Model Collapse Demystified: The Case of Regression

Authors: elvis  dohmatob
yunzhen  feng
julia  kempe
§  fair
Venue: NeurIPS_cc_2024_Conference
Published: 2024-05-14 12:36:08

Abstract: The era of proliferation of large language and image generation models begs the question of what happens if models are trained on the synthesized outputs of other models. The phenomenon of "model collapse" refers to the situation whereby as a model is trained recursively on data generated from previous generations of itself over time, its performance degrades until the model eventually becomes completely useless, i.e. the model collapses. In this work, we investigate this phenomenon within the context of high-dimensional regression with Gaussian data, considering both low- and high-dimensional asymptotics. We derive analytical formulas that quantitatively describe this phenomenon in both under-parameterized and over-parameterized regimes. We show how test error increases linearly in the number of model iterations in terms of all problem hyperparameters (covariance spectrum, regularization, label noise level, dataset size) and further isolate how model collapse affects both bias and variance terms in our setup. We show that even in the noise-free case, catastrophic (exponentially fast) model-collapse can happen in the over-parametrized regime. In the special case of polynomial decaying spectral and source conditions, we obtain modified scaling laws which exhibit new crossover phenomena from fast to slow rates. We also propose a simple strategy based on adaptive regularization to mitigate model collapse. Our theoretical results are validated with experiments.

Main paper: 
 introduction: 
 Model collapse describes the situation where the performance of large language models (LLMs) or large image generators degrade as more and more AI-generated data becomes present in their training dataset [44] . Indeed, in the early stages of the generative AI evolution (e.g the ChatGPT-xyz series of models), there is emerging evidence suggesting that retraining a generative AI model on its own outputs can lead to various anomalies in the model's later outputs. This phenomenon has been particularly observed in LLMs, where retraining on their generated content introduces irreparable defects, resulting in what is known as "model collapse", the production of nonsensical or gibberish output [44, 8] . Though several recent works demonstrate facets of this phenomenon empirically in various settings [23, 32, 33, 8, 9, 21] , a theoretical understanding is still missing.In this work, we initiate a theoretical study of model collapse in the setting of high-dimensional supervised-learning with linear regression. This is equivalent to kernel regression 1 , which serves as an effective proxy for neural networks in various regimes, for instance in the infinite-width limit [37, 49, 25, 28] or in the lazy regime of training [12] . [11] characterize the power-law generalization error of regularized least-squares kernel algorithms, assuming a power-decay spectrum of the kernel (capacity) and of the coefficients of the target function (source). Source and capacity power decay (b) Power-law covariance spectrum. Refer to Eqn (23) . The setup is: d = 300, T0 = 600, σ = σ0 = 1, Σ = diag(λ1, . . . , λ d ), where λ k ∝ k -2 . Left plot corresponds to T = 10, 000 and Right plot corresponds to adaptive regularization λ = T -ℓ crit , where λ = λ(T ) as proposed in [14] . See Section D for details. The broken curves are as predicted by our Theorem 5.1. Though ℓ = ℓcrit is optimal in classical case, it is not in the setup of model collapse.In fact here, the test error diverges with sample size T . Our theory proposes a corrected value of this exponent which gracefully adapts to synthesized data. See Figure 4 (Appendix) for results on MNIST [16] . capture properties of the data and the model that give rise to power law scaling of test error in terms of data set size and model capacity, as empirically observed e.g. in [26, 24] . More recently, scaling laws have been shown for kernel models under the Gaussian design, e.g. in [46, 13, 14] for regression and [15] for classification. [39, 43, 31] study scaling laws for regression in the random feature model. Summary of Main Contributions. Following the rich tradition in prior works outlined above, we study the Gaussian design where the input x is sampled from a multivariate zero-mean Gaussian N (0, Σ) and labels y are determined by a linear ground truth function with independent label noise ϵ as y = x ⊤ w 0 + ϵ (we present the linear regression setting for ease, the generalization to the kernel setting is straightforward). At each generation step, an approximation to w 0 is learned from the data, and used to generate new, fake /synthetic labels for the next generation. Note that the machine learner has no control over the fake data generation process. It only sees data from a stage n of this process, which is then used to fit a downstream predictor. Our main findings can be summarized as follows:(1) Exact Characterization of Test Error under Iterative Retraining on Synthesized Data. In Section 4 (Theorem 4.3), we obtain analytic formulae for test error under the