ProPRL: Property-Aware Prerequisite Relation Learning in Educational Knowledge Graphs

Chaobo He; Jiapu Wang; Quanlong Guan; Ruihai Dong; Xinghe Cheng

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 12 references

ProPRL: Property-Aware Prerequisite Relation Learning in Educational Knowledge Graphs

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A property-aware framework for prerequisite relation learning that fuses resource and behavior views per pair and penalizes reverse-direction predictions achieves state-of-the-art results on every tested dataset–metric combination.

desk verdict Solid empirical architecture paper with a plausible but unproven SOTA claim; the behavior-graph shortcut needs a control baseline before I'd trust the margin. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03006 v1 pith:H6ZYGRGU submitted 2026-08-04 cs.AI

Xinghe Cheng , Jiapu Wang , Chaobo He , Ruihai Dong , Quanlong Guan This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.AI

keywords prerequisiterelationlearningeducationalknowledgegraphshypergraphneuralnetworksdirectedbehaviorpair-conditionedgatinganti-symmetryregularizationgraphadaptiveinstruction

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

ProPRL tries to establish that prerequisite relation learning — deciding which knowledge concept must be learned before another — is best modeled with three properties that generic link prediction lacks: directional asymmetry, multi-hop behavioral evidence, and pair-specific relevance. The paper argues that existing methods, by treating ordered concept pairs as independent link predictions over static node embeddings, miss these properties and produce directionally inconsistent or over-homogenized predictions. ProPRL instead combines a concept–resource hypergraph view with a directed learning-behavior graph view, gates the two views per candidate pair, and adds an anti-symmetry regularizer. On three real educational datasets the framework ranks first on all nine dataset–metric combinations, with relative gains from 1.96% to 6.11% over the strongest baseline.

What carries the argument

The machinery has three load-bearing pieces. Direction-preserving personalized propagation runs an APPNP-style teleport iteration separately on the outgoing and incoming normalized adjacency matrices of the learner behavior graph, so multi-hop transitions are aggregated without losing direction. A Pair-conditioned Gate is a sigmoid MLP that takes the concatenation, absolute difference, and Hadamard product of resource-aware and behavior-aware pair representations and produces a dimension-wise interpolation weight for each ordered concept pair. An Irreversibility Constraint is a hinge-style regularizer on positive pairs that penalizes the sum of forward and reverse predicted probabilities beyond a margin. The concept–resource hypergraph is processed by a hypergraph convolutional network, and both single-view branches receive Siamese supervision under a teacher-detached consistency loss with the fused branch.

