Understanding Synthetic Estimators in Sample Survey Statistics
1. Introduction
The fundamental objective of sample survey statistics is to draw inferences about the characteristics of an entire population based on data collected from a carefully selected subset, or sample, of that population. Traditional direct estimators, which focus solely on the data originating from the specific area or sub-population of interest, often encounter significant challenges, particularly when the analysis targets smaller domains. In such instances, the limited sample sizes within these smaller areas can lead to estimates characterized by high variability and consequently, low precision. To address these inherent limitations of direct estimation for smaller domains, a suite of alternative and supplementary techniques has been developed. Among these, synthetic estimation stands out as a powerful approach. Synthetic estimators operate by leveraging information from larger, related populations or by incorporating auxiliary data to generate more stable and potentially more accurate estimates for these smaller domains where direct data is scarce. This report aims to provide an in-depth exploration of synthetic estimators within the framework of sample survey statistics. The scope of this analysis will encompass a detailed definition of synthetic estimators, an examination of the underlying rationale for their application, a comprehensive overview of their diverse uses across various fields of study, a thorough evaluation of their inherent advantages, and a critical assessment of their limitations, with a particular focus on the pervasive issue of bias. Furthermore, this report will delve into the mathematical foundations that underpin these estimators and will offer a clear distinction between them and the related, yet distinct, "synthetic control method."
The core challenge that synthetic estimators are designed to address lies in the inherent trade-off between the need for detailed, granular estimates, often required for effective policy making and resource allocation at local levels, and the practical constraints of conducting sample surveys, which can frequently result in insufficient data at these disaggregated levels.1 Standard survey designs are often optimized to produce reliable estimates at the national or large regional level. However, when the analytical focus shifts to smaller geographic areas or specific sub-populations, the number of sampled units within those domains might be too small to support direct estimation with acceptable levels of statistical reliability. Synthetic estimators offer a mechanism to bridge this gap by utilizing information from larger, more adequately sampled areas, predicated on certain assumptions about the similarity between these larger and smaller domains. This approach enables the creation of estimates at a level of detail that would often be unattainable through direct estimation alone.
2. Defining the Synthetic Estimator in Sample Survey Statistics
A synthetic estimator, in the context of sample survey statistics, can be comprehensively defined as an estimate derived for a sub-area or a small domain by utilizing an unbiased estimate obtained from a sample survey conducted across a larger area that encompasses the sub-area.1 This derivation is fundamentally based on the assumption that the smaller areas of interest exhibit the same characteristics, with respect to the variable being estimated, as the larger area from which the initial, more reliable estimate was obtained.1 This assumption of homogeneity is the cornerstone of synthetic estimation, and while it provides a pathway to generating estimates for data-scarce areas, it also introduces a critical consideration: the potential for bias.1
From another perspective, a synthetic estimator can be viewed as an indirect method of estimation for a small area. It leverages a direct and reliable estimator calculated for a larger geographic region or population group that includes the small area. The process of deriving the synthetic estimate hinges on the aforementioned assumption that the characteristics observed at the larger scale are also applicable at the smaller scale.3 However, the application of synthetic estimation has evolved beyond simply applying a broad average from a large area to all its sub-components. More refined definitions emphasize the common practice of combining average values of the target statistic, often obtained from national or regional surveys, with descriptive data specific to the subnational area for which the estimate is desired.5 This integration of both broader trends and local context allows for the generation of more tailored estimates that can account for some known differences between the larger and smaller areas.6 For example, if estimating a health indicator, national rates might be applied to local demographic distributions to reflect the specific age or ethnic makeup of the smaller area.