influence of training data with fake / synthesized labels. For n-fold iteration of data-generation, this formula writesEQUATIONwhere E clean test is the usual test error of the model trained on clean data (not AI-generated) and σ 2 0 the label noise level in the clean data distribution. The non-negative term ρ precisely highlights the effects of all the relevant problems parameters: the feature covariance matrix Σ, sample size T , original data size T 0 , label noise level in the fake data distribution σ 2 , and regularization λ.The non-negative term ∆Bias is an increase in bias brought about by the iterative synthetic data generation process. This term disappears in the under-parametrized regime (Corollary 4.4), if each stage in the process was fitted on sufficiently many samples T 0 compared to the input dimension d (i.e if T 0 ≥ d). In the over-parametrized case where T 0 < d, this term is either a constant (Theorem 4.5) or an increasing function of n, depending on whether the design matrix stays the same or is resampled across different generations (Theorem 4.6). Notably, even in the case of noiseless labels (when σ 0 = 0), the downstream model converges to a Gaussian process around zero exponentially fast with the number of iterations n, leading to "catastrophic" model collapse.A direct consequence of (1) is that, as the number of generations n becomes large, the effect of re-synthesizing will make learning impossible. We note that the multiplicative degradation in scaling with the number of generations n is completely analogous to what has been shown in [18] for infinite memory models and their variants and empirically observed there. Illustration in Figures 1a and 2 .(2) Modified Scaling Laws. Turning to the special case of power-law spectra of the covariance matrix Σ, which allows to derive test-error scaling laws [11, 46, 14, 29] , we obtain in Section 5 (see Theorem 5.1) precise new scaling laws of the test error that quantitatively highlight the negative effect of training on synthetically generated data. Further exploiting our analytic estimates, we obtain (Corollary 5.2) the optimal ridge regularization parameter λ as a function of all the problem parameters (sample size, spectral exponents, strength of fake data-generator, etc.). This new regularization parameter corresponds to a correction of the the value proposed in the classical theory on clean data [14] , and highlights a novel crossover phenomenon where for an appropriate tuning of the regularization parameter, the effect of training on fake data is a degradation of the fast error rate in the noiseless regime [14, 11] to a much slower error rate which depends on the amount of true data on which the fake data-generator was trained in the first place. On the other hand, a choice of regularization which is optimal for the classical setting (training on real data), might lead to catastrophic failure: the test error diverges. See Figure 1b for an illustration. 
related work: 
 Current LLMs [17, 30, 10, 47] , including GPT-4 [1] , were trained on predominantly human-generated text; similarly, diffusion models like DALL-E [40] , Stable Diffusion [42] , Midjourney [35] are trained on web-scale image datasets. Their training corpora already potentially exhaust all the available clean data on the internet. A growing number of synthetic data generated with these increasingly popular models starts to populate the web, often indistinguishable from "real" data. Recent works call attention to the potential dramatic deterioration in the resulting models, an effect referred to as "model collapse" [44] .Empirical evidence of model collapse has been reported across various domains [23, 32, 33, 8, 9, 21] . Some theoretical studies [44, 7, 2, 18] have begun exploring this phenomenon. [44] attribute collapse to finite sampling bias and function approximation errors in the (single) Gaussian case but only provide lower bounds without detailed analytic expressions. [7] analyze the training process at the distribution level using both clean and synthetic data and provide stability results. However, these results do not account for finite samples and are only valid locally in parameter space, making them more relevant to fine-tuning rather than training from scratch. [2] examine "self-consuming loops" in the Gaussian case by assuming a sampling bias that reduces data variance with each generation-a (martingale) assumption that we do not require. These studies lack a comprehensive theoretical framework to quantify model collapse and its impact on scaling laws. Our work addresses these gaps by providing an analytic theory that captures how model collapse emerges from training on synthetic data, providing a deeper understanding that goes beyond merely identifying the collapse. A concurrent study by [18] demonstrate that model collapse in foundation models can be attributed to a breakdown in scaling laws [26, 24] , where increasing the sample size eventually fails to improve model performance. This finding, theoretically shown for discrete data in variants of the infinite memory model, complements our analytical results on how synthetic data alters the rate of scaling laws, as discussed in Section 5. 
