Many machine learning classification tasks involve imbalanced datasets, which are often subject to over-sampling techniques aimed at improving model performance. However, these techniques are prone to generating unrealistic or infeasible samples. Furthermore, they often function as black boxes, lacking interpretability in their procedures. This opacity makes it difficult to track their effectiveness and provide necessary adjustments, and they may ultimately fail to yield significant performance improvements. To bridge this gap, we introduce the Decision Predicate Graphs for Data Augmentation (DPG-da), a framework that extracts interpretable decision predicates from trained models to capture domain rules and enforce them during sample generation. This design ensures that over-sampled data remain diverse, constraint-satisfying, and interpretable. In experiments on synthetic and real-world benchmark datasets, DPG-da consistently improves classification performance over traditional over-sampling methods, while guaranteeing logical validity and offering clear, interpretable explanations of the over-sampled data.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: DPG structure showing predicates as nodes and class leaves.
Figure 2: Workflow of the proposed DPG-da. Constraints extracted from DPGs guide the optimization for valid and diverse synthetic samples.
Feature
Δ0→1
Δ1→2
Δ2→3
x1 (Age)
+2
+3
+2
x2 (Income)
+2
+3
+5
x3 (Credit Score)
−10
−5
−15(×)
x4 (Number of Children)
0
+1
0
Table 1: Feature-wise changes ( Δxi ) between successive generations of the GA in the DPG-da augmentation process. A violation of constraint C3 occurs in generation 3 (signed by × ).
Figure 3: Heatmap of normalized constraint violation rates per over-sampling method and dataset. Violation rate is computed as the number of violations divided by the number of synthesized samples, averaged across repeated runs.
Figure 4: Mean classification performance across augmentation methods and sampling percentages. Red background areas indicate methods that violated constraints (DE, SMOTE-LVQ, SMOTE-POLYNOM, and SMOTE-SVM). The dashed line indicates the average performance of the classifiers on the original datasets without augmentation.
Figure 5: Critical difference diagram for F1-score performance. Methods not connected by a bar differ significantly (Nemenyi test, α=0.05 , CD = 1.167).
Figure 6: Log scaled Time performance of the augmentation methods.
Figure 7: Heatmap of the evolutive process in the Wisconsin dataset. Showcasing the change ( Δ ) in feature values between generations in the GA.
Figure 8: Interpretable feature changes during the genetic algorithm evolution. The top row shows Pima (left) and Ecoli (right), while the bottom row shows Wisconsin. Each horizontal bar represents the absolute difference of a feature from the first to the last generation. The white numbers inside the bars indicate the magnitude of the change, the black numbers outside the bars indicate the number of generations with non-zero change, and the text to the right shows the query-to-augmented transformation for each feature.
Appendix figures & tables16 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
Description
ROS
Random over-sampling; simple, replicates existing minority instances.
SMOTE
Interpolation-based over-sampling [ Chawla et al., 2002 ] ; improves class balance.
SMOTE-ENN
SMOTE followed by Edited Nearest Neighbors [ Batista et al., 2004 ] ; reduces noise.
SMOTE-SVM
Focuses augmentation near decision boundaries [ Bunkhumpornpat et al., 2009 ] .
MSMOTE
Targets difficult minority regions for improved discrimination [ Hu et al., 2009 ] .
SMOTE-POLYNOM
Captures non-linear feature relationships [ Gazzah and Essoukri Ben Amara, 2008 ] .
Appendix
Table 2: Summary of over-sampling methods compared in this study. Methods range from classical interpolation-based techniques to recent generative approaches.
Figure 9: Top-performing ablation weight configurations for the optimization function, ranked by macro F1-score. Each configuration is denoted by its (w1,w2,w3) tuple corresponding to distance, sparsity, and constraints factors. The results indicate which combinations yield the highest predictive performance across all datasets.
Name
Ratio
#Samples
#Features
Healthcare
3:1
1,000
4
Finance
1:1
1,000
4
Quality Control
2:1
1,000
4
Fraud Detection
3:1
1,000
4
Energy
1:1
1,000
3
Education
1:1
1,000
3
Appendix
Table 3: Overview of datasets curated for the benchmark of violations
Name
Ratio
#Samples
#Features
ecoli
8.6:1
336
7
optical digits
9.1:1
5,620
64
satimage
9.3:1
6,435
36
pen digits
9.4:1
10,992
16
abalone
9.7:1
4,177
8
sick euthyroid
9.8:1
3,162
25
Appendix
Table 4: Summary of the UCI imbalanced benchmarking datasets used in the experiments on Classifier performance. Ratio refers to the imbalance level.
