MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408694014 · doi:10.1038/s41586-025-08905-3

Author Correction: AI models collapse when trained on recursively generated data

2025· erratum· en· W4408694014 on OpenAlexaff
Ilia Shumailov, Zakhar Shumaylov, Yiren Zhao, Nicolas Papernot, Ross Anderson, Yarin Gal

Bibliographic record

VenueNature · 2025
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and Data Classification
Canadian institutionsVector InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the version of the article initially published, in the “Theoretical intuition” section, the text “For the mathematical models to come, we consider αi = γi = 0” should have read “For the mathematical models to come, we consider “ βi = γi = 0,” as is now amended in the HTML and PDF versions of the article.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.121
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.121
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0040.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0940.060

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNatureSame topicMachine Learning and Data ClassificationFrench-language works237,207