theoretical setup: 
 We now present a setup which is simple enough to be analytically tractable, but rich enough to exhibit a wide range of regimes to illustrate a range of new phenomena that emerge with model collapse.Data Distribution and Synthetized Data. Consider the distribution P Σ,w0,σ 2 on R d × R given byEQUATIONThe positive integer d is the input-dimension, the vector w 0 ∈ R d defines the ground-truth labelling function x → x ⊤ w 0 , the matrix Σ ∈ R d×d is the covariance structure of the inputs. The scalar σ 2 is the level of label noise. Here, we consider the linear case for clarity. We describe the extension to the kernel setting in Appendix C. Thus, in classical linear regression, given a sample (X, Y ) ≡ {(x 1 , y 1 ), . . . , (x T , y T )} of size T from P Σ,w0,σ 2 , one seeks a linear model w ∈ R d with small test errorEQUATIONwhere (x, y) ∼ P Σ,w0,σ 2 is a random clean test point. In our setup for studying model collapse, the training data (X, Y ) is sampled from an iterative loop where each generation of the model serves as the labeller for the data for the next generation. This process is described below.Structure of the Synthesized / Fake Data Generator. Consider a sequence of data distributionsEQUATIONwhere w n 's is defined recursively by w n = w 0 , andEQUATIONwhereY n := X n w n + E n and Fit(A, B) = OLS(A, B) := A † B is ordinary-least squares (OLS). The design matrices (X n ) n≥0 are of shapes T n × d, each with iid rows from N (0, Σ).The sequence of noise vectors (E n ) n≥0 forms an independent collection, which is independent of the (X n ) n≥0 ; each E n ∈ R Tn has iid components ϵ n,i from N (0, σ 2 n ). Refer to Figure 3 ....Figure 3 : Illustration of the theoretical framework. The process begins with the original model w 0 (w 0 ) and the original dataset (X 0 , Y 0 ). n synthetic data generators w 1 to w n are iteratively fit on data labelled by the previous model with label noise σ 0 , using T 0 samples each. We evaluate the test error (with respect to the ground truth labels from w 0 ) of w pred n , trained on (X, Y ) := (X n , Y n ) using T samples with label noise σ and a regularization coefficient λ. Thus, in summary, each w n results from fitting a model on a dataset of size T n-1 from P Σ, wn-1,σ 2 n-1 , for every generation index n ≥ 1.The Downstream Model: Ridge Regression. For a number of iterations n ≥ 0, noise levels σ 0 and σ, dataset sizes T 0 and T , and regularization parameter λ ≥ 0, let w pred n = w pred n,T0,σ 2 0 ,T,σ,λ ∈ R d be the ridge predictor constructed from an iid sample {(x 1 , y 1 ), . . . , (x T , y T )} of size T from the n-fold fake data distribution P Σ, wn,σ 2 n , where for ease of presentation of our results we will assume thatEQUATIONFor an n-fold fake data generator P Σ, wn,σ 2 n , we denote with X := X n ∈ R T ×d the design matrix with iid rows from N (0, Σ), with E := E n ∈ R T the stage-n label-noise vector with components in N (0, σ 2 n ), and Y := Y n = X w n + E ∈ R T the labels generated by P Σ, wn,σ 2 n . Let Σ := X ⊤ X/T ∈ R d×d is the sample covariance matrix, and R = R(λ) := ( Σ + λI d ) -1 denote its resolvent, so that w pred n = RX ⊤ Y /T for λ > 0, andEQUATIONWe are interested in the dynamics of the test error E test ( w pred n) of this linear model. Importantly, the evaluation of the model is performed on the true data distribution P Σ,w0,σ 2 0 , even though the model is trained on the fake data distribution P Σ, wn,σ 2 . Note that for n = 0, E clean test := E test ( w pred n ) corresponds to the usual test error when the downstream model is trained on clean data. Importantly, the downstream model has no control over this process. It will only see training data from a given version P Σ, wn,σ 2 n , but evaluation will be on the true distribution P Σ,w0,σ 2 0 . The mental picture is as follows: each generation w n can be seen as a proxy for a specific version of ChatGPT, for example. The sample size T 0 used to create the fake labelling functions w n is a proxy for the strength of the fake data-generator thus constructed. Other works which have considered model collapse under such a self-looping training process include [44, 2, 7, 18] . 