Table 5: Model-derived constraints extracted by DPG-da for the violation set of datasets.
Figure 10: Pairwise scatter plots of SMOTE-LVQ augmented samples from the Wisconsin dataset. Blue circles indicate valid samples within feature constraints, red crosses indicate samples violating at least one feature range. Green rectangles show the valid region for each feature pair.
Figure 11: Heatmap of feature-wise changes ( Δ ) during the GA on the Ecoli dataset. Early generations explore a broad range of features, with substantial variation across most attributes. As evolution proceeds, the process converges, reflecting stabilization of the candidate samples within the feasible region.
Figure 12: Heatmap of feature-wise changes ( Δ ) during the GA on the Pima dataset. Unlike Ecoli, the augmentation converges rapidly by modifying exclusively the glucose feature. This highlights a highly localized and interpretable transformation path, where minority samples are generated through a single, domain-relevant attribute shift.
Method
MD ± MAD
MR
DPG-da
0.757 ± 0.109
2.531
TVAE
0.719 ± 0.144
3.704
ROS
0.728 ± 0.131
3.975
SMOTE
0.708 ± 0.130
4.506
CTGAN
0.722 ± 0.135
5.272
COPULA-GAN
0.691 ± 0.158
5.025
Appendix
Table 6: Detailed statistical results (MD, MAD, MR) complementing the CD diagram in Figure 5
Figure 13: Baseline versus DPG-da macro F1-score comparison across datasets. Each point corresponds to one dataset, and the diagonal indicates equal performance.
Dataset
Baseline F1
DPG-da F1
car_eval_34
0.893
0.862
letter_img
0.940
0.908
mammography
0.790
0.554
pen_digits
0.951
0.923
protein_homo
0.897
0.850
sick_euthyroid
0.829
0.760
Appendix
Table 7: Datasets for which the baseline (0% augmentation) achieves higher average F1-score than DPG-da.
Figure 14: Distribution of precision (left) and recall (right) scores across augmentation methods and levels, averaged over datasets and classifiers. Red-shaded areas indicate methods that produced constraint violations. Both panels share a common y-axis labeled “Score” to facilitate comparison between metrics.
Dataset
DE
SMOTE-ENN
MSMOTE
SMOTE-LVQ
COPULA-GAN
CTGAN
SMOTE-POLYNOM
SMOTE
ROS
TVAE
SMOTE-SVM
DPG-da
abalone
0.600
0.602
0.614
0.584
0.588
0.599
0.601
0.594
0.593
0.598
0.608
0.566
abalone_19
0.487
0.505
0.535
0.492
0.497
0.525
0.511
0.474
0.509
0.505
0.536
0.627
arrhythmia
0.639
0.659
0.590
0.617
0.629
0.672
0.651
0.716
0.617
0.654
0.663
0.860
car_eval_34
0.821
0.829
0.823
0.866
0.874
0.889
0.872
0.870
0.881
0.921
0.882
0.862
car_eval_4
0.853
0.866
0.897
0.885
0.902
0.900
0.895
0.917
0.896
0.934
0.907
0.903
coil_2000
0.523
0.522
0.530
0.529
0.520
0.521
0.530
0.537
0.533
0.526
0.534
0.619
Appendix
Table 8: F1-Score by dataset and over-sampling method, averaged over augmentation levels. The highest performance per dataset is in bold.
Dataset
0%
15%
30%
50%
RF
DT
LR
kNN
DT
LR
kNN
DT
LR
kNN
DT
LR
kNN
abalone
0.615
0.588
0.483
0.560
0.614
0.476
0.603
0.598
0.476
0.612
0.621
0.476
0.624
abalone_19
0.497
0.510
0.498
0.498
0.634
0.564
0.748
0.640
0.505
0.642
0.648
0.502
0.757
arrhythmia
0.573
0.793
0.620
0.485
0.859
0.881
0.798
0.834
0.881
0.801
0.859
0.892
0.934
car_eval_34
0.810
0.957
0.956
0.765
0.915
0.952
0.685
0.923
0.960
0.668
0.923
0.948
0.787
car_eval_4
0.827
0.988
0.922
0.503
0.974
0.895
0.828
1.000
0.895
0.818
0.974
0.922
0.818
Appendix
Table 9: DPG-da Macro F1-score for each dataset, classifiers, and augmentation percentage. Each row corresponds to one dataset, and columns are grouped by augmentation percentage (0%, 15%, 30%, 50%).