The fundamental and often unstated assumption that underpins all synthetic estimation techniques is the homogeneity assumption. This assumption posits that the smaller areas of interest share the same statistical properties, particularly with respect to the variable being estimated, as the larger area from which the initial, unbiased estimate was derived.1 It is crucial to recognize that while this assumption enables the "borrowing of strength" that is central to the utility of synthetic estimators, it is rarely perfectly met in real-world scenarios. Consequently, while the initial estimate for the large area might indeed be unbiased, the resulting synthetic estimates for the smaller areas are generally biased if this homogeneity assumption does not perfectly reflect the true underlying differences between the areas.1 This inherent potential for bias is a critical aspect that must be thoroughly understood and carefully evaluated when considering the use and interpretation of synthetic estimators.
3. Rationale and Applications in Sample Surveys
The primary rationale behind the use of synthetic estimators in sample survey statistics is the pressing need to generate reliable statistical estimates for small geographic areas or specific sub-populations where direct estimates derived solely from the survey data within those domains would be statistically unreliable.1 This unreliability often stems from the challenge of obtaining sufficiently large sample sizes within these smaller domains to yield estimates with acceptable levels of precision. In an increasingly data-driven world, there is a growing demand for accurate statistics at finer levels of granularity. These small area estimates are indispensable for a wide range of critical applications, including the formulation of targeted public policies, the equitable allocation of resources, the effective planning and implementation of programs, and the development of a deeper understanding of localized trends and disparities within a population.5
Synthetic estimators have found widespread application across a diverse array of fields. One of the most prominent areas is health statistics. The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) has been a long-standing user of synthetic estimation techniques to produce vital state-level estimates for various health conditions, such as disability rates, by leveraging the larger sample sizes available in national health surveys.1 A common application involves estimating the prevalence rates of specific diseases at the state level by applying national prevalence rates, often stratified by key demographic factors like age, sex, and race, to the corresponding state-level demographic distributions sourced from census data.1 For instance, to estimate the number of individuals with hypertension in a particular state, national age-sex-race specific prevalence rates can be multiplied by the state's population counts within those same demographic categories.6 Similarly, synthetic estimation can be used to estimate the proportion of children with access to a medical home in a specific county by combining state-level prevalence data, broken down by characteristics such as race and ethnicity, with the county's specific racial and ethnic composition.7 Historically, synthetic methods have also been employed to address critical public health concerns, such as estimating the incidence or prevalence of drug abuse at both state and local levels by integrating findings from national surveys with detailed census data.5 The reliance on synthetic estimators in health statistics underscores the frequent need for localized health data to inform public health initiatives and interventions, often in situations where direct data collection at such a granular level is either impractical or prohibitively expensive.
Beyond health, synthetic estimators are also crucial in demographic analysis. Social scientists frequently utilize these techniques to estimate fundamental demographic characteristics, such as population size and distribution, for smaller geographic areas, often by combining national survey data with local census counts.8 A notable example is the U.S. Bureau of the Census's use of synthetic estimation to generate timely monthly, quarterly, and annual employment estimates for Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) by capitalizing on the larger sample size of the Current Population Survey (CPS).1 Understanding the demographic composition and labor market dynamics of smaller areas is essential for effective economic planning and policy development. Synthetic estimation provides a cost-effective means of generating these vital statistics with greater frequency than comprehensive censuses are typically conducted. Furthermore, the utility of synthetic estimates extends to broader policy and program evaluation. These estimates can provide valuable insights into local conditions, thereby informing policy decisions, guiding program reforms, and supporting improvement efforts at the local level, all without the substantial financial and temporal costs associated with undertaking new, area-specific data collection efforts.7 In resource-constrained environments, synthetic estimation offers a pragmatic approach to gaining insights into localized conditions, enabling evidence-based policy and program development without the need for extensive primary data collection.
4. Advantages of Employing Synthetic Estimators
Synthetic estimators offer several key advantages that make them a valuable tool in statistical analysis, particularly in the context of sample surveys and small area estimation. One of the most significant benefits is their inherent simplicity and ease of application.2 Many basic synthetic estimation techniques involve relatively straightforward calculations, making them accessible and easy to implement, especially when compared to more complex model-based estimation approaches. This simplicity allows for their wider adoption and use in various analytical settings.