What would settle it

Train ProPRL on a version of a dataset in which the learner interaction sequences are randomly reversed or shuffled while keeping the concept–resource graph and the expert labels unchanged; if accuracy and AUC do not drop substantially, the direction-preserving behavior view is not doing the directional work claimed, and the apparent gains come from other components.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a property-aware predictor, built from three components, outperforms existing prerequisite relation learning methods on standard benchmarks. First, direction-preserving personalized propagation over a directed learning-behavior graph aggregates multi-hop transition evidence, while a hypergraph convolutional network captures resource-mediated concept associations. Second, a Pair-conditioned Gate constructs role-specific pair representations and learns, for each ordered pair and each feature dimension, how much to trust each view. Third, an Irreversibility Constraint adds a co-activation margin loss that penalizes high confidence in both directions of the same pair during training. The paper reports state-of-the-art results across all nine dataset–metric combinations in its main table, and ablation studies show that removing any of the three components degrades F1 on every dataset.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes the order in which learners interact with concepts in the recorded sequences is faithful, non-confounded directional evidence for prerequisite relations, even though those same sequences help define the supervised pairs, so a correlation between transition frequency and expert labels could let the model score well without learning general prerequisite structure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Adaptive instruction systems can infer prerequisite structure from learner behavior and resource associations with less reliance on costly expert annotations.
Multi-hop behavioral evidence becomes usable, so prerequisite relations with no direct transition in the data can still be recovered.
The same concept can play different roles in different candidate relations, something node-level embeddings cannot express.
The irreversibility constraint reduces contradictory bidirectional predictions, improving directional consistency of the inferred knowledge graph.
The consistent gains across all nine dataset–metric combinations suggest the improvements transfer across datasets of different sizes and domains.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The anti-symmetry regularizer is a general idea that could be added to any directed link-prediction model, not only educational graphs, wherever relations are near-irreversible.
A natural stress test would be to evaluate on concept pairs unseen during training or on a new dataset where the model gets no expert labels, to separate genuine prerequisite understanding from dataset-specific correlation.
The reliance on transition order as directional evidence could be probed by shuffling or reversing the interaction sequences; if accuracy does not drop, the behavior view is not carrying the directional signal the paper claims.
The pair-conditioned gating mechanism might transfer to other pair-level tasks in knowledge graphs, such as relation classification or question-answering over concept pairs.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The core components are individually known, but the specific combination is new: direction-preserving APPNP propagation over a directed behavior graph, a pair-conditioned gate for view fusion, and an anti-symmetry irreversibility loss. The paper is clearly written, the equations are consistent, and the ablations show each component pulls its weight. The case study on directional confidence is a nice touch. On the evidence side, the paper reports consistent 2–6% improvements over DGCPL across all nine dataset–metric combinations, and the efficiency table is honest about the added cost.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. No standard deviations, no repeated runs, no significance tests. Hyperparameters are tuned per dataset, which is normal for this subfield but weakens the generalization claim. The bigger issue is the behavior graph. The paper never says how the learner sequences are obtained, whether the 8:1:1 split is over pairs or learners, or whether the behavior graph is built from all sequences before splitting. If test-pair transitions are directly visible as edges, the model can score pairs by matching transition direction without learning anything about prerequisites. The ablations don't close this channel: there is no experiment that removes the behavior view entirely and no transition-count baseline. A simple count-based predictor would directly test whether the reported gains come from the proposed components or just from the extra input signal. This is the load-bearing weakness in the SOTA claim.

The circularity burden is low. The final numbers are measured against external labels and baselines, so the work is an empirical architecture study, not a derivation. The paper also cites its direct predecessor DGCPL properly, and the novelty claims are appropriately scoped.

Bottom line: this is a competent method paper that deserves a serious referee, but the central claim is conditional on the behavior graph being a faithful signal rather than a shortcut. I would send it to peer review with the requirement that the authors release code and data, add error bars, clarify the split and graph construction, and include a transition-count baseline or mask test-pair edges. A reader in educational data mining will get value from the architecture even if the SOTA claim doesn't fully survive scrutiny.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ProPRL, a framework for prerequisite relation learning in educational knowledge graphs. It learns concept representations from two views: a concept-resource hypergraph and a directed learning-behavior graph, with direction-preserving personalized propagation for multi-hop behavioral evidence. A pair-conditioned gate adaptively fuses the two views for each candidate ordered pair, and an irreversibility constraint penalizes simultaneous high confidence in both directions. Experiments on MOOC, LectureBank, and UCD report state-of-the-art performance across all nine dataset-metric combinations, with relative improvements over the strongest baseline ranging from 1.96% to 6.11%. Ablations show that removing each component hurts F1, and a case study indicates better directional separation than DGCPL.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, ProPRL would be a useful contribution to prerequisite relation learning: the pair-conditioned gate is a sensible mechanism for pair-specific evidence fusion, and the irreversibility constraint addresses a real weakness of independent per-pair link prediction. The direction-preserving personalized propagation over a behavior graph is a novel ingredient. However, the current validation has load-bearing gaps: the construction of the behavior graph relative to the train/test split is not specified, creating a potential shortcut channel, and the reported results come from single runs without variance estimates or significance tests. These gaps prevent the paper from establishing its central state-of-the-art claim in its present form.

major comments (3)