Figure 15: Spearman correlation between dataset characteristics ( Number of Features , Number of Instances , and Imbalance Ratio ) and two aspects: left the F1-score performance of the augmentation methods and right their runtime .
Dataset
RF (0%)
DE
SMOTE-ENN
MSMOTE
SMOTE-LVQ
COPULA-GAN
CTGAN
SMOTE-POLYNOM
SMOTE
ROS
TVAE
SMOTE-SVM
DPG-da
abalone
0.615
0.600
0.602
0.614
0.584
0.588
0.599
0.601
0.594
0.593
0.598
0.608
0.566
abalone_19
0.497
0.487
0.505
0.535
0.492
0.497
0.525
0.511
0.474
0.509
0.505
0.536
0.627
arrhythmia
0.573
0.639
0.659
0.590
0.617
0.629
0.672
0.651
0.716
0.617
0.654
0.663
0.860
car_eval_34
0.810
0.821
0.829
0.823
0.866
0.874
0.889
0.872
0.870
0.881
0.921
0.882
0.862
car_eval_4
0.827
0.853
0.866
0.897
0.885
0.902
0.900
0.895
0.917
0.896
0.934
0.907
0.903
coil_2000
0.537
0.523
0.522
0.530
0.529
0.520
0.521
0.530
0.537
0.533
0.526
0.534
0.619
Appendix
Table 10: F1-Score by dataset and over-sampling method, averaged over augmentation levels. The highest performance per dataset is in bold.
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 \F1 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.
Zhengchi Ma, Pengfei Lyu, Anru R. Zhang
Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Duke University · Department of Biostatistics & Bioinformatics, Duke University · Department of Biostatistics & Bioinformatics and Department of Computer Science, Duke University
Synthetic data is useful only when the added samples fill missing parts of the training distribution that matter for the downstream task. We introduce LiBaGS, a lightweight, generator-agnostic method for targeted synthetic training data selection. LiBaGS scores candidate synthetic samples by combining decision-boundary proximity, predictive uncertainty, real-data density, and support validity, so that selected samples are both informative and likely to remain on the real data manifold. We then use a boundary-gap allocation rule that targets sparse but realistic decision-boundary neighborhoods, rather than simply adding more data or selecting only the most uncertain candidates. LiBaGS also learns when enough synthetic samples have been added through a marginal-value stopping rule, assigns softer labels near ambiguous boundaries, and uses a diversity objective to avoid redundant near-duplicate selections. Experiments show that LiBaGS improves accuracy over classical oversampling, hard augmentation, uncertainty and density ablations, and targeted-generation selection criteria.
Abhishek Moturu, Anna Goldenberg, Babak Taati
Department of Computer Science University of Toronto The Hospital for Sick Children UHN KITE Research Institute T-CAIREM Vector Institute · Department of Computer Science Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology University of Toronto The Hospital for Sick Children T-CAIREM Vector Institute · Department of Computer Science Institute of Biomedical Engineering University of Toronto Rehabilitation Sciences Institute UHN KITE Research Institute Vector Institute
Class imbalance poses a fundamental challenge in risk-sensitive applications such as fraud detection and medical diagnosis, where minority-class samples are scarce yet critical for accurate classification. Existing oversampling methods generate synthetic samples to rebalance class distributions; however, they often produce large numbers of low-quality candidates that distort decision boundaries or introduce artifacts, leading to overfitting and degraded generalization. In this work, we introduce RUBRIC, a generator-agnostic filtering framework that formulates synthetic sample selection as a quality-over-quantity optimization problem. RUBRIC ranks candidates using a realism-utility trade-off: realism is estimated via a neural density-ratio discriminator from each candidate's resemblance to real minority samples, while utility captures proximity to the decision boundary through a concave, margin-based scoring function g−(t)=−log(1+e−t/τ). The discriminator uses the same architecture and training protocol on every benchmark and is fit independently to that dataset's real minority class versus its synthetic pool. We show that, under mild regularity conditions, the proposed filtering framework monotonically tightens the generalization bound for margin-based classifiers by jointly reducing distribution shift and suppressing near-negative tail contributions. Through extensive experiments on standard public imbalanced-classification benchmarks, we demonstrate that RUBRIC boosts minority-class recall while preserving overall discriminative ability across multiple data generators. Sensitivity analyses in λ and the selection budget K further characterize performance trade-offs oriented toward ranking quality.
Yanxuan Yu, Dong Liu, Shu Wang +7
Columbia University · University of California, Los Angeles · University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign +3