You are presented with multiple paper abstracts, alongside the associated literature review and chapter titles. Given the provided information, you are going to do a literature review. Please generate a coherent literature review that synthesizes the content, draws connections between different works, highlights major findings, and identifies any gaps in the existing research.

Literature Review Title: Generating Synthetic Missing Data: A Review by Missing Mechanism 
Chapter Title:  A. MULTIVARIATE MCAR IMPLEMENTATIONS 
1. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB001):  Missing data imputation is an important research topic in data mining. The impact of noise is seldom considered in previous works while real-world data often contain much noise. In this paper, we systematically investigate the impact of noise on imputation methods and propose a new imputation approach by introducing the mechanism of Group Method of Data Handling (GMDH) to deal with incomplete data with noise. The performance of four commonly used imputation methods is compared with ours, called RIBG (robust imputation based on GMDH), on nine benchmark datasets. The experimental result demonstrates that noise has a great impact on the effectiveness of imputation techniques and our method RIBG is more robust to noise than the other four imputation methods used as benchmark. 
2. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB002):  Treatment of missing data has become increasingly significant in scientific research and engineering applications. The classic imputation strategy based on the K nearest neighbours (KNN) has been widely used to solve the plague problem. However, former studies do not give much attention to feature relevance, which has a significant impact on the selection of nearest neighbours. As a result, biased results may appear in similarity measurements. In this paper, we propose a novel method to impute missing data, named feature weighted grey KNN (FWGKNN) imputation algorithm. This approach employs mutual information (MI) to measure feature relevance. We present an experimental evaluation for five UCI datasets in three missingness mechanisms with various missing rates. Experimental results show that feature relevance has a non-ignorable influence on missing data estimation based on grey theory, and our method is considered superior to the other four estimation strategies. Moreover, the classification bias can be significantly reduced by using our approach in classification tasks. 
3. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB003):  Abstract When applying data-mining techniques to real-world data, we often find ourselves facing observations that have no value recorded for some attributes. This can be caused by several phenomena, such as a machine’s incapability to record certain characteristics or a person refusing to answer a question in a poll. Depending on that motivation, values gone missing may follow one kind of pattern or another, or describe no regularity at all. One approach to palliate the effect of missing data on machine learning tasks is to replace the missing observations. Imputation algorithms attempt to calculate a value for a missing gap, using information associated with it, i.e., the attribute and/or other values in the same observation. While several imputation methods have been proposed in the literature, few works have addressed the question of the relationship between the type of missing data, the choice of the imputation method, and the effectiveness of classification algorithms that used the imputed data. In this paper we address the relationship among these three factors. By constructing a benchmark of hundreds of databases containing different types of missing data, and applying several imputation methods and classification algorithms, we empirically show that an interaction between imputation methods and supervised classification can be deduced. Besides, differences in terms of classification performance for the same imputation method in different missing data patterns have been found. This points to the convenience of considering the combined choice of the imputation method and the classifier algorithm according to the missing data type. 
4. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB004):  In fact, raw data in the real world is dirty. Each large data repository contains various types of anomalous values that influence the result of the analysis, since in data mining, good models usually need good data, databases in the world are not always clean and includes noise, incomplete data, duplicate records, inconsistent data and missing values. Missing data is a common drawback in many real-world data sets. In this paper, we proposed an algorithm depending on improving (MIGEC) algorithm in the way of imputation for dealing missing values. We implement grey relational analysis (GRA) on attribute values instead of instance values, and the missing data were initially imputed by mean imputation and then estimated by our proposed algorithm (PA) used as a complete value for imputing next missing value.We compare our proposed algorithm with several other algorithms such as MMS, HDI, KNNMI, FCMOCS, CRI, CMI, NIIA and MIGEC under different missing mechanisms. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed algorithm has less RMSE values than other algorithms under all missingness mechanisms. 
5. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB005):  Dealing with missing data is a crucial step in the preprocessing stage of most data mining projects. Especially in healthcare contexts, addressing this issue is fundamental, since it may result in keeping or loosing critical patient information that can help physicians in their daily clinical practice. Over the years, many researchers have addressed this problem, basing their approach on the implementation of a set of imputation techniques and evaluating their performance in classification tasks. These classic approaches, however, do not consider some intrinsic data information that could be related to the performance of those algorithms, such as features’ distribution. Establishing a correspondence between data distribution and the most proper imputation method avoids the need of repeatedly testing a large set of methods, since it provides a heuristic on the best choice for each feature in the study. The goal of this work is to understand the relationship between data distribution and the performance of well-known imputation techniques, such as Mean, Decision Trees, k-Nearest Neighbours, Self-Organizing Maps and Support Vector Machines imputation. Several publicly available datasets, all complete, were selected attending to several characteristics such as number of distributions, features and instances. Missing values were artificially generated at different percentages and the imputation methods were evaluated in terms of Predictive and Distributional Accuracy. Our findings show that there is a relationship between features’ distribution and algorithms’ performance, although some factors must be taken into account, such as the number of features per distribution and the missing rate at state.

Literature Review:
MCAR unifo implementations are an extension of MCAR univa implementations, where all elements x i,j are eligible to be deleted, instead of focusing only on a feature x miss . Herein, we refer to three MCAR unifo implementations that follow naturally from the univa configurations. We start with MCAR1 unifo , proposed by Twala BIB001 . In MCAR1 unifo , all features will have the same percentage of missing values, specified by MR: n Bernoulli trials are generated for each feature p in the dataset and the missing elements x i,j are determined accordingly. In other words, MCAR2 unifo follows from the research works of Garciarena and Santana BIB004 , Zhu et al. BIB002 , Pan et al. BIB003 , and Ali and Omer BIB005 . In MCAR2 unifo , a number of N elements x i,j are randomly and deleted (Figure 8 ). The MR is defined for the entire dataset and therefore N = n × p × MR. However, unlike MCAR1 unifo , the features are not required to have the same number of missing values, given that all x i,j are eligible for missing data generation and they are chosen randomly across all features. Given the variability of possible missing datasets that can be generated with this approach (more than for MCAR1 unifo ), it is fundamental that missing data experiments using it perform several runs BIB006 , as further discussed in Section VI.