exact test error characterization: 
 In this section we establish generic analytic formulae for the test error of the downstream model w pred n (7) trained on n-fold fake data-generation as outlined in Section 3. The fully general technical key Theorem F.1 detailing formula (1), with a trace expression for ρ, (as well as proofs) are given in Appendix F; consult part F.1 for an exposition. Notations are standard (summarized in Appendix E).For a start, let us first consider the case of unregularized regression, where λ = 0 in Equation (7) . Theorem 4.1. For an n-fold fake data generation process with T 0 ≥ d + 2 samples, the test error for the linear predictor w pred n in Equation (7) learned on T ≥ d + 2 samples, with λ = 0, is given byEQUATIONwhere the notation f (T ) ≃ g(T ) means f (T )/g(T ) → 1, for large T .The first term E test ( w pred 0 ) ≃ σ 2 ϕ/(1 -ϕ) in the above decomposition corresponds to the usual error when the downstream model is fitted on clean data (see [22] , for example). The additional term nσ 2 0 ϕ 0 /(1 -ϕ 0 ), proportional to the number of generations n, is responsible for model collapse. Model collapse versus more training data. Note that the linear degeneration in test error highlighted by Equation ( 8) is a direct consequence of using the same dataset size T 0 across the fake data generator. Of course, if the underlying synthetic generating process has access to a larger data budget across generations, this decay can be significantly alleviated. For instance, if fake data increases gradually with the number of generations m ≥ 2 as T m = (m log 2 m)T 0 (and, to simplify, σ = σ 0 ) a trivial extension of Theorem 4.1 yieldsE test ( w pred n ) ≃ (1 + 1 2 log 2 2 + 1 3 log 2 3 + . . . )E test ( w pred 0 ) ≃ E test ( w pred 0 ),which will keep collapse at bay at the expense of largely increased training data ( [44] also has a similar formula). This does not avoid model collapse; rather, it trades additional data generation and training effort against deterioration from generations of fake data. Thus, while for clean data increasing the dataset size n-fold leads to better scaling, with synthetic data, we forfeit this improvement. Also, note that we do not assume access to samples from any of the intermediate generation steps w 0 , . . . , w n-1 ; we only train the downstream model w pred n on data from the last step w n .Model Collapse as Change of Scaling Laws. In the low-dimensional regime (fixed d), Theorem 4.1 already predicts a change of scaling law from σ 2 T -1 to σ 2 T -1 + nσ 2 0 T -1 0 . Thus, as the sample size T is scaled up, the test error eventually plateaus at the value nσ 2 0 T -1 0 and does not vanish. This phenomenon, also established in [18] in the context of large language models, is clearly visible in Figure 1a . In the rest of this section and also in Section 5, we shall establish an analogous picture for high-dimensional regimes (d → ∞).Mitigation via Regularization. Note that the test error of the null predictor w null = 0 is E test (w null ) = ∥w 0 ∥ 2 Σ , and soE test ( w pred n ) E test (w null ) = 1 SNR ϕ 1 -ϕ + n SNR 0 ϕ 0 1 -ϕ 0 ,where SNR := ∥w 0 ∥ 2 Σ /σ 2 and SNR 0 := ∥w 0 ∥ 2 Σ /σ 2 0 . We deduce that if n ≫ SNR 0 /(1/ϕ 0 -1), then the learned model is already much worse than the null predictor! This suggests that a possible strategy for mitigating the negative effects on learning on AI-generated data is regularization, as empirically illustrated in Figures 1a, 1b , 2, and also in 4 of Appendix D. Furthermore, in Section 5 we shall establish that the optimal regularization parameter established in [14] , in the case of polynomially decreasing spectra (a regime which is relevant to wide neural networks), must be modified in the presence of synthetic training data in order to prevent the generalization error to diverge to infinity (i.e catastrophic failure).In order to analyze the trace term ρ appearing in Equation (1) (and spelled out in (32) in Appendix F.1), we need some tools from RMT, and ultimately obtain analytic formulae for E test ( w pred n ) in Theorem 4.3. Such tools have been used extensively to analyze anisotropic ridge regression [41, 22, 4] .Random Matrix Equivalents. For any sample size T ≥ 1 and λ ≥ 0, define κ(λ, T ) implicitly byEQUATIONwhere, for any λ ≥ 0 and m ∈ N ⋆ , df m (λ) is the mth order "degree of freedom" of the covariance matrix Σ is given by df m (λ) = df m (λ; Σ) := tr Σ m (Σ + λI d ) -m .The effect of ridge regularization at level λ ≥ 0 is to improve the condition of the empirical covariance matrix Σ; what the κ-function does is translate this into regularization on Σ at level κ(λ, T ), so as control the capacity of the former, i.e. the "effective dimension" of the underlying problem. Quantitatively, there is an equivalence of the form df 1 (λ; Σ) ≈ df 1 (κ(λ, T ); Σ). Roughly speaking, RMT is the business of formalizing such a relationship and derivatives (w.r.t. λ) thereof. A