MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Preventing Model Collapse when Training LLMs with Synthetic Data

2025· article· W7123353892 on OpenAlexaff
Bahman Gharesifard, Paulo Tabuada

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSynthetic dataTraining (meteorology)Generative modelSimple (philosophy)Training setQuality (philosophy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of synthetic data in the training of generative models is a common approach to address the lack of large amounts of high quality training data. It has been reported in the literature that using synthetic data can lead to model degeneration, i.e., the model stops producing useful outputs. In this paper we propose a very simple strategy to combine synthetic data and human-generated data so as to prevent model degeneration. At the technical level we show that the evolution of a generative model, caused by re-training, can be described by a differential equation and provide conditions on the ratio of synthetic and human-generated data to ensure the existence of an asymptotically stable equilibrium.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.633
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image SynthesisFrench-language works237,207