Another notable advantage is their broad applicability across different sampling designs.2 Unlike some estimation methods that are tailored to specific survey designs, synthetic estimators are generally not constrained by the intricacies of complex sampling schemes. They can be applied in conjunction with a variety of survey sampling methodologies, offering a significant degree of flexibility in their use across different data collection contexts.
Perhaps the most compelling advantage of synthetic estimators is their potential to enhance accuracy in small area estimation.2 By effectively increasing the sample size for the small area of interest through the incorporation of data from larger, related areas, these estimators can yield estimates with greater precision and lower variance than would typically be achievable with direct estimation based solely on the limited sample data available within the small area itself. This "borrowing of strength" is particularly beneficial when the domain-specific sample size is inherently small.
Furthermore, synthetic estimators allow for the effective utilization of auxiliary information.2 More sophisticated synthetic estimation methods can effectively integrate readily available auxiliary data, such as demographic information from censuses or administrative records, that are known to be correlated with the variable of interest. This integration of relevant covariates can lead to more accurate and reliable estimates by accounting for some of the known differences between the larger area and the smaller subareas, thus refining the homogeneity assumption.
Synthetic estimation also offers significant cost and time efficiencies.5 By leveraging existing data sources, there is often no need to conduct expensive and time-consuming new surveys specifically targeted at each small area of interest. This makes synthetic estimation a particularly attractive option in situations where resources for primary data collection are constrained, allowing for the generation of valuable local-level insights without incurring substantial costs.
Finally, synthetic estimators exhibit versatility and flexibility in terms of the data sources and statistical models that can be employed.8 They are not limited to a single type of data source or a specific statistical modeling framework. They can be adapted to work with various forms of survey data, administrative records, and different statistical modeling approaches, providing a considerable degree of adaptability in their application to diverse analytical problems.
In essence, the appeal of synthetic estimators lies in their ability to provide statistically reasonable estimates for small domains in a cost-effective and timely manner, especially in situations where direct estimation is either not feasible or would result in highly unreliable figures. While the critical issue of potential bias must always be carefully considered, the advantages in terms of efficiency and the capacity to produce estimates where none might otherwise exist often make synthetic estimators an indispensable tool for researchers and policymakers alike.
5. The Critical Issue of Bias in Synthetic Estimators
Despite their numerous advantages, synthetic estimators are inherently associated with a significant and critical issue: the potential for bias.1 The primary source of this bias stems directly from the fundamental assumption upon which these estimators are built – the homogeneity assumption. As previously discussed, this assumption posits that the characteristics of the small areas of interest are the same as those of the larger area from which the initial estimate was derived.1 In reality, this assumption is often violated to some degree, and the magnitude of the bias in a synthetic estimator is directly related to the extent to which this assumption fails to hold true.1 If a subarea is significantly different from the larger area in terms of the factors that influence the variable being estimated, then simply applying the larger area's average to the subarea will inevitably lead to an inaccurate, and therefore biased, estimate. The greater the divergence in characteristics, the larger the expected bias.
Bias in synthetic estimators can arise from various sources. One potential source is the impact of non-linear relationships.10 If the true relationship between the outcome variable being estimated and other relevant explanatory variables is non-linear, but the synthetic estimation method employed relies on linear assumptions (as many simpler methods do), this can introduce a systematic bias into the resulting estimates. Another concern, particularly relevant when considering weighted combinations of larger area statistics, is the problem of "matching on noise".11 While this concept is more frequently discussed in the context of the synthetic control method used for causal inference, the underlying principle can be extended to understand potential sources of bias in survey-based synthetic estimators. If the larger area estimate is influenced by random, idiosyncratic error terms (statistical "noise") present in the data, and this noise is then implicitly projected onto the smaller areas through the synthetic estimation process, it can lead to a biased representation of the true underlying characteristics of those smaller areas. The presence of random fluctuations in the data used to generate the larger area estimate can propagate and manifest as bias in the synthetic estimates for smaller areas, even if the underlying structural characteristics are somewhat similar. For example, a national survey might, by chance, oversample a certain demographic group, leading to a slightly skewed national average. If this average is then used to estimate the prevalence of a related characteristic in a local area with a different demographic makeup, it could introduce bias.
