EVOL: Simulator-Guided Evolutionary Expert Synthesis for Deployment-Free Learning Path Recommendation
Organizations: Department of Computer Education, Sungkyunkwan University Seoul, Republic of Korea · Department of Immersive Media Engineering/Social Innovation Convergence Program, Sungkyunkwan University Seoul, Republic of Korea · Department of Computer Education/Social Innovation Convergence Program, Sungkyunkwan University Seoul, Republic of Korea
Abstract
Reinforcement learning (RL) for learning path recommendation (LPR) faces two coupled obstacles. First, the policy must commit to a sequence of L concepts without intermediate feedback, producing a combinatorial search space that grows super-exponentially with L and provides reward only at the final step. Second, expert learning paths would be the natural cure for sparse-reward RL, but they do not exist in educational data, because student logs record what learners did, not what they should have done. We address both obstacles by importing a recipe from simulator-based demonstration learning in robotics: the knowledge tracing simulator is used both to synthesize per-learner expert demonstrations through evolutionary search and to train a deployment-free policy that distills these demonstrations into a feed-forward learner. Our framework, EVOL, instantiates this pipeline with an asymmetric actor-critic where the actor commits to deployment-realistic blind planning while the critic exploits the privileged simulator state during training. Across three datasets (ASSIST15, Junyi, and EdNet; 39-189 concepts) and path lengths L = 5, 10, and 20, EVOL surpasses 8 baselines spanning heuristic, sequential, RL, graph-enhanced RL, and LLM-enhanced methods. We further compare three imitation strategies (BC, AWR, and DAPG) and show that final performance is governed by the quality of evolutionary experts rather than by the particular imitation objective.
Figures & tables
| Method | Algorithm preserved | Reward preserved | Inference uses KES (original) | Inference uses KES (ours) |
| GRU4Rec ( Hidasi et al., 2016 ) | yes (GRU) | N/A (BC on experts) | no | no |
| SASRec ( Kang and McAuley, 2018 ) | yes (transformer) | N/A (BC on experts) | no | no |
| PPO-vanilla ( Schulman et al., 2017 ) | yes (PPO + clip) | terminal EP | N/A | no (asymmetric AC) |
| CSEAL ( Liu et al., 2019 ) | yes (A2C + cognitive nav) | EP | yes | no (h 0 -only actor) |
| GEHRL ( Li et al., 2023 ) | yes (hierarchical PPO) | EP | yes | no (h 0 -only actor) |
| DLELP ( Cheng et al., 2026 ) | yes (PPO + plateau S-agent) | EP | yes | no (S-agent off in h 0 mode; graph-aware candidate mask retained) |
| Heuristic | Sequential | RL | Graph-enhanced RL | LLM | Ours | |||||||
| Dataset | Target | GRU4Rec | SASRec | PPO | CSEAL | GEHRL | DLELP | KnowLP | EVOL-BC | EVOL-AWR | EVOL-DAPG | |
| Junyi 39 KCs | 5 | +0.203 .003 | +0.237 .008 | +0.256 .007 | +0.247 .010 | +0.054 .049 | +0.106 .003 | +0.110 .013 | +0.089 .019 | +0.286 .003 | +0.286 .000 | +0.285 .005 |
| 10 | +0.244 .002 | +0.266 .009 | +0.320 .006 | +0.364 .003 | +0.178 .008 | +0.138 .008 | +0.247 .003 | +0.230 .010 | +0.390 .001 | +0.388 .001 | +0.390 .001 | |
| 20 | +0.286 .001 | 0.005 .017 | +0.299 .006 | +0.380 .005 | +0.207 .006 | +0.045 .029 | +0.337 .010 | +0.337 .010 | +0.426 .002 | +0.420 .002 | +0.428 .002 | |
| ASSIST15 100 KCs | 5 | +0.296 .011 | +0.329 .007 | +0.355 .008 | +0.420 .011 | +0.062 .022 | +0.211 .007 | +0.251 .015 | +0.189 .034 | +0.470 .003 | +0.471 .005 | +0.472 .004 |
| 10 | +0.321 .009 | +0.325 .010 | +0.466 .011 | +0.543 .009 | +0.215 .013 | +0.228 .003 | +0.454 .002 | +0.388 .011 | +0.614 .002 | +0.604 .001 | +0.613 .003 | |
| Variant | Test EP |
| Search strategy at Stage 1 | |
| Greedy 1-step lookahead (no learning) | +0.155 .029 |
| Random-path experts BC | +0.354 .011 |
| Evolutionary search BC | +0.614 .003 |
| Downstream learner | |
| PPO-vanilla (no experts, no pretraining) | +0.543 .009 |
| Junyi ( ) | ASSIST15 ( ) | EdNet ( ) | |
| 5 | |||
| 10 | |||
| 20 |
| Method | EP | Coverage | EP | SeqDrop | StepLift |
| CSEAL | +0.220 | 0.625 | +0.063 | +0.157 | +0.010 |
| GEHRL | +0.252 | 0.784 | +0.070 | +0.182 | +0.011 |
| DLELP | +0.479 | 0.435 | +0.213 | +0.266 | +0.017 |
| PPO-vanilla | +0.561 | 0.713 | +0.333 | +0.227 | +0.020 |
| EVOL-BC | +0.627 | 0.876 | +0.330 | +0.297 | +0.022 |
| EVOL-AWR | +0.616 | 0.864 | +0.327 | +0.289 | +0.022 |
| Alternative DKT (different training seed) | |||||||
| Method | Original DKT | seed 7 | seed 100 | seed 200 | seed 333 | Mean (4 alts) | vs PPO |
| Simulator-guided demonstration learning (Ours) | |||||||
| EVOL-BC | +0.630 | +0.314 | +0.337 | +0.350 | +0.364 | +0.341 | +0.091 |
| EVOL-DAPG | +0.627 | +0.306 | +0.333 | +0.346 | +0.362 | +0.337 | +0.087 |
| EVOL-AWR | +0.619 | +0.309 | +0.330 | +0.339 | +0.367 | +0.336 | +0.086 |
| Reinforcement learning baseline | |||||||
| Stochastic response model | ||||||
| Method | Determ. (ref.) | Bernoulli | Slip/Guess (0.10) | Slip/Guess (0.20) | Mean (3 stoch.) | vs PPO |
| Simulator-guided demonstration learning (Ours) | ||||||
| EVOL-BC | +0.630 | +0.305 | +0.272 | +0.223 | +0.267 | +0.043 |
| EVOL-DAPG | +0.627 | +0.303 | +0.270 | +0.224 | +0.266 | +0.042 |
| EVOL-AWR | +0.619 | +0.302 | +0.272 | +0.221 | +0.265 | +0.041 |
| Reinforcement learning baseline | ||||||
Recommender Systems
Recommender systems predict and rank items for people using interaction histories, content, context, and feedback.
See all 516 papers