Abstract
Medical image analysis is often hindered by biased datasets, which can lead to biased models and limited clinical applicability. A promising strategy for mitigating such biases is to augment training data with synthetic images. Counterfactual (CF) generation is one such strategy, though the term is used in two different senses: in some works, CFs are produced through causality-based interventions derived from structural causal models, whereas in others, they are produced by non-causal image edits or conventional conditional generative models, such as altering anatomy or adding pathologies. In this work, we study this distinction and evaluate its practical consequences for medical image augmentation. We compare three conditioning strategies: $\textit{Deterministic}$, which changes selected variables while holding the remaining variables fixed; $\textit{Undirected}$, which updates variables according to learned statistical associations without assigning causal directions; and $\textit{Causal}$, which propagates interventions along a directed causal graph. We analyse how these choices affect the resulting images, and explore when causally grounded methods improve dataset augmentation or bring limited benefit. In particular, we assess downstream performance and fairness, where fairness refers to reduced sensitivity to dataset biases across sensitive subgroups. Our experiments demonstrate that using a causal approach to synthetic training data generation can lead to tangible benefits, with these insights offering valuable guidance to machine learning practitioners for the effective design of data generation protocols.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.14124
