mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Trustworthy synthetic data for campaign decision support: strategy simulation fidelity and the PolicySynth framework

arXiv 2607.11269 ↗First posted 13 Jul 2026cs.LG stat.MLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Decision support systems (DSS) increasingly run retention what-if analysis on synthetic customer populations, because privacy constraints preclude unrestricted use of real data. Such a system is trustworthy only if the synthetic data lead managers to the same decisions as the real data would; yet prevailing criteria certify distributional similarity, not decision alignment, so a synthetic population can match every marginal distribution while still steering a marketing team toward the wrong campaigns. We close this decision-alignment gap with three contributions: strategy simulation fidelity (SSF), a criterion measuring how often the synthetic population yields the same go/no-go campaign decision as the real population; PolicySynth, a DSS framework whose generator is conditioned on the production churn scorer to align decision-relevant structure; and a three-axis reporting standard of decision alignment, membership-inference resistance, and novel-record rate as the minimum deployment quality gate. On a telecommunications churn corpus and a banking acquisition corpus, PolicySynth attains a mean SSF of 0.923 and 0.960, with seed-to-seed variance roughly ten times tighter than CTGAN on telecommunications and 2.5 times on banking. This stability is the deployable property: go/no-go recommendations shift by at most 1.2 percentage points between monthly retraining cycles, against 11.5 for CTGAN, a reversed recommendation on one campaign in nine. A bootstrap baseline matches PolicySynth on SSF yet copies real records verbatim and fails membership inference, evidence that no single axis suffices. PolicySynth reliably supports directional go/no-go screening; its ROI estimates diverge from real outcomes by 70 to 78% and require the volume correction we document.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 62 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Jul 2026.

Builds on

13 of 62 references.

References · 13

  1. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,860
  2. 2019Modeling Tabular data using Conditional GANcited by 695
  3. 2021Deep Neural Networks and Tabular Data: A Surveycited by 489
  4. 2023A Comprehensive Survey on Test-Time Adaptation under Distribution Shiftscited by 353
  5. 2021Membership Inference Attacks on Machine Learning: A Surveycited by 306
  6. 2022Language Models are Realistic Tabular Data Generatorscited by 290
  7. 2024Security and Privacy Challenges of Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 179
  8. 2023Decision-Focused Learning: Foundations, State of the Art, Benchmark and Future Opportunitiescited by 129
  9. 2023REaLTabFormer: Generating Realistic Relational and Tabular Data using Transformerscited by 93
  10. 2023A Survey of Contextual Optimization Methods for Decision Making under Uncertaintycited by 81
  11. 2025Advances in Multimodal Adaptation and Generalization: From Traditional Approaches to Foundation Modelscited by 23
  12. 2024A Survey of Deep Graph Learning under Distribution Shifts: from Graph Out-of-Distribution Generalization to Adaptationcited by 16
1 more
  1. 2025Solver-Free Decision-Focused Learning for Linear Optimization Problemscited by 8

Built on by

Not cited yet.