A Systematic Review of Synthetic Data Generation Techniques Using Generative AI
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Synthetic data are increasingly being recognized for their potential to address serious real-world challenges in various domains. They provide innovative solutions to combat the data scarcity, privacy concerns, and algorithmic biases commonly used in machine learning applications. Synthetic data preserve all underlying patterns and behaviors of the original dataset while altering the actual content. The methods proposed in the literature to generate synthetic data vary from large language models (LLMs), which are pre-trained on gigantic datasets, to generative adversarial networks (GANs) and variational autoencoders (VAEs). This study provides a systematic review of the various techniques proposed in the literature that can be used to generate synthetic data to identify their limitations and suggest potential future research areas. The findings indicate that while these technologies generate synthetic data of specific data types, they still have some drawbacks, such as computational requirements, training stability, and privacy-preserving measures which limit their real-world usability. Addressing these issues will facilitate the broader adoption of synthetic data generation techniques across various disciplines, thereby advancing machine learning and data-driven solutions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it