[Multi-view Concept Representation / Implementation Details] The behavior graph B_out is constructed from learner interaction sequences S, but the paper never states how S is split or whether the graph is built before or after the 8:1:1 split. If the graph is built from the full S, then for a test pair (c_i,c_j), a direct transition c_i -> c_j may already be present as an edge in B_out; through the propagation in Eq. (6) and the pair-conditioned fusion in Eq. (14), the model can score that pair highly by matching transition direction without learning any general prerequisite property. The ablation 'w/o Multi-hop Prop.' still uses the directed GCN and the behavior view, so it does not remove the behavior channel, and there is no baseline that uses raw directional transition counts. The paper should specify the split semantics, mask or withhold test-pair edges from graph construction, and add a transition-count baseline to establish that the reported gains come from the proposed components rather than from the extra behavioral input itself.
[Table 1 / Implementation Details] All reported results are from a single run with seed fixed at 42; no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or statistical significance tests are provided. The claimed improvements over the strongest baseline range from 1.96% to 6.11%, and on LectureBank the AUC improvement is only 1.96%, which could easily be within random variation. The paper should report means and standard deviations over multiple seeds and perform significance tests against the strongest baseline before claiming state-of-the-art performance.
[Implementation Details / Hyperparameter Study] Several hyperparameters are selected per dataset: alpha is set to 0.05 for LectureBank and MOOC and to 0.2 for UCD, and lambda is set to 1e-3 for UCD and MOOC and to 5e-3 for LectureBank; the fusion weights w_u, w_v, and w_p are selected on the validation set. The paper does not state whether the baselines received equivalent per-dataset tuning. This asymmetric protocol makes it difficult to attribute the observed improvements to the architecture rather than to more extensive model-specific tuning. The authors should report a common tuning protocol or a fixed-hyperparameter variant, and describe the search ranges for all methods.

minor comments (4)

[Datasets / Problem Definition] The paper never describes how the learner interaction sequences S are obtained (e.g., course enrollments, video clicks, exercise logs) or how the initial concept features X are constructed; this information is essential for reproducibility and for assessing whether the behavior graph is a fair and meaningful signal.
[Figure 4 / Hyperparameter Study] The text and figure caption refer to 'anti-symmetry weight lambda asy', which appears to be a typo; the corresponding hyperparameter in Eq. (23) is lambda, so the notation should be made consistent.
[Author affiliations] There is an affiliation numbering error: both South China Normal University and University College Dublin are labeled as affiliation 3; the latter should be renumbered.
[Table 2] The ablation study reports only F1; since the paper claims that each component contributes positively, reporting ACC and AUC for the ablations would make the claim more robust.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: ProPRL is an empirical architecture study evaluated against external benchmarks; the central SOTA claim is measured, not derived from its inputs.

full rationale

ProPRL's derivation chain is self-contained. The model constructs a directed behavior graph from learner interaction sequences S (Eqs. 2-6) and a concept-resource hypergraph from incidence matrix M (Eqs. 8-10), then learns representations and fuses them via a pair-conditioned gate (Eqs. 11-14). Predictions are supervised by external expert labels Y (Eq. 21). No equation defines an input in terms of the target output; the APPNP propagation (Eq. 6) and gating (Eq. 13) are standard learned transformations, not renamings of the labels. The irreversibility constraint (Eq. 16) is a regularizer, not a fitted parameter passed off as prediction. The only self-citation, DGCPL (Zhang et al. 2025a), is used as a baseline and related work; its author overlap with Jiapu Wang is not load-bearing because the comparison is measured on public datasets. One minor caveat, not circularity: the paper does not state whether the behavior graph is built from all interaction sequences before the 8:1:1 split, which could allow shortcutting if test-pair transitions are visible; and no ablation removes the behavior view entirely. These are validity/robustness questions, not circular reductions.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced; the model is built from graph neural network blocks. The free parameters are standard hyperparameters tuned on validation. The domain assumptions about learner behavior and resource structure are load-bearing for the empirical gains.

