Towards efficient student performance prediction with TabPFN: A few-shot learning approach in data-scarce scenarios


Abstract

Accurate prediction of student academic performance is crucial for enhancing educational outcomes and enabling personalized learning interventions. However, the limited availability of labeled data in many practical educational settings poses significant challenges for conventional machine learning models, which often require large datasets to achieve satisfactory performance and are prone to overfitting. To address this issue, we propose a novel few-shot learning framework based on the Tabular Prior-Data Fitted Network (TabPFN). By integrating a Transformer-based architecture with Bayesian inference, TabPFN effectively leverages meta-learned priors to perform high-quality predictions without task-specific finetuning. We evaluate our approach on two public educational datasets, Mathematics and Portuguese student performance, under small sample conditions. Experimental results demonstrate that TabPFN outperforms a range of traditional and deep learning benchmarks, achieving accuracies of 92.36% and 95.49%, respectively. Additionally, we employ SHAP (Shapley Additive Explanations) to interpret model decisions, identifying key influencing factors such as prior grades (G1, G2) and prior educational experience. The findings indicate that TabPFN constitutes a promising and effective solution for educational prediction in data-scarce scenarios but also provides actionable insights for instructional design and student support.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].