standard reference on the subject is [5] .Example: Isotropic Data. As an illustration, note that df m (λ) ≡ d/(1 + λ) m (polynomial decay) in the isotropic case where Σ = I d . Consequently, we haveκ(λ, T ) -λ = ϕ • κ(λ, T )/(1 + κ(λ, T )), with ϕ := d/T.In this case, it is easy to obtain the following well-known formula for κ = κ(λ, T ):EQUATIONwhich is reminiscent of the celebrated Marchenko-Pastur law [34] .Asymptotic Regime. We shall work in the following so-called proportionate asymptotic scaling regime which is a standard analysis based on random matrix theory (RMT):EQUATIONLater in Section 5 when we consider power-law spectra, this scaling will be extended to account for the more realistic case where d and T are of the same order on log scale, i.eEQUATIONfor some absolute constant C ≥ 1. Such non-proportionate settings are covered by the theory developed in [27, 48] . For clarity of presentation, even in this more general regime of Equations ( 12), we will still continue to write ϕ 0 := d/T 0 and ϕ := d/T .Bias-Variance Decomposition. With everything now in place, let us recall for later use, the classical bias-variance decomposition for ridge regression (for example, see [41, 22, 4] ): Proposition 4.2. In the RMT limit (12) , the test error of a ridge predictor w(λ) based on T iid samples from the true data distribution P Σ,w0,σ 2 is given byEQUATIONEQUATIONwhere κ = κ(λ, T ) is as given in Equation (9).The following result gives the test error for the downstream ridge predictor w pred n defined in Equation ( 7), in the context of fake training data, and will be heavily exploited later to obtain precise estimates in different regimes. Define generic V ar and Bias by:V ar = E ∥RX ⊤ E/T ∥ 2 Σ = σ 2 1 T tr ΣR 2 Σ Bias = E ∥ ΣRw 0 -w 0 ∥ 2 Σ, and note that E clean test := Bias + V ar, for standard ridge regression fitted on clean data from the true data distribution P Σ,w0,σ 2 (e.g., see Hastie et al. [22] ). Let Q n-1 = P n-1 P n-2 . . . P 0 where P m is the orthogonal projection unto the subspace of R d spanned by the rows of X m and defineEQUATION) Theorem 4.3. For an n-fold fake data-generation process, the test error of a ridge predictor w pred n based on a sample of size T with regularization parameter λ, is given in the RMT limit (12) byEQUATION)where ρ is as given in Theorem F.1, and Bias satisfies Bias ≥ Bias + ∆Bias ≥ Bias (with equality if T 0 ≥ d), and ∆Bias as given in (15) . Furthermore, if one of the following conditions holdsEQUATIONthen, we have the following explicit formula forEQUATIONwith κ = κ(λ, T ) and κ 0 := κ(0, T 0 ) are as given in Equation (9).Instructively, the term ∆Bias measures how biased the synthetic data-generation process away from ground-truth model w 0 . This term disappears if the generator was fitted on sufficiently many samples (i.e. if T 0 ≥ d). More quantitatively, when T 0 < d and X n = X 0 , it is easy to see that ∆Bias ≥ E [∥Σ 1/2 ΣR∥ 2 op ] • Bias 0 , where Bias 0 := E ∥P 0 w 0 -w 0 ∥ 2 2 measures the inability due to lack of enough data, of the first generation (n = 1) to reliably estimate w 0 even in the absence of noise (σ 0 = 0) in the data-generating process. This gap propagates over to higher generations of the process. The situation is illustrated in Figure 2 . In the case where T 0 < d and the X n 's are independent, we shall see in Section 4.5 that this increase in bias actually grows with n, even in the case of fake data generation without label noise (i.e. σ 0 = 0).We now consider the scenario of under-parameterization, where T 0 ≥ d, indicating that the number of data points exceeds the number of dimensions. This condition typically results in a unique solution for the regression. In this case, P 0 = I d a.s., leading to Bias = Bias (given as in formula ( 14)), and κ 0 = 0 in (18) , and so Theorem 4.3 givesEQUATION)We have the following corollary to Theorem 4. ) ≃ Bias + V ar + nσ 2 0 ρ, where Bias and V ar are as given in formula (14) , and ρ is as given in Equation (19) .Bias + V ar ≃ κ 2 ∥w 0 ∥ 2 2 + σ 2 ϕ (1 + κ) 2 -ϕ , ρ ≃ ϕ 0 1 -ϕ 0 1 (1 + κ) 2 + 1 (1 + κ) 2 ϕκ 2 (1 + κ) 2 -ϕ ,with ϕ := d/T , ϕ 0 := d/T 0 , and κ = κ(λ, T ) as in Equation (10) .Note that Theorem 4.1 is special case of the above result corresponding to λ = 0 and ϕ ≥ 1. A result like Corollary 4.4 gives us the needed analytical handle for understanding n-fold model collapse in terms of all problem hyper-parameters (covariance spectrum, regularization, label-noise level, etc.).We now consider the over-parametrized regime, where the different iterations of the synthetic datagenerator (refer to the illustration in Figure 3 ) are fitted on insufficient data. For simplicity of exposition, we restrict our presentation to isotropic covariance Σ = I d . Since we will be focusing on the possible increase ∆Bias above the bias (defined in Equation ( 14)) due to n ≥ 1 generations as predicted by Theorem 4.3, we further restrict ourselves to the