free parameters (5)

alpha (teleport probability) = 0.05 (LectureBank, MOOC); 0.2 (UCD)
Set per dataset in Implementation Details; controls the balance between multi-hop behavior propagation and initial representation in Eq. 6.
lambda (irreversibility weight) = 1e-3 (UCD, MOOC); 5e-3 (LectureBank)
Set per dataset; strength of the anti-symmetry regularizer in Eq. 23.
beta (consistency weight) = 1e-5
Fixed in Implementation Details; strength of teacher-detached multi-view consistency loss in Eq. 22-23.
mu (co-activation margin) = 0.8
Margin in irreversibility loss Eq. 16; set without reported sensitivity analysis.
Fusion weights w_u, w_v, w_p = Selected on validation set
Used in Eq. 24 and fixed for test evaluation; selection on validation is standard but adds model-selection flexibility.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Learner interaction sequences reflect prerequisite ordering
Section 'Multi-view Concept Representation' builds directed edges from transitions; if learners often study prerequisites before dependents, the graph encodes the target signal, but this is assumed, not proven.
domain assumption The concept-resource hypergraph covers the relevant learning resources and associates them correctly with concepts
Section 'Multi-view Concept Representation' uses incidence matrix M; incomplete or noisy associations would weaken the resource view.
standard math Standard GNN and hypergraph propagation assumptions hold for educational concept representations
Relies on GCN/HGCN and APPNP as standard tools; no justification that educational graph structure satisfies their inductive biases.
domain assumption The reverse direction of a true prerequisite is false (acyclicity)
The irreversibility constraint Eq. 16 assumes mutual prerequisite relations are negligible; rare cycles would be mispenalized.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ProPRL: Property-Aware Prerequisite Relation Learning in Educational Knowledge Graphs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H6ZYGRGU

@misc{pith2026260803006,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ProPRL: Property-Aware Prerequisite Relation Learning in Educational Knowledge Graphs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H6ZYGRGU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03006}
}

read the original abstract

Prerequisite relation learning is central to adaptive instruction, yet existing methods often formulate it as conventional link prediction, limiting their ability to adaptively integrate complementary educational evidence for individual candidate pairs and to discourage contradictory reverse predictions. We propose ProPRL, a Property-aware Prerequisite Relation Learning framework. ProPRL first learns complementary concept representations from a concept-resource hypergraph and a directed learning-behavior graph, where direction-preserving personalized propagation aggregates multi-hop behavioral evidence. It then employs a Pair-conditioned Gate to adaptively weight and fuse the two views for each candidate ordered concept pair. Finally, an \textit{Irreversibility Constraint} introduces an anti-symmetry regularizer that penalizes simultaneously high confidence in both directions of the same concept pair. Experiments on multiple real-world educational datasets show that ProPRL achieves state-of-the-art performance on prerequisite relation learning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03006 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Overview of the ProPRL framework. ProPRL comprises four stages. (a) Graph construction organizes concept–resource [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The left panel shows the results of DGCPL, while [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Hyperparameter Study. rectly ordered relations from 88.0% to 90.0% and enlarges the mean forward-reverse confidence margin from 0.605 to 0.695. The wider margin results from both a higher mean confidence for the annotated direction and a lower mean confidence for its r…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

12 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

[1]

Alzetta,C.;Koceva,F.;Passalacqua,S.;Torre,I.;andAdorni, G.2018

Abdelrahman,G.;Wang,Q.;andNunes,B.2023.Knowledge tracing: A survey.ACM Computing Surveys, 55(11): 1–37. Alzetta,C.;Koceva,F.;Passalacqua,S.;Torre,I.;andAdorni, G.2018. PRET:Prerequisite-EnrichedTerminology.ACase Study on Educational Texts. InProceedings of the Fifth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics (CLiC-it 2018), 15–21. Cheng, X.; Zhang, Z...

work page 2023
[6]

InProceedings of the 33rd AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI 2019), volume 33, 6674–6681

What should i learn first: Introducing lecturebank for nlp education and prerequisite chain learning. InProceedings of the 33rd AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI 2019), volume 33, 6674–6681. Liang,C.;Wu,Z.;Huang,W.;andGiles,C.L.2015.Measur- ing prerequisite relations among concepts. InProceedings of the 2015 conference on empirical methods ...