Furthermore, while formally defined within the framework of the synthetic control method, the concepts of extrapolation and interpolation biases 14 offer a useful lens for understanding potential inaccuracies in survey-based synthetic estimators as well. If the characteristics of a particular subarea fall outside the range of the characteristics observed in the larger area (or the subgroups used in a refined synthetic estimator), the resulting estimate might be prone to extrapolation bias – essentially making an inference beyond the scope of the available data. Conversely, if the subarea's characteristics fall within the observed range, but the model or assumptions used for synthetic estimation are misspecified or overly simplistic, it could lead to interpolation bias, where the estimate within the data range is still inaccurate.
A significant challenge associated with the bias in synthetic estimators is that it is often difficult, if not impossible, to estimate directly from the survey data itself.1 This lack of a readily available measure of bias makes it challenging to quantify the uncertainty associated with synthetic estimates. Moreover, empirical studies that have evaluated the accuracy of synthetic estimators have yielded mixed results.4 This variability in performance underscores the critical importance of carefully evaluating the appropriateness and reliability of synthetic estimation for each specific application and data set, with a keen focus on the validity of the underlying homogeneity assumption.
6. Mathematical Formulation of Synthetic Estimators
The mathematical formulation of synthetic estimators can range from simple applications of larger area estimates to more complex models incorporating auxiliary information. At its most basic, a simple synthetic estimator for a population total in a small sub-area i can be derived by taking an unbiased estimate of the total for the larger area, Y^large​, and scaling it by the ratio of the known population size of the small area, Ni​, to the known population size of the larger area, Nlarge​:
Y^synthetic,i​=Y^large​×Nlarge​Ni​​
For estimating a population mean, the simplest approach is to directly apply the unbiased estimate of the mean from the larger area, yˉ​large​, to the small area i:
yˉ​synthetic,i​=yˉ​large​
More refined synthetic estimators often leverage subgroup estimates. Let the population be divided into G mutually exclusive and exhaustive subgroups. If we have a direct estimate θ^j​ for the parameter of interest within subgroup j from a survey of the larger area, and we know the proportion ϕij​ of the population in small area i that belongs to subgroup j (where ∑j=1G​ϕij​=1), then the subgroup synthetic estimator for the small area i is:
θ^synthetic,i​=∑j=1G​ϕij​θ^j​
This method is commonly used in applications like estimating local health indicators by applying national rates for specific demographic groups to the local population distribution across those groups.6
A generalized class of synthetic estimators can be formulated using auxiliary variables. For estimating the population mean Y, with k auxiliary variables x1​,x2​,...,xk​, a common form of the generalized synthetic estimator is given by:
Y^syn​=yˉ​∏i=1k​(Xˉi​xˉi​​)βi​
where yˉ​ is the sample mean of the variable of interest, xˉi​ is the sample mean of the i-th auxiliary variable, Xˉi​ is the population mean of the i-th auxiliary variable, and βi​ are constants that determine the type of estimator.17 Specific values of βi​ lead to different types of estimators:
●	Simple Synthetic Estimator: Setting all βi​=0 yields Y^syn​=yˉ​.
●	Ratio Synthetic Estimator: Setting all βi​=−1 yields Y^syn​=yˉ​∏i=1k​(xˉi​Xˉi​​).
●	Product Synthetic Estimator: Setting all βi​=+1 yields Y^syn​=yˉ​∏i=1k​(Xˉi​xˉi​​).
The incorporation of auxiliary variables allows for adjustments based on the specific characteristics of the small area, potentially reducing bias.2 Additionally, calibrated synthetic estimators are used, where calibration techniques are applied to ensure the estimates align with known population totals or other reliable auxiliary information at the small area level.9
Table 1: Types of Synthetic Estimators
Type	Formula	Description	
Simple Synthetic (Total)	Y^large​×Nlarge​Ni​​	Applies the larger area total estimate proportionally to the small area based on population size.	
