about
Is Model Collapse Inevitable? (arxiv.org)
5 points by tosh on May 2, 2024 | hide | past | pdf | 1 comment on HN

In plain words: When AI trains on its own output, earlier studies assumed each new batch of text replaces the old one. Keeping the original real data and adding every new batch instead, tests and a math proof show, keeps quality from ever spiraling down.

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

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.

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, et al.
arXiv:2404.01413 · cs.LG, cs.AI, cs.CL, cs.ET, stat.ML · submitted Apr 1, 2024 · updated Apr 29, 2024
abstract · pdf · html

add comment on HN
Also discussed: Jul 2024 (5 points, 1 comment) · Jun 2024 (2 points, 0 comments) · Apr 2024 (3 points, 0 comments)

Is model collapse inevitable

Short answer --- yes.

It is the only *logical* outcome.

In most engineering endeavors, errors tend to accumulate and grow over time. Why should AI be any different?

As the time honored saying goes --- "Garbage in, garbage out".

"Intelligence" that can't tell fact from fiction well enough to disregard it's own hype can do nothing but recursively suck it back in and produce more of the same over time.

The really disturbing part for me is the realization that a lot of technical *people* exhibit similar tendencies.

... where an arguably more realistic assumption is that data accumulate over time.

This can only be achieved with infinite storage --- which is expensive both to store and search and --- (wait for it) *unrealistic*.