic dynamics toward desired, domain-aligned behavior. Experiments compare trained models with and without the inductive bias components, investigating whether their presence improves the desired model behavior on transcripts involving never-before-seen students and a novel discussion context. Our results show that the inductive bias improves generalization -- supporting the claim that interpretability is built into the model for this task rather than imposed post hoc. We conclude with practical recommendations for STEM education researchers seeking to adopt the tool and for ML researchers aiming to extend the model's design. Overall, we hope this work encourages the development of mechanistically interpretable models that are understandable and controllable for both end users and model designers in STEM education research.
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/.
Mechanistic interpretability aims to explain neural model behaviour by reverse-engineering learned computational structure into human-understandable components. Without a formal framework, however, mechanistic explanations cannot be objectively verified, compared, or composed. We introduce compositional interpretability, a category-theoretic framework grounded in the principles of compositionality and minimum description length. Compositional interpretations are pairs of syntactic and semantic mappings that must commute to enforce consistency between a model's decomposition and its observed behaviour. We deconstruct explanation quality into measures of faithfulness and complexity to cast interpretability as a constrained optimisation problem, and introduce compressive refinement to systematically restructure models into simpler parts without altering their function. Finally, we derive a parsimony criterion under which syntactic compression theoretically guarantees more concise, human-aligned explanations. Our framework situates prominent mechanistic methods as subclasses of refinement, and clarifies why their compressibility heuristics tend to align with human interpretability. Our work provides a measurable, optimisable blueprint for automating the discovery and evaluation of mechanistic explanations.
Analyzing the reasoning patterns of students in science classrooms is critical for understanding knowledge construction mechanism and improving instructional practice to maximize cognitive engagement, yet manual coding of classroom discourse at scale remains prohibitively labor-intensive. We present an automated discourse analysis system (ADAS) that jointly classifies teacher and student utterances along two complementary dimensions: Utterance Type and Reasoning Component derived from our prior CDAT framework. To address severe label imbalance among minority classes, we (1) stratify-resplit the annotated corpus, (2) apply LLM-based synthetic data augmentation targeting minority classes, and (3) train a dual-probe head RoBERTa-base classifier. A zero-shot GPT-5.4 baseline achieves macro-F1 of 0.467 on UT and 0.476 on RC, establishing meaningful upper bounds for prompt-only approaches motivating fine-tuning. Beyond classification, we conduct discourse pattern analyses including UTxRC co-occurrence profiling, Cognitive Complexity Index (CCI) computation per session, lag-sequential analysis, and IRF chain analysis, revealing that teacher Feedback-with-Question (Fq) moves are the most consistent antecedents of student inferential reasoning (SR-I). Our results demonstrate that LLM-based augmentation meaningfully improves UT minority-class recognition, and that the structural simplicity of the RC task makes it tractable even for lexical baselines.
Jiho Noh, Mukhesh Raghava Katragadda, Raymond Carl +1