Simple Synthetic (Mean)	yˉ​large​	Directly applies the mean from the large area to the small area.	
Subgroup Synthetic	θ^synthetic,i​=∑j=1G​ϕij​θ^j​	Combines estimates for subgroups from the large area using weights representing the proportion of each subgroup in the small area.	
Ratio Synthetic	yˉ​∏i=1k​(xˉi​Xˉi​​)	Uses the ratio of population and sample means of auxiliary variables to adjust the estimate.	
Product Synthetic	yˉ​∏i=1k​(Xˉi​xˉi​​)	Uses the product of the sample mean and the ratio of sample and population means of auxiliary variables.	
Generalized Synthetic	yˉ​∏i=1k​(Xˉi​xˉi​​)βi​	A flexible form that includes other types as special cases through the choice of βi​.	
Calibrated Synthetic	(Depends on the specific calibration technique used)	Adjusts synthetic estimates to align with known population totals or other auxiliary information at the small area level.	
7. Evaluating and Mitigating Bias in Synthetic Estimators
Evaluating the bias inherent in synthetic estimators is a critical step in assessing their reliability. One common approach involves examining the Mean Squared Error (MSE).1 While MSE encompasses both bias and variance, in the context of synthetic estimators, a significant portion of the error often arises from bias, especially when the variance is reduced through the "borrowing of strength" from larger areas. The average MSE across multiple small areas can provide insights into the overall performance of a synthetic estimation method.1 However, estimating the MSE reliably for individual small areas can be challenging, and some methods may even yield negative values.18
Another important evaluation technique is the comparison with external data sources.1 When available, reliable data from sources such as censuses or administrative records can serve as benchmarks against which synthetic estimates can be compared. The difference between the synthetic estimate and the external benchmark provides a direct indication of the bias. However, such benchmark data may not always be available for the specific variables and time periods of interest. Empirical validation studies and simulation studies also play a crucial role in evaluating bias.1 Empirical studies involve applying synthetic estimation methods to real-world data and comparing the results to known true values (if available) or to more reliable direct estimates for larger areas. Simulation studies, on the other hand, involve creating artificial populations with known characteristics, allowing researchers to assess the performance of synthetic estimators under controlled conditions and to understand the magnitude and direction of the bias under different scenarios.
Several strategies can be employed to mitigate the bias in synthetic estimators. One key approach is the strategic use of refined methods and relevant auxiliary information.1 By employing more sophisticated synthetic estimation techniques that incorporate auxiliary variables strongly correlated with the variable of interest, researchers can account for known differences between the larger area and the smaller subareas. This makes the homogeneity assumption less restrictive and often leads to less biased estimates. Calibration techniques offer another valuable strategy.9 These methods adjust the initial synthetic estimates so that they are consistent with known population totals or other reliable auxiliary information available at the small area level, effectively forcing the estimates to align with known characteristics and reducing bias related to discrepancies in these characteristics. The development and application of composite estimators represent another important approach.3 These estimators combine a weighted average of a synthetic estimator and a direct estimator (even if the direct estimator for the small area has high variance). The weights are chosen to balance the bias of the synthetic estimator with the variance of the direct estimator, aiming for an overall estimator with a lower MSE. More advanced model-based small area estimation techniques 20, such as hierarchical Bayesian models or mixed effects models, offer alternatives to traditional synthetic estimators. These methods explicitly model relationships at different levels and can potentially yield lower bias, although they come with increased complexity and their own assumptions. Finally, researchers are exploring bias correction procedures 12, although this is more developed in the context of synthetic control methods, the general principle of estimating and correcting for bias may find applications in survey-based synthetic estimation as well.
