skip to main content


Title: Automated Extraction of Domain Models from Textbook Indexes for Developing Intelligent Tutoring Systems
Domain modeling is an important task in designing, developing, and deploying intelligent tutoring systems and other adaptive instructional systems. We focus here on the more specific task of automatically extracting a domain model from textbooks. In particular, this paper explores using multiple textbook indexes to extract a domain model for computer programming. Our approach is based on the observation that different experts, i.e., authors of intro-to-programming textbooks in our case, break down a domain in slightly different ways, and identifying the commonalities and differences can be very revealing. To this end, we present automated approaches to extracting domain models from multiple textbooks and compare the resulting common domain model with a domain model created by experts. Specifically, we use approximate string-matching approaches to increase coverage of the resulting domain model and majority voting across different textbooks to discover common domain terms related to computer programming. Our results indicate that using approximate string matching gives more accurate domain models for computer programming with increased precision and recall. By automating our approach, we can significantly reduce the time and effort required to construct high-quality domain models, making it easy to develop and deploy tutoring systems. Furthermore, we obtain a common domain model that can serve as a benchmark or skeleton that can be used broadly and adapted to specific needs by others.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1934745
NSF-PAR ID:
10447586
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ;
Editor(s):
Frasson, C.; Mylonas, P.; Troussas, C.
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Augmented Intelligence and Intelligent Tutoring Systems. ITS 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13891
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. null (Ed.)
    We present a novel approach to intro-to-programming domain model discovery from textbooks using an over-generation and ranking strategy. We first extract candidate key phrases from each chapter in a Computer Science textbook focusing on intro-to-programming and then rank those concepts according to a number of metrics such as the standard tf-idf weight used in information retrieval and metrics produced by other text ranking algorithms. Specifically, we conduct our work in the context of developing an intelligent tutoring system for source code comprehension for which a specification of the key programming concepts is needed - the system monitors students' performance on those concepts and scaffolds their learning process until they show mastery of the concepts. Our experiments with programming concept instruction from Java textbooks indicate that the statistical methods such as KP Miner method are quite competitive compared to other more sophisticated methods. Automated discovery of domain models will lead to more scalable Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITSs) across topics and domains, which is a major challenge that needs to be addressed if ITSs are to be widely used by millions of learners across many domains. 
    more » « less
  2. Obeid, Iyad Selesnick (Ed.)
    Electroencephalography (EEG) is a popular clinical monitoring tool used for diagnosing brain-related disorders such as epilepsy [1]. As monitoring EEGs in a critical-care setting is an expensive and tedious task, there is a great interest in developing real-time EEG monitoring tools to improve patient care quality and efficiency [2]. However, clinicians require automatic seizure detection tools that provide decisions with at least 75% sensitivity and less than 1 false alarm (FA) per 24 hours [3]. Some commercial tools recently claim to reach such performance levels, including the Olympic Brainz Monitor [4] and Persyst 14 [5]. In this abstract, we describe our efforts to transform a high-performance offline seizure detection system [3] into a low latency real-time or online seizure detection system. An overview of the system is shown in Figure 1. The main difference between an online versus offline system is that an online system should always be causal and has minimum latency which is often defined by domain experts. The offline system, shown in Figure 2, uses two phases of deep learning models with postprocessing [3]. The channel-based long short term memory (LSTM) model (Phase 1 or P1) processes linear frequency cepstral coefficients (LFCC) [6] features from each EEG channel separately. We use the hypotheses generated by the P1 model and create additional features that carry information about the detected events and their confidence. The P2 model uses these additional features and the LFCC features to learn the temporal and spatial aspects of the EEG signals using a hybrid convolutional neural network (CNN) and LSTM model. Finally, Phase 3 aggregates the results from both P1 and P2 before applying a final postprocessing step. The online system implements Phase 1 by taking advantage of the Linux piping mechanism, multithreading techniques, and multi-core processors. To convert Phase 1 into an online system, we divide the system into five major modules: signal preprocessor, feature extractor, event