Estimating Learners' Skill Acquisition Without Temporal Information

Hisashi Kashima; Jill-J\^enn Vie (SODA); Koh Takeuchi; Kyohei Atarashi; Ryosuke Nagai

arxiv: 2606.20611 · v1 · pith:LSFHGKTSnew · submitted 2026-05-22 · 💻 cs.CY · cs.LG

Estimating Learners' Skill Acquisition Without Temporal Information

Ryosuke Nagai , Kyohei Atarashi , Koh Takeuchi , Jill-J\^enn Vie (SODA) , Hisashi Kashima This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 15:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CY cs.LG

keywords knowledge tracingcognitive diagnostic modelsskill acquisitionsnapshot dataeducational data miningpseudo-temporal orderingneural networks

0 comments

The pith

Snapshot data alone can predict the next skill a learner will acquire by treating expanding skill sets as a proxy for learning order.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Many educational datasets consist only of single assessments without any record of when skills were learned, which blocks standard time-series methods for knowledge tracing. The paper shows that cognitive diagnostic models can first estimate each learner's mastered skills, after which inclusion relations between those skill sets supply a pseudo-temporal sequence: larger sets are treated as later stages. A neural model then learns to predict the expected next skill increment along these induced paths. If the approach holds, adaptive instruction becomes feasible in the many real settings where only cross-sectional data exist. Experiments on synthetic and real datasets confirm consistent gains over baselines, widening as the number of skills grows.

Core claim

Inclusion relations among skill sets estimated by cognitive diagnostic models induce a usable pseudo-temporal ordering of learners; a neural model that predicts expected skill increments along these orderings can then forecast the next skill to be acquired even when no actual timestamps are present.

What carries the argument

Neural model of expected skill increments that approximates acquisition paths from pseudo-temporal orderings induced by skill-set inclusions.

If this is right

Prediction of future knowledge states becomes possible from static, single-time-point assessments.
Adaptive learning support can be provided in data-constrained educational environments that lack time-series records.
Performance advantages over existing methods grow as the size of the skill space increases.
Meaningful skill acquisition patterns can be recovered from snapshot data without temporal labels.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same inclusion-based proxy might be tested in non-educational domains where only cross-sectional skill inventories are available.
When partial temporal data exist, the pseudo-ordering could be used as a regularizer or pre-training signal for conventional knowledge-tracing models.
Direct validation would require datasets that independently record true acquisition sequences rather than relying solely on model-estimated sets.

Load-bearing premise

That inclusion relations among learners' skill sets estimated by cognitive diagnostic models can be interpreted as a valid proxy for actual temporal learning progression.

What would settle it

A longitudinal dataset that records the actual chronological order of skill acquisitions; the model's predicted next skills would have to match the observed subsequent acquisitions at rates no better than baselines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.20611 by Hisashi Kashima, Jill-J\^enn Vie (SODA), Koh Takeuchi, Kyohei Atarashi, Ryosuke Nagai.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Illustration of path approximation via pseudo-temporal ordering. Goal. Given a learner’s current mastery pattern si , our goal is to estimate the conditional distribution of the next acquired skill, denoted by P ∗ (yi | si). Here, yi = eti ∈ {0, 1} K is a one-hot vector corresponding to skill ti ∈ {1, 2, . . . , K}, indicating the newly acquired skill. Assumption (Non-forgetting). We assume a non-forgettin… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Skill mastery lattice for K = 4, represented as a Hasse diagram. Each node denotes a mastery pattern, and each edge corresponds to the acquisition of one additional skill. unit (Fig. 1b). Since our target is the next acquired skill, this formulation provides a compact and task-aligned approximation of latent learning dynamics. Repeatedly accumulating these expected increments allows us to approximate int… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Win rate of the proposed method vs. number of skills (Synthetic Data) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Win rate of the proposed method vs. noise rate (Synthetic Data). 4.3 Real-World Data We further evaluate our method on the ASSISTments 2009–2010 dataset. To simulate a snapshot setting, we split each learner’s interaction log into an early segment and the full log, and estimate current mastery from the early segment and future mastery from the full log using a DINA model [4]. We selected 95 learners who at… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Win Rate of the proposed method vs. number of skills (Real-World Data). Effect of Skill Size. Consistent with the synthetic experiments, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Recent research in educational data mining, especially knowledge tracing, has focused on predicting learners' future knowledge states to support adaptive instruction. However, in many real-world educational settings, learning data are often available only as single-time-point assessments without temporal information, making existing time-series-based approaches difficult to apply. In this paper, we propose a novel framework for predicting future skill acquisition using only snapshot data. Specifically, we address the problem of predicting the next skill to be acquired from skill mastery patterns estimated by cognitive diagnostic models (CDMs). In the absence of temporal information, we exploit inclusion relations among learners' skill sets to induce a pseudo-temporal ordering, interpreting expanding skill sets as a proxy for learning progression. To efficiently approximate unobserved acquisition paths, we introduce a neural model that captures latent skill acquisition dynamics through expected skill increments. Experiments on both synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrate that the proposed method consistently outperforms baseline approaches, with particularly strong advantages as the skill space becomes larger. These results indicate that meaningful skill acquisition patterns can be inferred from snapshot data alone, providing a practical framework for adaptive learning support in data-constrained educational environments.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper uses inclusion relations on CDM skill sets to create pseudo-temporal order and trains a neural model on expected increments, but real-data evaluation risks circularity since next-skill labels likely derive from the same static inclusions.