8. Synthetic Estimators vs. Synthetic Control Methods
It is crucial to clearly distinguish between "synthetic estimator" as used in sample survey statistics and the "synthetic control method," which is a distinct econometric technique primarily employed for causal inference in comparative case studies.10 While both involve the term "synthetic," their objectives, methodologies, and applications are fundamentally different.
Synthetic Estimator (Sample Surveys): The primary goal of a synthetic estimator is to estimate population parameters (such as totals, means, or proportions) for sub-populations or small geographic areas, especially when direct survey data for these domains are sparse or unreliable. The core methodology relies on the assumption that smaller areas share similar characteristics with a larger area from which a reliable direct estimate is available. It often involves applying the larger area's estimate directly or in a modified way (e.g., using weights or auxiliary information) to the smaller area. Typical applications are found in small area estimation across fields like health statistics, demography, and economics to generate localized estimates. A key limitation is its inherent susceptibility to bias if the assumption of homogeneity between the larger and smaller areas is violated.
Synthetic Control Method (Causal Inference): In contrast, the primary goal of the synthetic control method is to estimate the causal effect of a specific intervention (e.g., a policy change, an event) on a single treated unit (e.g., a country, a state, a company) by constructing a counterfactual scenario. The core methodology involves creating a "synthetic" control group by taking a weighted average of multiple untreated units. The weights are chosen in a data-driven manner to ensure that the synthetic control closely matches the treated unit in terms of key outcome predictors before the intervention occurred. The post-intervention outcomes of the synthetic control are then used to estimate what would have happened to the treated unit in the absence of the intervention. This method is widely used in economics, political science, public policy, and other fields to evaluate the impact of large-scale interventions when traditional control groups are not readily available or comparable. Key limitations include its potential susceptibility to interpolation or extrapolation bias depending on the similarity between the treated unit and the pool of potential control units, as well as its reliance on the assumption that the relationship between the predictors and the outcome remains stable over time.
While both approaches utilize the term "synthetic" and often involve the creation of a composite entity through a process of combination or weighting, their fundamental objectives, the types of data they utilize, and the statistical questions they aim to answer are distinctly different. Recognizing this distinction is crucial for applying the appropriate method to the specific research question at hand.
9. Bias-Variance Trade-off in the Context of Synthetic Estimators
The application of synthetic estimators is closely related to the fundamental statistical concept of the bias-variance trade-off.36 A primary motivation for using synthetic estimators, especially in small area estimation, is to reduce the variance of the estimates. Direct estimators for small areas often suffer from high variance due to the limited sample size. By leveraging data from a larger, more well-sampled area, synthetic estimators effectively "borrow strength," leading to estimates that are more stable and exhibit lower variance.2
However, this reduction in variance is often achieved at the cost of introducing or potentially increasing bias.1 This trade-off arises because the core assumption of homogeneity between the larger area and the smaller subareas is rarely perfectly met. The greater the difference in characteristics between these areas, the larger the bias that might be introduced by the synthetic estimator.
In practice, the decision of whether to use a synthetic estimator, and which type to employ, necessitates a careful consideration of this inherent bias-variance trade-off. In situations where direct estimates are excessively noisy (high variance), a synthetic estimator with a potentially higher but hopefully tolerable level of bias might be preferred, particularly if the goal is to obtain a more stable and interpretable estimate. Conversely, if the potential for bias is deemed too high, or if the consequences of a biased estimate are severe, researchers might opt for alternative methods, even if they have higher variance. The optimal balance between bias and variance is highly context-dependent, relying on the specific application, the characteristics of the population and the sample, and the intended use of the estimates. Therefore, a thorough evaluation of the potential bias and variance associated with any chosen estimator is of paramount importance.