noiseless regime where the fake data-generating process has no label noise, i.e. σ 0 = 0. Thanks to Lemma F.4, we know that the generation-n fake labelling vector w n (defined in Eqn. ( 5)) is given explicitly as a series of projectionsEQUATIONFurther, for simplicity we will assume T = T n > d, i.e the downstream model has access to enough data. We shall focus on two important special cases.The Dependent Case. We first consider the case whereT m = T 0 < d and X m = X 0 for all m ≤ n -1.It is clear that Equation ( 20) reduces to w n = P 0 w 0 , with rank P 0 = T 0 < d. Theorem 4.5. In the limit λ → 0EQUATIONWe see that in this setting, the increase in bias ∆Bias ≃ (1-1/ϕ 0 )∥w 0 ∥ 2 brought about by synthetic data is a positive constant which does not grow with the number of generations n ≥ 1. This increase in bias (i.e compared to training on clean data) is due to the fact that, with probability 1, the random subspace of R d spanned by X 0 does not contain the ground truth model w 0 . The expression is nothing but a RMT estimate of ∥P 0 w 0 -w 0 ∥ 2 , i.e. the squared norm of the projection of w 0 onto the orthogonal complement of this subspace. The result is illustrated in Figure 2 (a).The Independent Case. For our second example, we remove the assumption that T m = T 0 and X m = X 0 for all m ≤ n -1 considered in the previous case (Theorem 4.5). We instead assume that (A) The X m 's are assumed to be independent, and (B) we are in the following high-dimensional limitEQUATION)Define η := n-1 m=0 min(1/ϕ m , 1) ∈ (0, 1]. We have the following theorem. Theorem 4.6. In the limit (22) , it holds that ∥ w n ∥ 2 ≃ ∥w 0 ∥ 2 η and ∆Bias ≃ ∥w 0 ∥ 2 (1 -η) . In particular, if n → ∞ with infinitely many ϕ m > 1, then w n → 0 and ∆Bias → ∥w 0 ∥ 2 .The theorem predicts that a sequence of over-parametrized fake data-generators ( w n ) n collapses to zero (and thus, effectively escapes from the ground truth model w 0 ). Consequently, the downstream model w pred n convergences to a Gaussian process around zero, instead of the true model w 0 , leading to an increase in the bias term of the test error! For example if ϕ n = ϕ 0 > 1, then Theorem 4.6 predicts that ∆Bias ≃ (1 -ϕ -n 0 )∥w 0 ∥ 2 , which grows exponentially fast towards ∥w 0 ∥ 2 , the test error of the null predictor. This compounding effect is due to the fact that in (20) , each projection P m spins the fake data labelling vector w n further away from the ground-truth w 0 . The result is illustrated in Figure 2(b) .Comparing the dependent case and the independent case, 4.6 shows that the increase in bias is proportional to 1 -η 0 η 1 . . . η n-1 , which is typically much larger than 1 -η 0 , which is the increase in the dependent case. Sampling different design matrices results in a more pronounced model collapse. 
the case of heavy tails (power law): 
 Neural scaling laws [26, 24] , relate a model's test error to the sample size, model size, and computational resources, and are critical tools for practitioners in strategically allocating resources during the design and implementation of large language models. Previous theoretical works [11, 41, 14] have examined scaling laws in our tractable setting of linear regression with Gaussian design in the context of a power-law covariance spectrum. Now we explore how synthetic data alters these scaling laws in this setting.Σ be Σ = λ 1 v 1 v ⊤ 1 + . . . + λ d v d v ⊤ d ,where λ 1 ≥ . . . ≥ λ d ≥ 0 are the eigenvalues and v 1 , . . . , v d ∈ R d are the eigenvectors. For any feature index j ∈ [d], define a coefficient c j := w ⊤ 0 v j , i.e the projection of w 0 along the jth eigenvector of Σ. We shall work under the following well studied spectral conditionsEQUATIONwhere β > 1 and r > 0. The parameter r measures the amount of dispersion of w 0 relative to the spectrum of Σ; a large value of r means w 0 is concentrated only along a few important eigen-directions (i.e. the learning problem is easy). For later convenience, define δ, r, and c byEQUATION)As noted in [14] , the source condition in ( 23) is satisfied ifc j ≍ j -δ/2 for all j ∈ [d].Consider adaptive ridge regularization strength of the formEQUATIONfor fixed ℓ ≥ 0. The case where ℓ = 0 corresponds to non-adaptive regularization; otherwise, the level of regularization decays polynomially with the sample size T . DefineEQUATIONIn [14] , KRR under normal circumstances (corresponding to n = 0, i.e. no fake data) was considered and it was shown that this value for the regularization exponent in ( 25) is minimax-optimal for normal test error in the noisy regime (σ > 0), namely E test ( w pred 0) ≍ T -c. This represents a crossover from the noiseless regime where it was shown that the test error scales like E test ( w pred 0 ) ≍ T -2βr , a much faster rate. In the context of training on fake data, which is the object of this manuscript, we shall establish new scaling laws which paint a drastically different picture.A "Collapsed" Scaling Law. The following result shows that model collapse is a modification of usual scaling laws induced by fake data. All proofs of this section can be found in Appendix H. Here, for simplicity of presentation, we restrict to the case T 0 ≥ d + 2 to make the results easier to present. This condition can be removed as in Theorem 4.3. Theorem 5.1. Consider n-fold fake-data generation with sample size T 0 ≥ d + 2. For a ridge predictor w pred n given in Equation (7) based on a fake data sample of size T , with regularization parameter λ = λ(T ) tuned adaptively as in Equation (25) with exponent ℓ ∈ [0, β), the test error satisfies the following scaling law in the RMT limit (12) :EQUATIONWe now provide an instructive interpretation of Theorem 5.1 and outline the effect of regularization.The Noiseless Regime. First consider the case σ = 0 (or equivalently, exponentially small in T ) and ϕ 0 ∈ (0, 1) is fixed, and consider a number of generations n such that nσ 2 0 ≍ T a , where 0 ≤ a ≤ 1 -ℓ/β ≤ 1. Note that a = 0 corresponds to a constant number of generations. Also take T 0 = T b , for some constant b ∈ (0, ∞). According to Theorem 5.1, if we want to balance out the model-collapsing negative effect of training on fake data, we should chose ℓ so as to balance the second term n(T /T0 )T -(1-ℓ/β) = T -(b-ℓ/β-a)and the first term T -2ℓr . We have the following: Corollary 5.2. In the setting of Theorem 5.1 with T 0 ≍ T b and n ≍ T b , the optimal exponent of the ridge regularization parameter in Equation ( 25) is ℓ = ℓ ⋆ , whereEQUATIONand ℓ crit is as in Eqn. (26) , with corresponding optimal test error inf ℓ≥0 E test ( w pred n) ≍ T -(b-a)c .Observe that when (b -a)c < 2βr, which is the case when n = O(1), r ≥ 1 and b ≤ a + 1, this corresponds to the condition T ≳ T 0 . The above result represents a crossover from the fast rate E test ( w pred 0 ) ≍ T -2βr in the case of training on clean data [14] , to a much slower rateE test ( w pred n ) ≍ T -(b-a)c, attained by the adaptive regularization λ ≍ T -ℓ⋆ , which is optimal in this setting. Furthermore, in this setting if we still use λ ≍ T -ℓcrit as proposed in [14] in the clean data setting, Corollary 5.2 predicts that 1) , which diverges to infinity if b ≥ a + 1 -c. This is a catastrophic form of model collapse, and is empirically illustrated in Figures 1b and 4 .E test ( w pred n ) ≳ T -(b-ℓcrit/β-a) = T -(c+b-a-The Noisy Regime. This discussion can be found in Appendix G.Remark. In all the analyses above, we quantitatively demonstrate how model collapse manifests as a change in scaling laws within a setting commonly used to understand scaling behavior in current foundation models [46, 13, 14] . Our results indicate that, in the presence of synthetic data, scaling laws with respect to dataset size slow down (i.e., exhibit smaller exponents), meaning a much larger sample size is needed to achieve the same reduction in test error as with real data. Furthermore, the optimal scaling law with synthetic data requires different regularization; the optimal settings for real data could lead to catastrophic model collapse. Related findings are reported in Dohmatob et al. [18] in the setting of discrete data for infinite memory models and their variants. 
experiments: 
 To further support our theoretical findings, we conduct experiments using kernel ridge regression on the MNIST dataset [16] , as detailed in Appendix D.2. Our experiments validate the theoretical predictions for both RBF and Polynomial kernels, demonstrating the parallels between linear regression and kernel regression, and highlighting the relevance of our theory to more complex settings.We also explore the behavior of real neural networks by training two-layer networks in two different settings: fixing the first layer or training both layers (see Appendix D.3). Consistent with our theoretical insights, we observe a linear pattern of model collapse when the first layer is fixed. However, a more severe, nearly quadratic model collapse is observed when both layers are trained, with our theory providing a lower bound for this behavior. These results reinforce the ability of our theory to capture the dynamics of model collapse across varying complexities. Full experimental details and results are provided in Appendix D.Question: Does the paper specify all the training and test details (e.g., data splits, hyperparameters, how they were chosen, type of optimizer, etc.) necessary to understand the results?Answer: [Yes]Justification: We precisely describe all our (simple) linear or kernel methods in sufficient detail. They can easily be reproduced from these.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.• The experimental setting should be presented in the core of the paper to a level of detail that is necessary to appreciate the results and make sense of them. • The full details can be provided either with the code, in appendix, or as supplemental material. 