read the letter

The main contribution is a practical workaround for knowledge tracing when only snapshot CDM outputs are available: treat expanding skill sets as a proxy for progression via inclusion, then approximate acquisition paths with a neural model of expected skill increments. This is not a routine extension of existing KT work and directly targets a common data constraint in educational settings.

It does a reasonable job framing the problem and showing that synthetic data plus real datasets can be handled under this proxy. The claim of stronger gains in larger skill spaces is at least plausible given how inclusion graphs scale.

The soft spot is the evaluation. On synthetic data an independent order can be supplied, but the abstract's emphasis on real-world outperformance leaves open whether the ground-truth next-skill labels are constructed from the identical inclusion relations used to build the training sequences. If so, the reported gains may simply reflect reconstruction of the static graph rather than any learned temporal dynamic. The abstract supplies no metrics, baselines, or hold-out procedure, so it is impossible to tell how they avoided this on the real data.

This is squarely for the educational data mining and knowledge tracing community. A reader already working on snapshot or non-temporal CDM data would get the most out of it. The work shows clear thinking about the data limitation and honest engagement with the literature, so it deserves a serious referee to check whether the real-data protocol actually tests acquisition rather than static structure.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims that, in the absence of temporal data, inclusion relations among skill sets estimated by cognitive diagnostic models (CDMs) can be used to induce a pseudo-temporal ordering that serves as a proxy for learning progression; a neural model is then trained to predict the next acquired skill via expected skill increments. Experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets are reported to show consistent outperformance over baselines, with larger gains as the skill space grows.

Significance. If the proxy and evaluation are shown to be non-circular, the approach would address a practical gap in educational data mining by enabling next-skill prediction from cross-sectional snapshots alone. This could support adaptive instruction in settings where longitudinal records are unavailable. The combination of CDM-derived inclusions with a neural approximation of acquisition dynamics is a concrete technical contribution, though its value depends on demonstrating that reported gains reflect genuine progression rather than reconstruction of the static inclusion graph.

major comments (1)

[Experiments / Evaluation] The central evaluation procedure risks circularity. Ground-truth labels for 'next skill' must be derived from the same inclusion relations among CDM skill profiles that are used to induce the pseudo-temporal ordering. If the metric simply rewards recovery of these static inclusions, any reported advantage over baselines could reflect the model's ability to approximate the inclusion graph rather than learned acquisition dynamics. The abstract states that real-world results are particularly strong for larger skill spaces, making the real-data evaluation load-bearing; without an independent temporal ground truth or an explicit test that the gains survive removal of the inclusion-derived labels, the claim that the method estimates actual skill acquisition remains untested. (See the description of the pseudo-ordering construction and the experimental setup in the main text.)

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The abstract supplies no metrics, baseline descriptions, statistical tests, or dataset sizes, which makes it impossible to assess the strength of the empirical claims from the abstract alone.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and for identifying the risk of circularity in the evaluation. We address this concern directly below and outline revisions to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Experiments / Evaluation] The central evaluation procedure risks circularity. Ground-truth labels for 'next skill' must be derived from the same inclusion relations among CDM skill profiles that are used to induce the pseudo-temporal ordering. If the metric simply rewards recovery of these static inclusions, any reported advantage over baselines could reflect the model's ability to approximate the inclusion graph rather than learned acquisition dynamics. The abstract states that real-world results are particularly strong for larger skill spaces, making the real-data evaluation load-bearing; without an independent temporal ground truth or an explicit test that the gains survive removal of the inclusion-derived labels, the claim that the method estimates actual skill acquisition remains untested. (See the description of the pseudo-ordering construction and the experimental setup in the ma

