Recent text and image foundation models are incredibly impressive, and these models are attracting an ever-increasing portion of research resources. In this position piece we aim to shift the ML research community's priorities ever so slightly to a different modality: tabular data. Tabular data is the dominant modality in many fields, yet it is given hardly any research attention and significantly lags behind in terms of scale and power. We believe the time is now to start developing tabular foundation models, or what we coin a Large Tabular Model (LTM). LTMs could revolutionise the way science and ML use tabular data: not as single datasets that are analyzed in a vacuum, but contextualized with respect to related datasets. The potential impact is far-reaching: from few-shot tabular models to automating data science; from out-of-distribution synthetic data to empowering multidisciplinary scientific discovery. We intend to excite reflections on the modalities we study, and convince some researchers to study large tabular models.

Machine Learning (ML) in low-data settings remains an underappreciated yet crucial problem. Hence, data augmentation methods to increase the sample size of datasets needed for ML are key to unlocking the transformative potential of ML in data-deprived regions and domains. Unfortunately, the limited training set constrains traditional tabular synthetic data generators in their ability to generate a large and diverse augmented dataset needed for ML tasks. To address this challenge, we introduce CLLM, which leverages the prior knowledge of Large Language Models (LLMs) for data augmentation in the low-data regime. However, not all the data generated by LLMs will improve downstream utility, as for any generative model. Consequently, we introduce a principled curation mechanism, leveraging learning dynamics, coupled with confidence and uncertainty metrics, to obtain a high-quality dataset. Empirically, on multiple real-world datasets, we demonstrate the superior performance of CLLM in the low-data regime compared to conventional generators. Additionally, we provide insights into the LLM generation and curation mechanism, shedding light on the features that enable them to output high-quality augmented datasets.

Because diffusion models have shown impressive performances in a number of tasks, such as image synthesis, there is a trend in recent works to prove (with certain assumptions) that these models have strong approximation capabilities. In this paper, we show that current diffusion models actually have an expressive bottleneck in backward denoising and some assumption made by existing theoretical guarantees is too strong. Based on this finding, we prove that diffusion models have unbounded errors in both local and global denoising. In light of our theoretical studies, we introduce soft mixture denoising (SMD), an expressive and efficient model for backward denoising. SMD not only permits diffusion models to well approximate any Gaussian mixture distributions in theory, but also is simple and efficient for implementation. Our experiments on multiple image datasets show that SMD significantly improves different types of diffusion models (e.g., DDPM), espeically in the situation of few backward iterations. Diffusion models (DMs) (Sohl-Dickstein et al., 2015) have become highly popular generative models for their impressive performance in many research domains--including high-resolution image synthesis (Dhariwal & Nichol, 2021), natural language generation (Li et al., 2022), speech processing (Kong et al., 2021), and medical image analysis (Pinaya et al., 2022). To explain the effectiveness of diffusion models, recent work (Lee et al., 2022a;b; Chen et al., 2023) provided theoretical guarantees (with certain assumptions) to show that diffusion models can approximate a rich family of data distributions with arbitrarily small errors.

Biomedical imaging datasets are often small and biased, meaning that real-world performance of predictive models can be substantially lower than expected from internal testing. This work proposes using generative image editing to simulate dataset shifts and diagnose failure modes of biomedical vision models; this can be used in advance of deployment to assess readiness, potentially reducing cost and patient harm. Existing editing methods can produce undesirable changes, with spurious correlations learned due to the co-occurrence of disease and treatment interventions, limiting practical applicability. To address this, we train a text-to-image diffusion model on multiple chest X-ray datasets and introduce a new editing method RadEdit that uses multiple masks, if present, to constrain changes and ensure consistency in the edited images. We consider three types of dataset shifts: acquisition shift, manifestation shift, and population shift, and demonstrate that our approach can diagnose failures and quantify model robustness without additional data collection, complementing more qualitative tools for explainable AI.

Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) is essential for creating trustworthy machine learning models. Recent years have seen a steep rise in UQ methods that can flag suspicious examples, however, it is often unclear what exactly these methods identify. In this work, we propose a framework for categorizing uncertain examples flagged by UQ methods in classification tasks. We introduce the confusion density matrix -- a kernel-based approximation of the misclassification density -- and use this to categorize suspicious examples identified by a given uncertainty method into three classes: out-of-distribution (OOD) examples, boundary (Bnd) examples, and examples in regions of high in-distribution misclassification (IDM). Through extensive experiments, we show that our framework provides a new and distinct perspective for assessing differences between uncertainty quantification methods, thereby forming a valuable assessment benchmark.

