Genetic Algorithm for Subset Selection in Synthetic Tabular Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subset selection has been widely studied but remains underexplored for synthetic tabular data, particularly in data sharing contexts that require high quality data. While generative models can produce large volumes of synthetic data, directly sampling and releasing such data risks including low quality or unrepresentative samples, which can reduce data utility. An alternative approach is to generate more data than needed and subsequently select a subset that better meets specific quality criteria. This paper introduces a genetic algorithm (GA)-based method for optimizing such subset selection. The proposed GA is independent of any specific fitness function, enabling adaptation to diverse evaluation metrics, their combinations, or varying use case requirements. We benchmarked the method on five medical datasets, each synthesized by multiple generative architectures, and consistently found that the GA selected subsets outperformed both the initial synthetic datasets and a random subset selection baseline. Notably, initializing the GA with systematically generated synthetic subsets led to nearly twice the improvement over the baselines compared to random initialization, emphasizing the importance of more informed starting solutions. The proposed GA-based method proved especially beneficial for smaller datasets, which are frequently encountered in clinical domains, such as rare disease research. While performance gains diminished for larger datasets due to combinatorial complexity, this work highlights the potential of GA-driven optimization as a foundation for future research into scalable and adaptive subset selection methods for synthetic data sharing.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 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".