Organizations: Adam Mickiewicz University · ArtCollect · KAUST · Kiel University
Abstract
We propose SADGE, a quantitative similarity metric that predicts the performance of synthetic image datasets for common computer vision tasks without downstream model training. Estimating whether a synthetic dataset will lead to a model that performs well on real-world data remains a bottleneck in model development. Existing evaluation metrics (e.g., PSNR, FID, CLIP) primarily measure semantic alignment between real and synthetic images (Appearance Similarity Score). Less commonly, structural similarity between images is considered to assess the domain gap (Geometric Similarity Score). However, to the best of our knowledge there exists no studies that evaluate which similarity metric is the best downstream predictor for a given synthetic dataset. In this paper, we show over a wide variety of different synthetic datasets and downstream tasks that neither appearance nor geometry alone can reliably predict downstream performance; rather, it is their non-linear interplay that dictates synthetic data utility. Specifically, we measure how commonly used Appearance and Geometric Similarity metrics computed between synthetic and real images correlate with downstream performance in object detection, semantic segmentation, and pose estimation. Across five public synthetic-to-real benchmark families and 15 dataset-level variants (79k image pairs), SADGE achieves the strongest association with downstream transfer performance under both linear and rank-based criteria, reaching Pearson r=0.88 and Spearman rho=0.77. We compute for each combination of geometry-based methods and appearance-based approaches SADGE scores across all benchmark families. The best configuration is obtained by fusing DINOv3 appearance similarity with MASt3R geometric consistency through a constrained bilinear interaction, outperforming both the strongest geometry-only baseline and the strongest appearance-only baseline .
Synthetic images are increasingly used to augment scarce real data for object detection. However, not all synthetic sets help equally, and the only way to know a set's value is to train a detector on it, which is slow and demands dense annotation. We ask whether a training-free metric can instead rank candidate synthetic training sets by their downstream utility. Existing image-set metrics such as FID, KID, and MMD compare two feature distributions with a single global statistic, which we show is mis-specified for detection-data selection in two ways: it is blind to per-image composition (object count, box scale, class mix), and even at fixed composition its global averaging washes out the appearance differences that separate high-mAP pools from low-mAP ones. We propose Conditional-Composition Domain Match (CCDM), which converts any feature-space distance into a composition-stratified comparison, matching candidate and target within metadata-defined strata without training a detector. On COCO and VisDrone-DET, the best CCDM variant ranks 19 candidate training sets in strong agreement with YOLOv8 mAP (Spearman \r{ho} = 0.97 and 0.96), outperforming FID, KID, and MMD. Furthermore, CCDM holds when reference metadata comes from detector pseudo-labels rather than ground-truth boxes.
Volume and quality of datasets are crucial for deep learning model training, yet they are often constrained by availability and data acquisition costs. Synthetic data augmentation can extend existing datasets with realistic images, and the quality of these images is generally assessed through fidelity metrics such as FID, KID, IS, LPIPS and SSIM that measure structural or distributional similarity. However, such metrics, including the widely used FID, focus on visual fidelity without reflecting downstream utility, and can diverge from human perception under perturbations that are imperceptible to human observers. In this work, we systematically evaluate Earth observation datasets alongside synthetic counterparts generated by deep generative models, comparing automatic metrics against human perception and downstream tasks. Our results reveal a stark misalignment: semantics-preserving perturbations such as rotation drastically alter metric scores while leaving human recognition unaffected, and synthetic samples that score poorly on automatic metrics achieve comparable or higher perceived realism, and can improve downstream performance when combined with real data. By benchmarking semantic segmentation models trained on mixed real-synthetic datasets, we demonstrate that quality metrics rooted in ImageNet-pretrained feature spaces are unreliable indicators for geospatial data. Our findings underscore that automatic quality evaluation of synthetic datasets should be grounded in downstream task performance and human evaluation.
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.