decoder, postprocessor, and visualizer. The system reads 0.1-second frames from each EEG channel and sends them to the feature extractor and the visualizer. The feature extractor generates LFCC features in real time from the streaming EEG signal. Next, the system computes seizure and background probabilities using a channel-based LSTM model and applies a postprocessor to aggregate the detected events across channels. The system then displays the EEG signal and the decisions simultaneously using a visualization module. The online system uses C++, Python, TensorFlow, and PyQtGraph in its implementation. The online system accepts streamed EEG data sampled at 250 Hz as input. The system begins processing the EEG signal by applying a TCP montage [8]. Depending on the type of the montage, the EEG signal can have either 22 or 20 channels. To enable the online operation, we send 0.1-second (25 samples) length frames from each channel of the streamed EEG signal to the feature extractor and the visualizer. Feature extraction is performed sequentially on each channel. The signal preprocessor writes the sample frames into two streams to facilitate these modules. In the first stream, the feature extractor receives the signals using stdin. In parallel, as a second stream, the visualizer shares a user-defined file with the signal preprocessor. This user-defined file holds raw signal information as a buffer for the visualizer. The signal preprocessor writes into the file while the visualizer reads from it. Reading and writing into the same file poses a challenge. The visualizer can start reading while the signal preprocessor is writing into it. To resolve this issue, we utilize a file locking mechanism in the signal preprocessor and visualizer. Each of the processes temporarily locks the file, performs its operation, releases the lock, and tries to obtain the lock after a waiting period. The file locking mechanism ensures that only one process can access the file by prohibiting other processes from reading or writing while one process is modifying the file [9]. The feature extractor uses circular buffers to save 0.3 seconds or 75 samples from each channel for extracting 0.2-second or 50-sample long center-aligned windows. The module generates 8 absolute LFCC features where the zeroth cepstral coefficient is replaced by a temporal domain energy term. For extracting the rest of the features, three pipelines are used. The differential energy feature is calculated in a 0.9-second absolute feature window with a frame size of 0.1 seconds. The difference between the maximum and minimum temporal energy terms is calculated in this range. Then, the first derivative or the delta features are calculated using another 0.9-second window. Finally, the second derivative or delta-delta features are calculated using a 0.3-second window [6]. The differential energy for the delta-delta features is not included. In total, we extract 26 features from the raw sample windows which add 1.1 seconds of delay to the system. We used the Temple University Hospital Seizure Database (TUSZ) v1.2.1 for developing the online system [10]. The statistics for this dataset are shown in Table 1. A channel-based LSTM model was trained using the features derived from the train set using the online feature extractor module. A window-based normalization technique was applied to those features. In the offline model, we scale features by normalizing using the maximum absolute value of a channel [11] before applying a sliding window approach. Since the online system has access to a limited amount of data, we normalize based on the observed window. The model uses the feature vectors with a frame size of 1 second and a window size of 7 seconds. We evaluated the model using the offline P1 postprocessor to determine the efficacy of the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique. As shown by the results of experiments 1 and 4 in Table 2, these changes give us a comparable performance to the offline model. The online event decoder module utilizes this trained model for computing probabilities for the seizure and background classes. These posteriors are then postprocessed to remove spurious detections. The online postprocessor receives and saves 8 seconds of class posteriors in a buffer for further processing. It applies multiple heuristic filters (e.g., probability threshold) to make an overall decision by combining events across the channels. These filters evaluate the average confidence, the duration of a seizure, and the channels where the seizures were observed. The postprocessor delivers the label and confidence to the visualizer. The visualizer starts to display the signal as soon as it gets access to the signal file, as shown in Figure 1 using the “Signal File” and “Visualizer” blocks. Once the visualizer receives the label and confidence for the latest epoch from the postprocessor, it overlays the decision and color codes that epoch. The visualizer uses red for seizure with the label SEIZ and green for the background class with the label BCKG. Once the streaming finishes, the system saves three files: a signal file in which the sample frames are saved in the order they were streamed, a time segmented event (TSE) file with the overall decisions and confidences, and a hypotheses (HYP) file that saves the label and confidence for each epoch. The user can plot the signal and decisions using the signal and HYP files with only the visualizer by enabling appropriate options. For comparing the performance of different stages of development, we used the test set of TUSZ v1.2.1 database. It contains 1015 EEG records of varying duration. The any-overlap performance [12] of the overall system shown in Figure 2 is 40.29% sensitivity with 5.77 FAs per 24 hours. For comparison, the previous state-of-the-art model developed on this database performed at 30.71% sensitivity with 6.77 FAs per 24 hours [3]. The individual performances of the deep learning phases are as follows: Phase 1’s (P1) performance is 39.46% sensitivity and 11.62 FAs per 24 hours, and Phase 2 detects seizures with 41.16% sensitivity and 11.69 FAs per 24 hours. We trained an LSTM model with the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique for developing the online system. Using the offline decoder and postprocessor, the model performed at 36.23% sensitivity with 9.52 FAs per 24 hours. The trained model was then evaluated with the online modules. The current performance of the overall online system is 45.80% sensitivity with 28.14 FAs per 24 hours. Table 2 summarizes the performances of these systems. The performance of the online system deviates from the offline P1 model because the online postprocessor fails to combine the events as the seizure probability fluctuates during an event. The modules in the online system add a total of 11.1 seconds of delay for processing each second of the data, as shown in Figure 3. In practice, we also count the time for loading the model and starting the visualizer block. When we consider these facts, the system consumes 15 seconds to display the first hypothesis. The system detects seizure onsets with an average latency of 15 seconds. Implementing an automatic seizure detection model in real time is not trivial. We used a variety of techniques such as the file locking mechanism, multithreading, circular buffers, real-time event decoding, and signal-decision plotting to realize the system. A video demonstrating the system is available at: https://www.isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_pfi_tt/resources/videos/realtime_eeg_analysis/v2.5.1/video_2.5.1.mp4. The final conference submission will include a more detailed analysis of the online performance of each module. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research reported in this publication was most recently supported by the National Science Foundation Partnership for Innovation award number IIP-1827565 and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement Program (PA CURE). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views of any of these organizations. REFERENCES [1] A. Craik, Y. He, and J. L. Contreras-Vidal, “Deep learning for electroencephalogram (EEG) classification tasks: a review,” J. Neural Eng., vol. 16, no. 3, p. 031001, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab0ab5. [2] A. C. Bridi, T. Q. Louro, and R. C. L. Da Silva, “Clinical Alarms in intensive care: implications of alarm fatigue for the safety of patients,” Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem, vol. 22, no. 6, p. 1034, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.3488.2513. [3] M. Golmohammadi, V. Shah, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Deep Learning Approaches for Automatic Seizure Detection from Scalp Electroencephalograms,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 233–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36844-9_8. [4] “CFM Olympic Brainz Monitor.” [Online]. Available: https://newborncare.natus.com/products-services/newborn-care-products/newborn-brain-injury/cfm-olympic-brainz-monitor. [Accessed: 17-Jul-2020]. [5] M. L. Scheuer, S. B. Wilson, A. Antony, G. Ghearing, A. Urban, and A. I. Bagic, “Seizure Detection: Interreader Agreement and Detection Algorithm Assessments Using a Large Dataset,” J. Clin. Neurophysiol., 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000709. [6] A. Harati, M. Golmohammadi, S. Lopez, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved EEG Event Classification Using Differential Energy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium, 2015, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB.2015.7405421. [7] V. Shah, C. Campbell, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved Spatio-Temporal Modeling in Automated Seizure Detection using Channel-Dependent Posteriors,” Neurocomputing, 2021. [8] W. Tatum, A. Husain, S. Benbadis, and P. Kaplan, Handbook of EEG Interpretation. New York City, New York, USA: Demos Medical Publishing, 2007. [9] D. P. Bovet and C. Marco, Understanding the Linux Kernel, 3rd ed. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2005. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/understanding-the-linux/0596005652/. [10] V. Shah et al., “The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus,” Front. Neuroinform., vol. 12, pp. 1–6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00083. [11] F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1953048.2078195. [12] J. Gotman, D. Flanagan, J. Zhang, and B. Rosenblatt, “Automatic seizure detection in the newborn: Methods and initial evaluation,” Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 356–362, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00003-9. 
    more » « less
  3. Accurate pose estimation is often a requirement for robust robotic grasping and manipulation of objects placed in cluttered, tight environments, such as a shelf with multiple objects. When deep learning approaches are employed to perform this task, they typically require a large amount of training data. However, obtaining precise 6 degrees of freedom for ground-truth can be prohibitively expensive. This work therefore proposes an architecture and a training process to solve this issue. More precisely, we present a weak object detector that enables localizing objects and estimating their 6D poses in cluttered and occluded scenes. To minimize the human labor required for annotations, the proposed detector is trained with a combination of synthetic and a few weakly annotated real images (as little as 10 images per object), for which a human provides only a list of objects present in each image (no time-consuming annotations, such as bounding boxes, segmentation masks and object poses). To close the gap between real and synthetic images, we use multiple domain classifiers trained adversarially. During the inference phase, the resulting class-specific heatmaps of the weak detector are used to guide the search of 6D poses of objects. Our proposed approach is evaluated on several publicly available datasets for pose estimation. We also evaluated our model on classification and localization in unsupervised and semi-supervised settings. The results clearly indicate that this approach could provide an efficient way toward fully automating the training process of computer vision models used in robotics. 
    more » « less
  4. Due to the surge of cloud-assisted AI services, the problem of designing resilient prediction serving systems that can effectively cope with stragglers and minimize response delays has attracted much interest. The common approach for tackling this problem is replication which assigns the same prediction task to multiple workers. This approach, however, is inefficient and incurs significant resource overheads. Hence, a learning-based approach known as parity model (ParM) has been recently proposed which learns models that can generate ``parities’’ for a group of predictions to reconstruct the predictions of the slow/failed workers. While this learning-based approach is more resource-efficient than replication, it is tailored to the specific model hosted by the cloud and is particularly suitable for a small number of queries (typically less than four) and tolerating very few stragglers (mostly one). Moreover, ParM does not handle Byzantine adversarial workers. We propose a different approach, named Approximate Coded Inference (ApproxIFER), that does not require training any parity models, hence it is agnostic to the model hosted by the cloud and can be readily applied to different data domains and model architectures. Compared with earlier works, ApproxIFER can handle a general number of stragglers and scales significantly better with the number of queries. Furthermore, ApproxIFER is robust against Byzantine workers. Our extensive experiments on a large number of datasets and model architectures show significant degraded mode accuracy improvement by up to 58% over ParM. 
    more » « less
  5. Domain modeling is a central component in education technologies as it represents the target domain students are supposed to train on and eventually master. Automatically generating domain models can lead to substantial cost and scalability benefits. Automatically extracting key concepts or knowledge components from, for instance, textbooks can enable the development of automatic or semi-automatic processes for creating domain models. We explore in this work the use of transformer based pre-trained models for the task of keyphrase extraction. Specifically, we investigate and evaluate four different variants of BERT, a pre-trained transformer based architecture, that vary in terms of training data, training objective, or training strategy to extract knowledge components from textbooks for the domain of intro-to-programming. We report results obtained using the following BERT-based models: BERT, CodeBERT, SciBERT and RoBERTa. 
    more » « less