Collapse or Thrive? Perils and Promises of Synthetic Data in a Self-Generating World

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.16713v1
• Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 05:49:24 GMT
• Title: Collapse or Thrive? Perils and Promises of Synthetic Data in a Self-Generating World
• Authors: Joshua Kazdan, Rylan Schaeffer, Apratim Dey, Matthias Gerstgrasser, Rafael Rafailov, David L. Donoho, Sanmi Koyejo,
• Abstract summary: We study collapse versus avoidance of collapse when generative machine learning models are pretrained on web-scale datasets. 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.
• Score: 19.266191284270793
• License:
• Abstract: 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 "$\textit{replace}$" scenario: a sequence of models, the first trained with real data and each later one trained only on synthetic data from its preceding model. In this scenario, models successively degrade. Others see collapse as easily avoidable; in an "$\textit{accumulate}$' 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 accumulate scenario -- but unlike $\textit{accumulate}$ and like $\textit{replace}$, each model is trained using a fixed compute budget; we demonstrate that model test loss on real data is larger than in the $\textit{accumulate}$ scenario, but apparently plateaus, unlike the divergence seen with $\textit{replace}$. 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.

Related papers

• Self-Consuming Generative Models with Curated Data Provably Optimize Human Preferences [20.629333587044012]
  We study the impact of data curation on iterated retraining of generative models. We prove that, if the data is curated according to a reward model, the expected reward of the iterative retraining procedure is maximized.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-12T21:28:28Z)
• How Bad is Training on Synthetic Data? A Statistical Analysis of Language Model Collapse [9.59833542807268]
  Model collapse occurs when new models are trained on synthetic data generated from previously trained models. We show that model collapse cannot be avoided when training solely on synthetic data. We estimate a maximal amount of synthetic data below which model collapse can eventually be avoided.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-07T22:15:13Z)
• Is Model Collapse Inevitable? Breaking the Curse of Recursion by Accumulating Real and Synthetic Data [49.73114504515852]
  We show that replacing the original real data by each generation's synthetic data does indeed tend towards model collapse. We demonstrate that accumulating the successive generations of synthetic data alongside the original real data avoids model collapse.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-01T18:31:24Z)
• Learning Defect Prediction from Unrealistic Data [57.53586547895278]
  Pretrained models of code have become popular choices for code understanding and generation tasks. Such models tend to be large and require commensurate volumes of training data. It has become popular to train models with far larger but less realistic datasets, such as functions with artificially injected bugs. Models trained on such data tend to only perform well on similar data, while underperforming on real world programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-02T01:51:43Z)
• From Fake to Real: Pretraining on Balanced Synthetic Images to Prevent Spurious Correlations in Image Recognition [64.59093444558549]
  We propose a simple, easy-to-implement, two-step training pipeline that we call From Fake to Real. By training on real and synthetic data separately, FFR does not expose the model to the statistical differences between real and synthetic data. Our experiments show that FFR improves worst group accuracy over the state-of-the-art by up to 20% over three datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-08T19:52:28Z)
• Synthetic data, real errors: how (not) to publish and use synthetic data [86.65594304109567]
  We show how the generative process affects the downstream ML task. We introduce Deep Generative Ensemble (DGE) to approximate the posterior distribution over the generative process model parameters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-16T07:30:29Z)
• Datamodels: Predicting Predictions from Training Data [86.66720175866415]
  We present a conceptual framework, datamodeling, for analyzing the behavior of a model class in terms of the training data. We show that even simple linear datamodels can successfully predict model outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-01T18:15:24Z)
• Variational Bayesian Unlearning [54.26984662139516]
  We study the problem of approximately unlearning a Bayesian model from a small subset of the training data to be erased. We show that it is equivalent to minimizing an evidence upper bound which trades off between fully unlearning from erased data vs. not entirely forgetting the posterior belief. In model training with VI, only an approximate (instead of exact) posterior belief given the full data can be obtained, which makes unlearning even more challenging.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-24T11:53:00Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.