Generating Tabular Data Using Heterogeneous Sequential Feature Forest Flow Matching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Privacy and regulatory constraints make data generation vital to advancing machine learning without relying on real-world datasets. A leading approach for tabular data generation is the Forest Flow (FF) method, which combines Flow Matching with XGBoost. Despite its good performance, FF is slow and makes errors when treating categorical variables as one-hot continuous features. It is also highly sensitive to small changes in the initial conditions of the ordinary differential equation (ODE). To overcome these limitations, we develop Heterogeneous Sequential Feature Forest Flow (HS3F). Our method generates data sequentially (feature-by-feature), reducing the dependency on noisy initial conditions through the additional information from previously generated features. Furthermore, it generates categorical variables using multinomial sampling (from an XGBoost classifier) instead of flow matching, improving generation speed. We also use a Runge-Kutta 4th order (Rg4) ODE solver for improved performance over the Euler solver used in FF. Our experiments with 25 datasets reveal that HS3F produces higher quality and more diverse synthetic data than FF, especially for categorical variables. It also generates data 21-27 times faster for datasets with $\geq20%$ categorical variables. HS3F further demonstrates enhanced robustness to affine transformation in flow ODE initial conditions compared to FF. This study not only validates the HS3F but also unveils promising new strategies to advance generative models.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".