Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper establishes a theoretical framework for understanding the conditions under which synthetic data augmentation enhances score-based metrics in imbalanced classification tasks. It identifies two key components influencing augmentation effectiveness: changes in effective class weighting and discrepancies between synthetic and true minority distributions. The findings reveal that while augmentation may not yield significant population-level improvements in well-specified models, it can correct ranking errors and improve performance in misspecified scenarios by altering class balance.
Synthetic data augmentation can actually worsen performance in well-specified models, but it becomes a powerful tool for correcting ranking errors in misspecified settings.
Synthetic data augmentation is widely used to mitigate class imbalance, but its theoretical effects on score-based classification remain poorly understood. This paper develops a framework for characterizing when synthetic minority augmentation can improve threshold-integrated and threshold-optimized metrics, including AUROC, AUPRC, best-threshold balanced accuracy, and best-threshold \(\F_1\) score. We separate the effect of augmentation into two components: a change in effective class weighting and a discrepancy between the synthetic and true minority distributions. Under well-specified score models, the raw estimator already targets the likelihood-ratio ordering, which is population-optimal for the metrics considered. Consequently, augmentation cannot provide a fundamental population-level improvement beyond possible finite-sample variance reduction, and may introduce additional bias through synthetic distributional error. We further establish minimax lower bounds showing that the raw estimator already achieves the optimal metric-regret rate in the well-specified regime. Under misspecification, however, augmentation can play a qualitatively different role: by changing the effective class balance, it can alter the restricted-class projection and correct ranking errors induced by the raw imbalanced objective. We provide explicit improvement bounds quantifying the roles of approximation error, finite-sample estimation error, and synthetic distributional error. Simulation studies corroborate the theory, demonstrating limited gains under well-specification and nontrivial but nonmonotone improvements under misspecification.