Authors: We agree that the real-world evaluation is vulnerable to this circularity concern because both the pseudo-temporal ordering and the 'next skill' labels are constructed from the same CDM inclusion relations. In the synthetic experiments, however, skill acquisition sequences are generated from an independent temporal process before CDM profiles are extracted from snapshots; the ground-truth next skills therefore reflect the true generative order rather than the induced inclusions alone. This separation allows the synthetic results to test recovery of acquisition dynamics. For the real-world datasets we will revise the manuscript to (1) explicitly acknowledge the limitation, (2) reframe the contribution as a practical proxy for next-skill prediction under snapshot-only constraints rather than a direct estimate of unobserved temporal acquisition, and (3) add an ablation that compares the neural model against a non-neural baseline that simply traverses the inclusion graph. These changes will be reflected in the abstract, experimental section, and discussion. We therefore mark revision_made as 'yes'. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved

Independent temporal ground truth for the real-world datasets, which is unavailable by construction in the snapshot-only setting the paper targets.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No load-bearing circularity; pseudo-temporal proxy is an explicit modeling assumption evaluated against independent synthetic orderings

full rationale

The derivation begins with an explicit choice to treat CDM-derived inclusion relations as a proxy for progression and then trains a separate neural model to approximate acquisition dynamics. No equation or step reduces the neural prediction to the input inclusions by construction, nor does any self-citation supply a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that forces the result. Synthetic data supplies an external temporal ground truth independent of the snapshot inclusions, while real-world results are framed as testing the proxy rather than claiming equivalence. This leaves the central claim with independent content and matches the default expectation of no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that skill-set inclusions proxy learning order and on the fitting of a neural model whose parameters are not described.

free parameters (1)

neural model parameters
Weights and biases of the neural network that models expected skill increments are fitted to the pseudo-ordered data.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Inclusion relations among skill sets estimated by CDMs serve as a valid proxy for temporal acquisition order
Invoked to create pseudo-temporal ordering from snapshot data.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5742 in / 1123 out tokens · 59875 ms · 2026-06-30T15:04:50.298640+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

14 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

[1]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.10572 (2025)

Atarashi, K., Oyama, S., Arai, H., Kashima, H.: Probability bounding: Post-hoc calibration via box-constrained softmax. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.10572 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[2]

User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction4(4), 253–278 (1994)

Corbett, A.T., Anderson, J.R.: Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction4(4), 253–278 (1994)

1994
[3]

OECD Publishing and The World Bank (2015)

Cresswell, J., Schwantner, U., Waters, C.: A Review of International Large- Scale Assessments in Education: Assessing Component Skills and Collect- ing Contextual Data. OECD Publishing and The World Bank (2015). https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264248373-en

work page doi:10.1787/9789264248373-en 2015
[4]

Applied Psychological Measurement 25(3), 258–272 (2001)

Junker, B.W., Sijtsma, K.: Cognitive assessment models with few assumptions, and connections with nonparametric item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement 25(3), 258–272 (2001)

2001
[5]

In: Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Nat- ural Language Processing

Martins, A.F.T., Kreutzer, J.: Learning what’s easy: Fully differentiable neural easy-first taggers. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Nat- ural Language Processing. pp. 349–362 (2017)

2017
[6]

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) website (2025), accessed: 2026-03-29

National Center for Education Statistics: About naep. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) website (2025), accessed: 2026-03-29

2025
[7]

OECD Publishing, Paris (2023)

OECD: PISA 2022 Assessment and Analytical Framework. OECD Publishing, Paris (2023). https://doi.org/10.1787/dfe0bf9c-en

work page doi:10.1787/dfe0bf9c-en 2022
[8]

In: Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems

Piech, C., Bassen, J., Huang, J., Ganguli, S., Sahami, M., Guibas, L.J., Sohl- Dickstein, J.: Deep knowledge tracing. In: Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems. vol. 28 (2015)

2015
[9]

In: Proceedings of the Conference on Probabilistic Graphical Models

Plajner, M., Vomlel, J.: Student skill models in adaptive testing. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Probabilistic Graphical Models. pp. 403–414 (2016)

2016
[10]

IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies17, 1858–1879 (2024)