work page 2019
[8]

InProceedings of the 33rd AAAI con- ference on artificial intelligence (AAAI 2019), volume 33, 9589–9594

Inferring concept prerequisite relations from online educa- tional resources. InProceedings of the 33rd AAAI con- ference on artificial intelligence (AAAI 2019), volume 33, 9589–9594. Sun, H.; Li, Y.; and Zhang, Y

work page 2019
[12]

InProceedings of the 15th ACM International ConferenceonWebSearchandDataMining(WSDM2022), 1377–1385

Learning concept prerequisite relations from edu- cationaldataviamulti-headattentionvariationalgraphauto- encoders. InProceedings of the 15th ACM International ConferenceonWebSearchandDataMining(WSDM2022), 1377–1385. Zhang, M.; Wang, J.; Han, J.; Xiao, K.; Li, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Chen,H.;andWang,S.2025a.DGCPL:DualGraphDistilla- tionforConceptPrerequisiteRelati...

work page 2025
[31]

InProceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM 2023), 1787–1796

Mazumder,D.;Paik,J.H.;andBasu,A.2023.Agraphneural network model for concept prerequisite relation extraction. InProceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM 2023), 1787–1796. Roy, S.; Madhyastha, M.; Lawrence, S.; and Rajan, V

work page 2023
[126]

Alearning- path based supervised method for concept prerequisite re- lations extraction in educational data

Sun,J.;He,Y.;Xu,Y.;Sun,J.;andSun,G.2024. Alearning- path based supervised method for concept prerequisite re- lations extraction in educational data. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM 2024), 2168–2177. Talukdar, P.; and Cohen, W

work page 2024
[2012]

In Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Building Educa- tional Applications Using NLP, 307–315

Crowdsourced compre- hension: predicting prerequisite structure in wikipedia. In Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Building Educa- tional Applications Using NLP, 307–315. Xiao,K.;Bai,Y.;andZhang,Y.2022. Extractingprecedence relationsbetweenvideolecturesinmoocs. InProceedingsof the 2022 International Conference on MultimediaRetrieval, 608–614. Yang, B...

work page 2022
[2019]

InProceedings of the 33rd AAAI conferenceonartificialintelligence(AAAI2019),volume33, 3558–3565

Hy- pergraph neural networks. InProceedings of the 33rd AAAI conferenceonartificialintelligence(AAAI2019),volume33, 3558–3565. Gasteiger,J.;Bojchevski,A.;andGünnemann,S.2018. Pre- dict then propagate: Graph neural networks meet personal- ized pagerank.arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.05997. Hu, C.; Xiao, K.; Wang, Z.; Wang, S.; and Li, Q

arXiv 2018

Show all 12 references

[2021]

InInternational Conference on Knowledge Science, Engineering and Management, 13–26

Extracting prerequisite relations among wikipedia concepts using the clickstream data. InInternational Conference on Knowledge Science, Engineering and Management, 13–26. Kipf, T. N.; and Welling, M. 2016a. Semi-supervised clas- sificationwithgraphconvolutionalnetworks.arXivpr...

arXiv
[2022]

InProceedings of the 2022 SIAM InternationalConferenceonDataMining(SDM2022),118–

Conlearn: Contextual- knowledge-awareconceptprerequisiterelationlearningwith graph neural network. InProceedings of the 2022 SIAM InternationalConferenceonDataMining(SDM2022),118–

2022
[2025]

InProceedings of the 48th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Re- search and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR- 2025), 1738––1747

NR4DER: Neural re-ranking for diversified exercise recommendation. InProceedings of the 48th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Re- search and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR- 2025), 1738––1747. Feng, Y.; You, H.; Zhang, Z.; Ji, R.; and Gao, Y

2025
[2026]

InProceedings of the 40th AAAI Con- ference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2026), volume 40, 14610–14620

