Robustness Analysis of Deep Learning Models for Population Synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep generative models have become useful for synthetic data generation, particularly population synthesis. The models implicitly learn the probability distribution of a dataset and can draw samples from a distribution. Several models have been proposed, but their performance is only tested on a single cross-sectional sample. The implementation of population synthesis on single datasets is seen as a drawback that needs further studies to explore the robustness of the models on multiple datasets. While comparing with the real data can increase trust and interpretability of the models, techniques to evaluate deep generative models’ robustness for population synthesis remain underexplored. In this study, we present bootstrap confidence interval for the deep generative models, an approach that computes efficient confidence intervals for mean errors predictions to evaluate the robustness of the models to multiple datasets. Specifically, we adopt the tabular-based Composite Travel Generative Adversarial Network (CTGAN) and Variational Autoencoder (VAE), to estimate the distribution of the population, by generating agents that have tabular data using several samples over time from the same study area. The models are implemented on multiple travel diaries of Montréal Origin-Destination Survey of 2008, 2013, and 2018 and compare the predictive performance under varying sample sizes from multiple surveys. Results show that the predictive errors of CTGAN have narrower confidence intervals indicating its robustness to multiple datasets of the varying sample sizes when compared to VAE. Again, the evaluation of model robustness against varying sample size shows a minimal decrease in model performance with decrease in sample size. This study directly supports agent-based modelling by enabling finer synthetic generation of populations in a reliable environment.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".