@giovanni.circo could you please add some details on the question you have regarding this topic?
Thanks
Do MultiTableSynthesizer models support constraints that are cross-table? For example, if I had a diagnosis table and a procedures table, could I have a constraint in the diagnosis table that applies to the procedure table (such as given a diagnosis in the diagnosis table, only generate specific procedures in the procedure table)?
Hi @giovanni.circo, the good news is that our team is in the process of building support for multi-table patterns and constraints. Once this feature is built, we will be able to accommodate requests for specific inter-table logic such as the one you have.
In the meantime, we are happy to support you with workarounds and utility functions that can achieve the desired effect. Is the case you mention (diagnosis and procedures) something that is currently affecting an ongoing project with high priority? I would love to understand a bit more about the logic – is it that there are specific combinations of diagnosis/procedures that are possible, so you’d like to limit the combinations to whatever is observed in the real data? (i.e. this is kind of a FixedCombinations constraint but between different tables). An example or illustration may help. Thanks.
I’m marking this feature request as resolved. Starting from version 0.20.0, we now offer a bundle called Constraint-Augmented Generation (CAG) that supports multi-table constraints.
For more information, see the CAG bundle page. Browse through the existing multi-table constraints here. Please feel free to start a new thread if there’s a specific type of multi-table constraint logic you’re encountering that is not yet supported.
For the specific logic described in this issue, I’ve created a new feature request here.