Often, the goal isn't just to evaluate a single synthetic dataset in isolation, but to compare multiple candidates. Perhaps you've trained several generative models (e.g., a GAN, a VAE, a Diffusion Model) on the same real data, or maybe you've generated datasets using the same model but with different hyperparameter settings. Benchmarking provides a structured way to determine which synthetic dataset, or which generation approach, best meets your requirements for a specific application. Building upon the comprehensive reporting structure discussed earlier, benchmarking introduces a comparative layer to your analysis.
The foundation of effective benchmarking is fairness. To meaningfully compare different synthetic datasets, you must evaluate them under identical conditions. This means:
Any variation in the evaluation setup between datasets can introduce bias, making comparisons unreliable. The automation pipelines discussed previously become particularly valuable here, ensuring consistency and reproducibility across multiple benchmark runs.
Comparing datasets often involves juggling performance across multiple, potentially conflicting, dimensions (fidelity, utility, privacy). A dataset might excel in statistical fidelity but perform poorly on downstream tasks, while another offers better utility at the cost of slightly higher privacy risks. Visualizations and summary methods are essential for understanding these trade-offs.
The simplest approach is to compile key metrics into a table, with each row representing a synthetic dataset and each column representing an evaluation metric. This provides a direct side-by-side comparison.
Dataset | Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Avg. p-value) | TSTR Accuracy (vs. Real Baseline) | MIA AUC Score | Feature Importance Correlation | Generation Time (min) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
GAN (Default HPs) | 0.65 | 92% | 0.68 | 0.75 | 120 |
VAE (Latent=32) | 0.78 | 88% | 0.59 | 0.82 | 45 |
GAN (Tuned HPs) | 0.82 | 95% | 0.65 | 0.88 | 180 |
DP-GAN (Epsilon=1) | 0.55 | 75% | 0.52 | 0.60 | 210 |
Visual tools can make complex comparisons more intuitive.
Radar chart comparing three synthetic datasets across five normalized dimensions: Statistical Fidelity (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test average), TSTR Accuracy relative to baseline, Privacy (inverted MIA score), Feature Importance Correlation, and Generation Efficiency (inversely related to time). Scores are normalized between 0 and 1, where higher is better.
Once the metrics are gathered and visualized, you need a strategy to select the "best" dataset for your purpose.
If you can quantify the relative importance of different evaluation dimensions for your specific application, you can compute a weighted composite score for each dataset.
The dataset with the highest score is considered the best according to your defined priorities. Be aware that this method is sensitive to the chosen weights, which can be subjective. It's often useful to perform sensitivity analysis by varying the weights slightly.
A dataset A dominates dataset B if A performs at least as well as B on all metrics and strictly better on at least one metric. Identifying dominated datasets helps eliminate clearly inferior options without needing explicit weights. The non-dominated datasets form the Pareto set mentioned earlier.
Instead of a single top choice, you might categorize datasets into performance tiers (e.g., "Excellent", "Good", "Acceptable", "Unsuitable") based on predefined thresholds for key metrics. This is useful when multiple datasets meet a minimum quality bar, allowing flexibility in selection based on secondary criteria like generation cost.
Benchmarking shouldn't solely focus on quality metrics. Practical considerations are also significant:
These factors should be included in your comparison, perhaps as additional columns in your summary table or as constraints in your selection process.
By systematically benchmarking different synthetic datasets using a consistent framework and appropriate comparison techniques, you can make informed decisions about which generative models, parameters, or specific datasets best serve your needs, balancing the complex interplay of fidelity, utility, privacy, and practical constraints.
© 2025 ApX Machine Learning