GraphRAG-induced dual knowledge structure graphs for personalized learning path recommendation. InProceedings of the 40th AAAI Con- ference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2026), volume 40, 14610–14620. Cheng, X.; Zhou, X.; Fang, L.; He, C.; Zhou, Y.; Luo, W.; Gong, Z.; and Guan, Q

2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Alzetta,C.;Koceva,F.;Passalacqua,S.;Torre,I.;andAdorni, G.2018

Abdelrahman,G.;Wang,Q.;andNunes,B.2023.Knowledge tracing: A survey.ACM Computing Surveys, 55(11): 1–37. Alzetta,C.;Koceva,F.;Passalacqua,S.;Torre,I.;andAdorni, G.2018. PRET:Prerequisite-EnrichedTerminology.ACase Study on Educational Texts. InProceedings of the Fifth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics (CLiC-it 2018), 15–21. Cheng, X.; Zhang, Z...

work page 2023

[2] [6]

InProceedings of the 33rd AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI 2019), volume 33, 6674–6681

What should i learn first: Introducing lecturebank for nlp education and prerequisite chain learning. InProceedings of the 33rd AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI 2019), volume 33, 6674–6681. Liang,C.;Wu,Z.;Huang,W.;andGiles,C.L.2015.Measur- ing prerequisite relations among concepts. InProceedings of the 2015 conference on empirical methods ...

work page 2019

[3] [8]

InProceedings of the 33rd AAAI con- ference on artificial intelligence (AAAI 2019), volume 33, 9589–9594

Inferring concept prerequisite relations from online educa- tional resources. InProceedings of the 33rd AAAI con- ference on artificial intelligence (AAAI 2019), volume 33, 9589–9594. Sun, H.; Li, Y.; and Zhang, Y

work page 2019

[4] [12]

InProceedings of the 15th ACM International ConferenceonWebSearchandDataMining(WSDM2022), 1377–1385

Learning concept prerequisite relations from edu- cationaldataviamulti-headattentionvariationalgraphauto- encoders. InProceedings of the 15th ACM International ConferenceonWebSearchandDataMining(WSDM2022), 1377–1385. Zhang, M.; Wang, J.; Han, J.; Xiao, K.; Li, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Chen,H.;andWang,S.2025a.DGCPL:DualGraphDistilla- tionforConceptPrerequisiteRelati...

work page 2025

[5] [31]

InProceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM 2023), 1787–1796

Mazumder,D.;Paik,J.H.;andBasu,A.2023.Agraphneural network model for concept prerequisite relation extraction. InProceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM 2023), 1787–1796. Roy, S.; Madhyastha, M.; Lawrence, S.; and Rajan, V

work page 2023

[6] [126]

Alearning- path based supervised method for concept prerequisite re- lations extraction in educational data

Sun,J.;He,Y.;Xu,Y.;Sun,J.;andSun,G.2024. Alearning- path based supervised method for concept prerequisite re- lations extraction in educational data. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM 2024), 2168–2177. Talukdar, P.; and Cohen, W

work page 2024

[7] [2012]

In Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Building Educa- tional Applications Using NLP, 307–315

Crowdsourced compre- hension: predicting prerequisite structure in wikipedia. In Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Building Educa- tional Applications Using NLP, 307–315. Xiao,K.;Bai,Y.;andZhang,Y.2022. Extractingprecedence relationsbetweenvideolecturesinmoocs. InProceedingsof the 2022 International Conference on MultimediaRetrieval, 608–614. Yang, B...

work page 2022

[8] [2019]

InProceedings of the 33rd AAAI conferenceonartificialintelligence(AAAI2019),volume33, 3558–3565

Hy- pergraph neural networks. InProceedings of the 33rd AAAI conferenceonartificialintelligence(AAAI2019),volume33, 3558–3565. Gasteiger,J.;Bojchevski,A.;andGünnemann,S.2018. Pre- dict then propagate: Graph neural networks meet personal- ized pagerank.arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.05997. Hu, C.; Xiao, K.; Wang, Z.; Wang, S.; and Li, Q

arXiv 2018