Abstract:There is no consensus in the field of synthetic data on concise metrics for quality evaluations or benchmarks on large health datasets, such as historical epidemiological data. This study presents an evaluation of seven recent models from major machine learning families. The models were evaluated using four different datasets, each with a distinct scale. To ensure a fair comparison, we systematically tuned the hyperparameters of each model for each dataset. We propose a methodology for evaluating the fidelity of synthesized joint distributions, aligning metrics with visualization on a single plot. This method is applicable to any dataset and is complemented by a domain-specific analysis of the German Cancer Registries' epidemiological dataset. The analysis reveals the challenges models face in strictly adhering to the medical domain. We hope this approach will serve as a foundational framework for guiding the selection of synthesizers and remain accessible to all stakeholders involved in releasing synthetic datasets.
| Subjects: | Machine Learning (cs.LG) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2604.15961 [cs.LG] |
| (or arXiv:2604.15961v1 [cs.LG] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.15961 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration) |
From: Jean-Baptiste Escudié [view email]
[v1]
Fri, 17 Apr 2026 11:28:25 UTC (3,416 KB)
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。