SynQP: A Framework and Metrics for Evaluating the Quality and Privacy Risk of Synthetic Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of synthetic data in health applications raises privacy concerns, yet the lack of open frameworks for privacy evaluations has slowed its adoption. A major challenge is the absence of accessible benchmark datasets for evaluating privacy risks, due to difficulties in acquiring sensitive data. To address this, we introduce SynQP, an open framework for benchmarking privacy in synthetic data generation (SDG) using simulated sensitive data, ensuring that original data remains confidential. We also highlight the need for privacy metrics that fairly account for the probabilistic nature of machine learning models. As a demonstration, we use SynQPto benchmark CTGAN and propose a new identity disclosure risk metric that offers a more accurate estimation of privacy risks compared to existing approaches. Our work provides a critical tool for improving the transparency and reliability of privacy evaluations, enabling safer use of synthetic data in health-related applications. Our privacy assessments (Table II) reveal that DP consistently lowers both identity disclosure risk (SD-IDR) and membershipinference attack risk (SD-MIA), with all DP-augmented models staying below the 0.09 regulatory threshold.Code available at https://github.com/CAN-SYNH/SynQP
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 | 0.043 | 0.155 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".