Bias-Corrected Data Synthesis for Imbalanced Learning

Class imbalance poses a significant challenge in classification, where existing methods such as SMOTE often generate low-quality synthetic samples in regions with noise or class overlap. We propose QC-SMOTE, a quality-controlled oversampling framework that estimates minority sample reliability using a composite neighbourhood trustworthiness score combining local density, safe-level, and isolation from the majority class. Synthetic candidates are generated using an IPQ-guided best-of-K strategy that evaluates midpoint purity and, when required, majority clearance, with allocation guided by sample reliability and boundary informativeness. Generation behaviour adapts across overlap--imbalance regimes, adjusting interpolation range and selection criteria to match local data geometry. Low-quality synthetic samples are replaced with original minority duplicates when neighbourhood purity falls below an adaptive threshold, providing graceful degradation by reverting to duplication in severely noisy regions. Experiments on 30 imbalanced datasets using repeated stratified cross-validation show that QC-SMOTE achieves the strongest average AUC-ROC and Macro F1 among the compared oversampling methods, with particularly clear gains under moderate and severe imbalance. These results demonstrate the importance of quality-aware, geometry-adaptive synthetic sampling for robust imbalanced classification.

For two decades, the standard remedy for class-imbalanced learning has been to fabricate synthetic minority examples, and the standard evidence of their validity has been a check that cannot fail: synthetic points are scored against the very data that generated them. We de-bias the check. Validity becomes a population quantity -- the probability that a synthetic point truly belongs to the minority class -- with a consistent estimator that scores synthetic points against withheld real data. Where held-out ground truth is available, the classical test underestimates true invalidity in 96-99% of method-by-imbalance-ratio cells, while the de-biased estimator tracks it closely. We prove validity is a property of the data, not the method: class overlap sets an invalidity floor no faithful generator escapes, making oversampling redundant where classes separate and invalid where they overlap. Across 91 methods, three classifiers, and datasets spanning medicine and finance -- including a generator engineered to pass the classical check -- none clears both bars: gains over the best trivial baseline are noise-thin (median below 0.01 F1, a decision threshold's reach), and most damage calibration. We release the audit as a pip-installable test and flip the burden of proof: synthetic minority data must now demonstrate, on the data at hand, both validity and information gain.

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.