Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.28036

When Does Training on Synthetic Data Provably Work?

Abstract

High-quality training data are a major bottleneck in machine learning, motivating increasing use of artificially generated data. We study when a binary classifier trained on synthetic data transfers successfully to a real distribution, under a shared conditional label distribution. First, we derive finite-sample excess-error bounds when the real covariate distribution is absolutely continuous with respect to the synthetic distribution under a controlled density ratio. Second, we study the partially and fully singular case, where the real distribution has mass outside the synthetic one. If the hypothesis class is sufficiently expressive, synthetic risk alone cannot uniformly control real-world error: a classifier can be nearly optimal on synthetic data while approaching worst-case error on the uncovered real region, even when the distributions are arbitrarily close in Wasserstein distance. For function classes where hypotheses and the log-odds of the conditional label probability are Lipschitz, we recover a bound in terms of the probability that a real sample lies outside the reach of the synthetic data, restoring a transfer guarantee even in the fully singular case. Experiments confirm this in controlled low-dimensional settings and on 32,200 images generated as counterparts to real ImageNet images by four state-of-the-art generators: an adversarial classifier reaches 0.5% error on the synthetic domain but 99.25% error on the real domain, while ordinarily trained architectures show positively correlated synthetic and real test errors. Synthetic data should be budgeted at high sample counts and models validated on real data.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Leroy Odunlami, Tobias Riedlinger, Hanno Gottschalk. 2026-10-20. When Does Training on Synthetic Data Provably Work?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.28036

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

The Limits of Post-Selection Generalization

While statistics and machine learning offer numerous methods for ensuring generalization, these methods often fail in the presence of adaptivity---the common practice in which the choice of analysis depends on previous interactions with the same dataset. A recent line of work has introduced powerful, general purpose algorithms that ensure post hoc generalization (also called robust or post-selection generalization), which says that, given the output of the algorithm, it is hard to find any statistic for which the data differs significantly from the population it came from. In this work we show several limitations on the power of algorithms satisfying post hoc generalization. First, we show a tight lower bound on the error of any algorithm that satisfies post hoc generalization and answers adaptively chosen statistical queries, showing a strong barrier to progress in post selection data analysis. Second, we show that post hoc generalization is not closed under composition, despite many examples of such algorithms exhibiting strong composition properties.

cs.LG↗

Quantifying Symptom Causality in Clinical Decision Making: An Exploration Using CausaLM

Current machine learning approaches to medical diagnosis often rely on correlational patterns between symptoms and diseases, risking misdiagnoses when symptoms are ambiguous or common across multiple conditions. In this work, we move beyond correlation to investigate the causal influence of key symptoms-specifically "chest pain" on diagnostic predictions. Leveraging the CausaLM framework, we generate counterfactual text representations in which target concepts are effectively "forgotten" enabling a principled estimation of the causal effect of that concept on a model's predicted disease distribution. By employing Textual Representation-based Average Treatment Effect (TReATE), we quantify how the presence or absence of a symptom shapes the model's diagnostic outcomes, and contrast these findings against correlation-based baselines such as CONEXP. Our results offer deeper insight into the decision-making behavior of clinical NLP models and have the potential to inform more trustworthy, interpretable, and causally-grounded decision support tools in medical practice.

cs.LG↗

Understanding and Mitigating Under-Confidence in GNNs from the Final Layer

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have demonstrated remarkable effectiveness on graph-based tasks. However, their predictive confidence is often miscalibrated, typically exhibiting under-confidence, which harms the reliability of their decisions. Existing calibration methods for GNNs normally introduce additional calibration components, which fail to capture the intrinsic relationship between the model and the prediction confidence, resulting in limited theoretical guarantees and increased computational overhead. To address this issue, we propose a simple yet efficient graph calibration method. We establish a unified theoretical framework revealing that model confidence is jointly governed by class-centroid-level and node-level calibration at the final layer. Based on this insight, we theoretically show that reducing the weight decay of the final-layer parameters alleviates GNN under-confidence by acting on the class-centroid level, while node-level calibration acts as a finer-grained complement to class-centroid-level calibration, which encourages each test node to be closer to its predicted class prototype in the final-layer representations. Extensive experiments validate the superiority of our method. The code is released at https://github.com/huangJC0429/SCAR.

cs.LG↗