Trustworthy synthetic data for campaign decision support: strategy simulation fidelity and the PolicySynth framework
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
- 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,860
- 2019Modeling Tabular data using Conditional GANcited by 695
- 2021Deep Neural Networks and Tabular Data: A Surveycited by 489
- 2023A Comprehensive Survey on Test-Time Adaptation under Distribution Shiftscited by 353
- 2021Membership Inference Attacks on Machine Learning: A Surveycited by 306
- 2022Language Models are Realistic Tabular Data Generatorscited by 290
- 2024Security and Privacy Challenges of Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 179
- 2023Decision-Focused Learning: Foundations, State of the Art, Benchmark and Future Opportunitiescited by 129
- 2023REaLTabFormer: Generating Realistic Relational and Tabular Data using Transformerscited by 93
- 2023A Survey of Contextual Optimization Methods for Decision Making under Uncertaintycited by 81
- 2025Advances in Multimodal Adaptation and Generalization: From Traditional Approaches to Foundation Modelscited by 23
- 2024A Survey of Deep Graph Learning under Distribution Shifts: from Graph Out-of-Distribution Generalization to Adaptationcited by 16
1 more
Built on by
Not cited yet.