REVIEW 3 cited by
Why LLMs Are Bad at Synthetic Table Generation (and what to do about it)
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Synthetic data generation is integral to ML pipelines, e.g., to augment training data, replace sensitive information, and even to power advanced platforms like DeepSeek. While LLMs fine-tuned for synthetic data generation are gaining traction, synthetic table generation -- a critical data type in business and science -- remains under-explored compared to text and image synthesis. This paper shows that LLMs, whether used as-is or after traditional fine-tuning, are inadequate for generating synthetic tables. Their autoregressive nature, combined with random order permutation during fine-tuning, hampers the modeling of functional dependencies and prevents capturing conditional mixtures of distributions essential for real-world constraints. We demonstrate that making LLMs permutation-aware can mitigate these issues.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
LAB-Tab: LLM-Augmented Bayesian Network Adaptation for Few-Shot Tabular Generation
A source-trained Bayesian network, augmented with LLM-proposed edges and calibrated by PPO, generates synthetic tabular data that outperforms six baselines in six ACS distribution-shift scenarios.
-
A Survey on Evaluating Quality and Trustworthiness in LLM-Generated Data
A metric-oriented survey that classifies intrinsic quality and trustworthiness metrics for LLM-generated data across six modalities and documents systematic evaluation gaps in the current literature.
-
The Prompt is Mightier than the Example
Injecting domain knowledge into prompts can substitute for many in-context examples in LLM-based synthetic tabular data generation, cutting required example counts by 40-90%.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.