Evaluating the performance of machine learning models on diverse and underrepresented subgroups is essential for ensuring fairness and reliability in real-world applications. However, accurately assessing model performance becomes challenging due to two main issues: (1) a scarcity of test data, especially for small subgroups, and (2) possible distributional shifts in the model's deployment setting, which may not align with the available test data. In this work, we introduce 3S Testing, a deep generative modeling framework to facilitate model evaluation by generating synthetic test sets for small subgroups and simulating distributional shifts. Our experiments demonstrate that 3S Testing outperforms traditional baselines -- including real test data alone -- in estimating model performance on minority subgroups and under plausible distributional shifts. In addition, 3S offers intervals around its performance estimates, exhibiting superior coverage of the ground truth compared to existing approaches. Overall, these results raise the question of whether we need a paradigm shift away from limited real test data towards synthetic test data.

Generating synthetic data through generative models is gaining interest in the ML community and beyond, promising a future where datasets can be tailored to individual needs. Unfortunately, synthetic data is usually not perfect, resulting in potential errors in downstream tasks. In this work we explore how the generative process affects the downstream ML task. We show that the naive synthetic data approach -- using synthetic data as if it is real -- leads to downstream models and analyses that do not generalize well to real data. As a first step towards better ML in the synthetic data regime, we introduce Deep Generative Ensemble (DGE) -- a framework inspired by Deep Ensembles that aims to implicitly approximate the posterior distribution over the generative process model parameters. DGE improves downstream model training, evaluation, and uncertainty quantification, vastly outperforming the naive approach on average. The largest improvements are achieved for minority classes and low-density regions of the original data, for which the generative uncertainty is largest.

Generating synthetic data through generative models is gaining interest in the ML community and beyond. In the past, synthetic data was often regarded as a means to private data release, but a surge of recent papers explore how its potential reaches much further than this -- from creating more fair data to data augmentation, and from simulation to text generated by ChatGPT. In this perspective we explore whether, and how, synthetic data may become a dominant force in the machine learning world, promising a future where datasets can be tailored to individual needs. Just as importantly, we discuss which fundamental challenges the community needs to overcome for wider relevance and application of synthetic data -- the most important of which is quantifying how much we can trust any finding or prediction drawn from synthetic data.

Data is the foundation of most science. Unfortunately, sharing data can be obstructed by the risk of violating data privacy, impeding research in fields like healthcare. Synthetic data is a potential solution. It aims to generate data that has the same distribution as the original data, but that does not disclose information about individuals. Membership Inference Attacks (MIAs) are a common privacy attack, in which the attacker attempts to determine whether a particular real sample was used for training of the model. Previous works that propose MIAs against generative models either display low performance -- giving the false impression that data is highly private -- or need to assume access to internal generative model parameters -- a relatively low-risk scenario, as the data publisher often only releases synthetic data, not the model. In this work we argue for a realistic MIA setting that assumes the attacker has some knowledge of the underlying data distribution. We propose DOMIAS, a density-based MIA model that aims to infer membership by targeting local overfitting of the generative model. Experimentally we show that DOMIAS is significantly more successful at MIA than previous work, especially at attacking uncommon samples. The latter is disconcerting since these samples may correspond to underrepresented groups. We also demonstrate how DOMIAS' MIA performance score provides an interpretable metric for privacy, giving data publishers a new tool for achieving the desired privacy-utility trade-off in their synthetic data.

Devising domain- and model-agnostic evaluation metrics for generative models is an important and as yet unresolved problem. Most existing metrics, which were tailored solely to the image synthesis setup, exhibit a limited capacity for diagnosing the different modes of failure of generative models across broader application domains. In this paper, we introduce a 3-dimensional evaluation metric, ($\alpha$-Precision, $\beta$-Recall, Authenticity), that characterizes the fidelity, diversity and generalization performance of any generative model in a domain-agnostic fashion. Our metric unifies statistical divergence measures with precision-recall analysis, enabling sample- and distribution-level diagnoses of model fidelity and diversity. We introduce generalization as an additional, independent dimension (to the fidelity-diversity trade-off) that quantifies the extent to which a model copies training data -- a crucial performance indicator when modeling sensitive data with requirements on privacy. The three metric components correspond to (interpretable) probabilistic quantities, and are estimated via sample-level binary classification. The sample-level nature of our metric inspires a novel use case which we call model auditing, wherein we judge the quality of individual samples generated by a (black-box) model, discarding low-quality samples and hence improving the overall model performance in a post-hoc manner.