10. Conclusion
In summary, synthetic estimators in sample survey statistics are valuable tools for estimating population parameters, particularly for small sub-populations or geographic areas where direct survey data is limited.1 They operate by leveraging estimates from larger, better-sampled areas, often incorporating auxiliary information to refine these estimates for the smaller domains.1 This approach offers advantages such as simplicity, applicability across various survey designs, and the potential for increased precision in small area estimation.2
However, a critical consideration in the use of synthetic estimators is the inherent potential for bias, which arises primarily from the underlying assumption that the smaller areas share the same characteristics as the larger area from which the initial estimates are derived.1 The magnitude of this bias can vary depending on the extent to which this homogeneity assumption holds true, and it can be influenced by factors such as non-linear relationships and the propagation of noise from the larger area estimates.10 Evaluating and mitigating this bias through methods like examining the MSE, comparing with external data, and employing refined estimation techniques or calibration methods is crucial for ensuring the reliability of synthetic estimates.1
It is essential to distinguish synthetic estimators used in sample surveys from the synthetic control method, which is a distinct technique used in causal inference to estimate the effect of interventions on single treated units.10 While both involve the concept of "synthetic," their goals and methodologies differ significantly.
Ultimately, synthetic estimators can be a valuable and often indispensable tool for generating sub-national statistics, especially when direct estimation is constrained by data limitations. However, their application necessitates a careful consideration of the potential for bias, and the results should always be interpreted with caution, keeping in mind the underlying assumptions and limitations of the method. Researchers should strive to select the most appropriate type of synthetic estimator for their specific needs, incorporate relevant auxiliary information whenever feasible, and diligently evaluate the potential bias to ensure that the resulting estimates are suitable for their intended purpose.
Works cited
1.	Use And Evaluation Of Synthetic Estimates, accessed May 12, 2025, http://www.asasrms.org/Proceedings/y1973/Use%20And%20Evaluation%20Of%20Synthetic%20Estimates.pdf
2.	www.naturalspublishing.com, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.naturalspublishing.com/files/published/qm50x6rx728no0.pdf
3.	SAE lecture 7, accessed May 12, 2025, http://sampieuchair.ec.unipi.it/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/JM-SAE-lecture-7.pdf
4.	Comparison the Estimates Composite, Synthetic, and Horvitz ..., accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Comparison-the-Estimates-Composite-Synthetic-and-Horvitz-Thompson-for-the-variable-Full_fig1_267724293
5.	Synthetic Estimates for Small Areas: - Statistical Workshop Papers and Discussion - NIDA Archives, accessed May 12, 2025, https://archives.nida.nih.gov/sites/default/files/monograph24.pdf
6.	www.pa.gov, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.pa.gov/content/dam/copapwp-pagov/en/health/documents/topics/healthstatistics/statistical-resources/understandinghealthstats/documents/Computing_Synthetic_Estimates_for_Local_Health_Data.pdf
7.	Your State Data… Your Local Story - Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.cahmi.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/local-use-of-state-data-and-synthetic-estimates.pdf
8.	Introduction to Synthetic Estimators - Ontosight.ai, accessed May 12, 2025, https://ontosight.ai/glossary/term/introduction-to-synthetic-estimators--679f4ea238099fda3c01d2d3
9.	A calibrated synthetic estimator for small area estimation - EconStor, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/266269/1/stattrans-2021-025.pdf
10.	Why Synthetic Control estimators are biased and what to do about it - arXiv, accessed May 12, 2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2111.10784
11.	Matching on Noise: Finite Sample Bias in the Synthetic Control Estimator - Joseph R. Cummins, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.josephrcummins.com/uploads/2/3/8/2/23821874/matching_on_noise_cond_accept.pdf
12.	Matching on Noise: Finite Sample Bias in the Synthetic Control Estimator - IDEAS/RePEc, accessed May 12, 2025, https://ideas.repec.org/p/uct/uconnp/2023-07.html
13.	Matching on Noise: Bias in the Synthetic Controls Estimator - Brock Smith, accessed May 12, 2025, http://www.brockdsmith.com/uploads/1/3/8/9/13892945/matching_noise_wp.pdf