Shen, S., Liu, Q., Huang, Z., Zheng, Y., Yin, M., Wang, M., Chen, E.: A survey of knowledge tracing: Models, variants, and applications. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies17, 1858–1879 (2024)

2024
[11]

Guilford Press (2010)

Templin, J., Henson, R.A.: Diagnostic Measurement: Theory, Methods, and Ap- plications. Guilford Press (2010)

2010
[12]

Studies in Educational Evaluation70, 101057 (2021)

Toprak-Yildiz, T.E.: An international comparison using cognitive diagnostic as- sessment: Fourth graders’ diagnostic profile of reading skills on pirls 2016. Studies in Educational Evaluation70, 101057 (2021)

2016
[13]

International Journal of Un- certainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems12(1), 83–100 (2004)

Vomlel, J.: Bayesian networks in educational testing. International Journal of Un- certainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems12(1), 83–100 (2004)

2004
[14]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.05458 (2024)

Wang, F., Gao, W., Liu, Q., Li, J., Zhao, G., Zhang, Z., Huang, Z., Zhu, M., Wang, S., Tong, W.: A survey of models for cognitive diagnosis: New developments and future directions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.05458 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024

[1] [1]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.10572 (2025)

Atarashi, K., Oyama, S., Arai, H., Kashima, H.: Probability bounding: Post-hoc calibration via box-constrained softmax. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.10572 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025

[2] [2]

User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction4(4), 253–278 (1994)

Corbett, A.T., Anderson, J.R.: Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction4(4), 253–278 (1994)

1994

[3] [3]

OECD Publishing and The World Bank (2015)

Cresswell, J., Schwantner, U., Waters, C.: A Review of International Large- Scale Assessments in Education: Assessing Component Skills and Collect- ing Contextual Data. OECD Publishing and The World Bank (2015). https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264248373-en

work page doi:10.1787/9789264248373-en 2015

[4] [4]

Applied Psychological Measurement 25(3), 258–272 (2001)

Junker, B.W., Sijtsma, K.: Cognitive assessment models with few assumptions, and connections with nonparametric item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement 25(3), 258–272 (2001)

2001

[5] [5]

In: Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Nat- ural Language Processing

Martins, A.F.T., Kreutzer, J.: Learning what’s easy: Fully differentiable neural easy-first taggers. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Nat- ural Language Processing. pp. 349–362 (2017)

2017

[6] [6]

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) website (2025), accessed: 2026-03-29

National Center for Education Statistics: About naep. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) website (2025), accessed: 2026-03-29

2025

[7] [7]

OECD Publishing, Paris (2023)

OECD: PISA 2022 Assessment and Analytical Framework. OECD Publishing, Paris (2023). https://doi.org/10.1787/dfe0bf9c-en

work page doi:10.1787/dfe0bf9c-en 2022

[8] [8]

In: Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems

Piech, C., Bassen, J., Huang, J., Ganguli, S., Sahami, M., Guibas, L.J., Sohl- Dickstein, J.: Deep knowledge tracing. In: Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems. vol. 28 (2015)

2015

[9] [9]

In: Proceedings of the Conference on Probabilistic Graphical Models

Plajner, M., Vomlel, J.: Student skill models in adaptive testing. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Probabilistic Graphical Models. pp. 403–414 (2016)

2016

[10] [10]

IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies17, 1858–1879 (2024)

Shen, S., Liu, Q., Huang, Z., Zheng, Y., Yin, M., Wang, M., Chen, E.: A survey of knowledge tracing: Models, variants, and applications. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies17, 1858–1879 (2024)

2024

[11] [11]

Guilford Press (2010)

Templin, J., Henson, R.A.: Diagnostic Measurement: Theory, Methods, and Ap- plications. Guilford Press (2010)

2010

[12] [12]

Studies in Educational Evaluation70, 101057 (2021)

Toprak-Yildiz, T.E.: An international comparison using cognitive diagnostic as- sessment: Fourth graders’ diagnostic profile of reading skills on pirls 2016. Studies in Educational Evaluation70, 101057 (2021)

2016

[13] [13]

International Journal of Un- certainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems12(1), 83–100 (2004)

Vomlel, J.: Bayesian networks in educational testing. International Journal of Un- certainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems12(1), 83–100 (2004)

2004

[14] [14]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.05458 (2024)

Wang, F., Gao, W., Liu, Q., Li, J., Zhao, G., Zhang, Z., Huang, Z., Zhu, M., Wang, S., Tong, W.: A survey of models for cognitive diagnosis: New developments and future directions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.05458 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024