Interpretable Similarity of Synthetic Image Utility

In many real-world computer vision applications, including medical imaging and industrial inspection, binary classification tasks are characterized by a severe scarcity of positive samples. A widely adopted solution is to generate synthetic positive data using image-to-image transformations applied to negative samples. However, a fundamental challenge remains: how can we reliably assess whether such synthetic data will improve downstream model performance? In this work, we propose a geometry-driven metric that predicts the utility of synthetic data without requiring model training. Our approach operates in the embedding space of a pre-trained foundation model and represents the dataset through difference vectors between samples. We evaluate whether the weight vector of a linear classifier can be expressed within the subspace spanned by these variations by measuring the relative projection error. Intuitively, if the variations induced by synthetic data capture task-relevant directions, their span can approximate the classifier, resulting in low projection error. Conversely, poor synthetic data fails to span these directions, leading to higher error. Across multiple datasets and architectures, we show that this metric exhibits strong correlation with downstream classification performance of CNNs trained on mixtures of real negative and synthetic positive data. These findings suggest that the proposed metric serves as a practical and informative tool for evaluating synthetic data quality in data-scarce settings.

Synthetic histopathology image generation has emerged as an approach that may address data scarcity in computational pathology, yet current evaluation methodologies may not fully assess synthetic data quality for medical applications. This work investigates and addresses limitations in existing evaluation metrics, investigating an approach for assessing synthetic histopathology image quality through domain-specific metrics and downstream task validation. We show that conventional synthetic data evaluation metrics such as Frechet Inception Distance (FID) and Inception Score (IS) may have limitations when applied to histopathology images due to their reliance on ImageNet-pretrained feature extractors. To address these limitations, we propose for consideration modified FID and IS approaches utilizing foundation models pretrained on digital pathology datasets, supplemented by precision-recall based metrics as part of an additional quality assessment. Using conditional denoising diffusion models trained on four benchmark datasets, with a two-step training approach, we generated synthetic datasets with systematically varied quality characteristics. We also measured the correlation between the synthetic data quality metrics with downstream nuclei segmentation performance using common metrics including the aggregated Jaccard index (AJI+) and the Dice coefficient. The study results suggest that pathology-specific metrics may provide improved discriminative power. Specifically, the modified Inception Score indicates higher correlation with downstream task performance (r=0.6096 with AJI+, p=0.0122), compared to the original IS (r=0.0708, p=0.7944). Our observations indicate that increasing the variety of generated training data has a higher positive correlation with segmentation model performance than improving the visual fidelity of individual generated images.

Access to clinical data is essential for developing reliable healthcare machine learning systems, but direct use of electronic health records is constrained by privacy regulation, institutional review, data-use agreements, and the risk of re-identification. Synthetic data promises a practical alternative: it can preserve useful statistical and clinical structure while reducing exposure of sensitive patient records. Prior studies often evaluate a single generator, one dataset, or a narrow downstream task, making it difficult to know when synthetic data can support model development and when it fails to preserve task-critical signal. We introduce CoMedBench, a reproducible benchmark that evaluates a family of generators under a common clinical-validity framework and one shared training and evaluation engine, spanning static tabular and temporal downstream tasks on established critical-care datasets. In total the benchmark spans 37 dataset-task pairs across two modalities consists of 20 static tabular and 17 temporal ICU time-series-drawn from seven public data sources: three intensive-care databases (MIMIC-III, MIMIC-IV, and eICU) together with the UCI Machine Learning Repository, the CDC BRFSS diabetes cohort (2015), NHANES (1999-2014), and the pycox survival datasets (GBSG and METABRIC). The benchmark evaluates both statistical fidelity and task utility by comparing models trained and tested across real and synthetic data. In these settings, synthetic training data preserves most of the downstream signal: on tabular tasks the reference generator CoMed-CTGAN retains a mean AUROC utility (the synthetic-to-real performance ratio) of 90.6%, rising to 97.3% for the strongest generator, CoMed-TVAE. Temporal ICU tasks are harder and more generator-sensitive: CoMed-CTGAN retains 81.6% (AUROC) and only 64.0% under the imbalance-sensitive AUPRC, whereas CoMed-TVAE still retains ~95% (AUROC).