14.	Combining Matching and Synthetic Control to Trade off Biases from Extrapolation and Interpolation - PubMed Central, accessed May 12, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9197080/
15.	Combining Matching and Synthetic Control to Tradeoff Biases From Extrapolation and Interpolation - Alexander Torgovitsky, accessed May 12, 2025, https://a-torgovitsky.github.io/sc.pdf
16.	Combining Matching and Synthetic Controls to Trade off Biases from Extrapolation and Interpolation - National Bureau of Economic Research, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.nber.org/papers/w26624
17.	bibliotekanauki.pl, accessed May 12, 2025, https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/465709.pdf
18.	Evaluation of Synthetic Small-area Estimators Using Design-based Methods, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334774151_Evaluation_of_Synthetic_Small-area_Estimators_Using_Design-based_Methods
19.	Evaluation of Synthetic Small-area Estimators Using Design-based Methods, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.ajs.or.at/index.php/ajs/article/view/790
20.	Model-based estimation - synthetic estimators and small area estimators - CBS, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/our-services/methods/statistical-methods/throughput/throughput/model-based-estimation-synthetic-estimators-and-small-area-estimators
21.	What is synthetic sample - and is it all it's cracked up to be? - Kantar, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.kantar.com/inspiration/analytics/what-is-synthetic-sample-and-is-it-all-its-cracked-up-to-be
22.	Fully synthetic data for complex surveys, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/12-001-x/2024002/article/00008-eng.pdf
23.	A Penalized Synthetic Control Estimator for Disaggregated Data - MIT Economics, accessed May 12, 2025, https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/publications/A%20Penalized%20Synthetic%20Control%20Estimator%20for%20Disagg.pdf
24.	On the Properties of the Synthetic Control Estimator with Many Periods and Many Controls, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01621459.2021.1965613
25.	Synthetic control method - Wikipedia, accessed May 12, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_control_method
26.	The Advantages and Disadvantages of Synthetic Training Data - Encord, accessed May 12, 2025, https://encord.com/blog/pros-cons-synthetic-training-data/
27.	7 guiding principles for using synthetic control estimators | Statistical Odds & Ends, accessed May 12, 2025, https://statisticaloddsandends.wordpress.com/2022/05/31/7-guiding-principles-for-using-synthetic-control-estimators/
28.	Consistent Estimation of Optimal Synthetic Control Weights - wiso.uni-hamburg.de, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.wiso.uni-hamburg.de/fachbereich-vwl/professuren/lucke/bilder/lucke-estimating-synthetic-controls-2021.pdf
29.	Evaluating the Bias, type I error and statistical power of the prior Knowledge-Guided integrated likelihood estimation (PIE) for bias reduction in EHR based association studies - PubMed, accessed May 12, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39904407/
30.	Synthetic Controls in Action - MIT Economics, accessed May 12, 2025, https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/publications/ESWC_Paper-1.pdf
31.	Accounting for aid: estimating the impact of United States' global health investments on mortality among women of reproductive age using synthetic control and Bayesian methods — JOGH, accessed May 12, 2025, https://jogh.org/2025/jogh-15-04067
32.	A synthetic estimator for the efficacy of clinical trials with all-or-nothing compliance - PMC, accessed May 12, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5698094/
33.	Synthetic Control Estimation Beyond Case Studies Does the Minimum Wage Reduce Employment? - IDEAS/RePEc, accessed May 12, 2025, https://ideas.repec.org/p/ran/wpaper/wr-1142.html
34.	Bridging the Gap: The Imperative of Synthetic Data in Transforming Healthcare AI and Population Health, accessed May 12, 2025, https://treyrawles.substack.com/p/bridging-the-gap-the-imperative-of
35.	Questions about synthetic control method (SCM) and synthetic difference-in-differences (SDiD) : r/academiceconomics - Reddit, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/academiceconomics/comments/wk4sov/questions_about_synthetic_control_method_scm_and/
36.	Reconciling modern machine-learning practice and the classical bias–variance trade-off, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1903070116
37.	[D] Do successful models defy the "bias-variance tradeoff"? : r/MachineLearning - Reddit, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/nkfarw/d_do_successful_models_defy_the_biasvariance/