HackerPapers

arXiv:2404.01413cs.LG

Is Model Collapse Inevitable? Breaking the Curse of Recursion by Accumulating Real and Synthetic Data

Matthias Gerstgrasser, Rylan Schaeffer, Apratim Dey, Rafael Rafailov, Henry Sleight, John Hughes, Tomasz Korbak, Rajashree Agrawal, Dhruv Pai, Andrey Gromov, Daniel A. Roberts, Diyi Yang, David L. Donoho, Sanmi Koyejo

Abstract

The proliferation of generative models, combined with pretraining on web-scale data, raises a timely question: what happens when these models are trained on their own generated outputs? Recent investigations into model-data feedback loops proposed that such loops would lead to a phenomenon termed model collapse, under which performance progressively degrades with each model-data feedback iteration until fitted models become useless. However, those studies largely assumed that new data replace old data over time, where an arguably more realistic assumption is that data accumulate over time. In this paper, we ask: what effect does accumulating data have on model collapse? We empirically study this question by pretraining sequences of language models on text corpora. We confirm that replacing the original real data by each generation's synthetic data does indeed tend towards model collapse, then demonstrate that accumulating the successive generations of synthetic data alongside the original real data avoids model collapse; these results hold across a range of model sizes, architectures, and hyperparameters. We obtain similar results for deep generative models on other types of real data: diffusion models for molecule conformation generation and variational autoencoders for image generation. To understand why accumulating data can avoid model collapse, we use an analytically tractable framework introduced by prior work in which a sequence of linear models are fit to the previous models' outputs. Previous work used this framework to show that if data are replaced, the test error increases with the number of model-fitting iterations; we extend this argument to prove that if data instead accumulate, the test error has a finite upper bound independent of the number of iterations, meaning model collapse no longer occurs.

arXiv comments
Journal reference
DOI
Subjects
cs.LGMachine Learning cs.AIArtificial Intelligence cs.CLComputation and Language cs.ETEmerging Technologies stat.MLMachine Learning (Statistics)

On Hacker News

Linked by 6 identifiable commenters in 6 comments across 5 threads, from Jun 2024 to Sep 2026. Found in 4 HN submissions from Apr 2024 to Jul 2024. Open submission discussions.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments5 threads

    • We use large amounts of synthetic data for training at work and have not observed any sort of model collapse when done properly. Edit: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.01413 https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.07515

      dorolowView on HNParent context

    • > The latest studies demonstrate model collapse is not a given Which studies? [edit: I'll assume you mean these two given by @dorolow: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.01413 https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.07515] > It can't be used as the -only- data source of course, but that's not how it…

      konmokView on HNParent context

  1. The turbulent AI era is here 1 comment
    • That paper has had a pretty turbulent reception and looks pretty conclusively wrong at this point. It used an incorrect theoretical framing that assumed that data was being replaced rather than accumulated as a result of more training (see https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.01413 which…

      dwohnitmokView on HNParent context

    • "Model collapse" is often overstated, as this paper demonstrates: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2404.01413 The original model collapse paper assumes you train networks on 100% synthetic data produced by the previous generation. But if you maintain some portion of real data then the…

      ainchView on HNParent context

    • This paper was first published in May 2023 and discussed on HN the following month: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36319076 Some research since seems to add nuance to its conclusions: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.01413

      tkgallyView on HNParent context

    • You're confusing it with data poisoning. Model collapse itself is(was?) a fairly serious research topic: https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.17493 We've by now reached a "probably not inevitable" - https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.01413 argues there's a finite upper bound to error - but I'd…

      groby_bView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.