The increasing presence of AI-generated content on the internet raises a critical question: What happens when generative machine learning models are pretrained on web-scale datasets containing data created by earlier models? Some authors prophesy \textit{model collapse} under a `{\it replace}' scenario: a sequence of models, the first trained with real data and each later one trained {\it only on} synthetic data from its preceding model. In this scenario, models successively degrade. Others see collapse as avoidable; in an `{\it accumulate}' scenario, a sequence of models is trained, but each training uses all real and synthetic data generated so far. In this work, we deepen and extend the study of these contrasting scenarios. First, collapse versus avoidance of collapse is studied by comparing the replace and accumulate scenarios on each of three prominent generative modeling settings; we find the same contrast emerges in all three settings. Second, we study a compromise scenario; the available data remains the same as in the {\it accumulate} scenario -- but unlike {\it accumulate} and like {\it replace}, each model is trained using a fixed compute budget; we demonstrate that model test loss on real data is larger than in the {\it accumulate} scenario, but apparently plateaus, unlike the divergence seen with {\it replace}. Third, we study the relative importance of cardinality and proportion of real data for avoiding model collapse. Surprisingly, we find a non-trivial interaction between real and synthetic data, where the value of synthetic data for reducing test loss depends on the absolute quantity of real data. Our insights are particularly important when forecasting whether future frontier generative models will collapse or thrive, and our results open avenues for empirically and mathematically studying the context-dependent value of synthetic data.

Researchers in empirical machine learning recently spotlighted their fears of so-called Model Collapse. They imagined a discard workflow, where an initial generative model is trained with real data, after which the real data are discarded, and subsequently, the model generates synthetic data on which a new model is trained. They came to the conclusion that models degenerate as model-fitting generations proceed. However, other researchers considered an augment workflow, where the original real data continue to be used in each generation of training, augmented by synthetic data from models fit in all earlier generations. Empirical results on canonical datasets and learning procedures confirmed the occurrence of model collapse under the discard workflow and avoidance of model collapse under the augment workflow. Under the augment workflow, theoretical evidence also confirmed avoidance in particular instances; specifically, Gerstgrasser et al. (2024) found that for classical Linear Regression, test risk at any later generation is bounded by a moderate multiple, viz. pi-squared-over-6 of the test risk of training with the original real data alone. Some commentators questioned the generality of theoretical conclusions based on the generative model assumed in Gerstgrasser et al. (2024): could similar conclusions be reached for other task/model pairings? In this work, we demonstrate the universality of the pi-squared-over-6 augment risk bound across a large family of canonical statistical models, offering key insights into exactly why collapse happens under the discard workflow and is avoided under the augment workflow. In the process, we provide a framework that is able to accommodate a large variety of workflows (beyond discard and augment), thereby enabling an experimenter to judge the comparative merits of multiple different workflows by simulating a simple Gaussian process.

Recent alignment algorithms such as direct preference optimization (DPO) have been developed to improve the safety of large language models (LLMs) by training these models to match human behaviors exemplified by preference data. However, these methods are both computationally intensive and lacking in controllability and transparency, making them prone to jailbreaking and inhibiting their widespread use. Furthermore, these tuning-based methods require large-scale preference data for training and are susceptible to noisy preference data. In this paper, we introduce a tuning-free alignment alternative (DeTox) and demonstrate its effectiveness under the use case of toxicity reduction. Grounded on theory from factor analysis, DeTox is a sample-efficient model editing approach that identifies a toxic subspace in the model parameter space and reduces model toxicity by projecting away the detected subspace. The toxic sub-space is identified by extracting preference data embeddings from the language model, and removing non-toxic information from these embeddings. We show that DeTox is more sample-efficient than DPO, further showcasing greater robustness to noisy data. Finally, we establish both theoretical and empirical connections between DeTox and DPO, showing that DeTox can be interpreted as a denoised version of a single DPO step.

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 discovered that such loops can lead to model collapse, a phenomenon where performance progressively degrades with each model-fitting iteration until the latest model becomes useless. However, several recent papers studying model collapse assumed that new data replace old data over time rather than assuming data accumulate over time. In this paper, we compare these two settings and show that accumulating data prevents model collapse. We begin by studying an analytically tractable setup in which a sequence of linear models are fit to the previous models' predictions. Previous work showed if data are replaced, the test error increases linearly with the number of model-fitting iterations; we extend this result by proving that if data instead accumulate, the test error has a finite upper bound independent of the number of iterations. We next empirically test whether accumulating data similarly prevents model collapse by pretraining sequences of language models on text corpora. We confirm that replacing data does indeed cause model collapse, then demonstrate that accumulating data prevents model collapse; these results hold across a range of model sizes, architectures and hyperparameters. We further show that similar results hold for other deep generative models on real data: diffusion models for molecule generation and variational autoencoders for image generation. Our work provides consistent theoretical and empirical evidence that data accumulation mitigates model collapse.