concluding remarks: 
 As we navigate the "synthetic data age", our findings signal a departure from traditional test error rates (e.g. neural scaling laws), introducing novel challenges and phenomena with the integration of synthetic data from preceding AI models into training sets. Our work provides a solid analytical handle for demystifying the model collapse phenomenon as a modification of usual scaling laws caused by fake / synthesized training data.On the practical side, our analysis reveals that AI-generated data alters the optimal regularization for downstream models and changes the scaling laws. Drawing from the insight that regularization mirrors early stopping [3] , our study suggests that models trained on mixed real and AI-generated data may initially improve but later decline in performance (model collapse), necessitating early detection of this inflection point. To preserve model quality when scaling laws are altered, it is essential to employ data filtering and watermarking techniques to distinguish real data from synthetic content. Recent studies have also explored methods for data selection [19] and correction [20] . These observations prompt a re-evaluation of current training approaches and underscores the complexity of model optimization in the era of synthetic data. A Differences to Self-DistillationAn important point we wish to make is that the fake data generation process that we analyse should not be confused with self-distillation as formulated in Mobahi et al. [36] for example. Our setting is inspired by the model collapse phenomenon, where increasingly vast amounts of synthetic data generated by users is posted online, and will necessarily enter the training set of the next foundation model. In this case, we do not have ground truth labels, nor is the generation of synthetic data not controlled by us, but by other users. Therefore, we adopt the setting of solely synthetic labels with added noise.Specifically, in our setup, at generation n > 0, we do not have access to the true labels Y 0 = f 0 (X) + noise for the training samples X, but rather to some Ŷn = fn (X) + noise, where fn is an unknown function, which synthesizes fake labels iteratively; the integer n is the number of iterations. In our work, we make the structural assumption that fn is obtained by iterative / successive regressions on a true dataset D 0 = (X 0 , Y 0 ). We do not have any control over the creation of these labels, which is reflected by the noise injected at each stage.In the self-distillation setting, the data generation process actually helps performance of the downstream model. The model has access to training labels from the true data distribution Y , but decides to fit a model on this data, and then use its outputs as the new labels Y n := F n (X, Y ), iterating this process possibly over severable steps. Thus, self-distillation has control over the data generating process, which is carefully optimized for the next stage training. Specifically, [36] study self-distillation in the same Gaussian regression model underlying our analysis, but in each distillation generation are able to tune the regularization parameter for downstream performance as a function of the original data labels (with the data being the same at each generation). In the setting of model collapse, there is no control over the data generation process, since it constitutes synthesized data which typically comes from the wide web.Self-distillation for linear regression would amount to a very special instance of our analysis where (1)X 0 = X 1 = . . . = X n-1 = X n = X and (2) σ 0 = . . . = σ n-1 = 0.That is, there is exactly one design matrix which is used in the data generation process and in the downstream estimator, and also no additional source of label noise is present at the end of each generation.In the general setup considered in our work, (1) is not imposed. We typically assume that X 0 , X 1 , . . . , X n-1 , X n with X n = X, are all independent random matrices. An exception is line 247 ("The Dependent Case") of Section 3.5, where we assume X m = X 0 for all m ≤ n -1, and independent of X n = X. That setup (considered for the purposes of showing that model collapse can still occur in the absence of label noise) also assumes σ m = 0 for all m; the analytic picture which emerges (Theorem 3.5) is already drastically different from what one would get from self-distllation (corresponding to additional assumption that X = X 0 ).This model has been studied by a vast body of works. For example, Richards et al. [41] , Hastie et al. [22] , Bach [4] analyze the classical bias-variance decomposition of the test error for ridge regression in the high dimensional setting where dataset size and dimension diverge proportionately, using tools from Random Matrix Theory (RMT). In Section 4 we significantly extend this type of analysis to training on iteratively generated synthetic data. This model is also particularly attractive because it allows to analyze an important trade-off: the relative decay of the eigenvalues of the kernel (capacity) and the coefficients of the target function in feature space (source). Sizeable effort has been dedicated to characterize the influence on the decay rate of the test error as a function of these two relative decays (aka power laws) [11, 38, 6, 41, 46, 14, 15] . In Section 5 we extend these efforts, in particular based on works of Cui et al. [13, 14] which has given a full characterization of all regimes and test error decay that can be observed at the interplay of noise and regularization, characterizing a crossover transition of rates in the noisy setting. Our work uncovers fascinating new effects as a result of iterative training on synthetic data.Though we present our results in the case of linear regression in R d for clarity, they can be rewritten in equivalent form in the kernel setting. Indeed, as in [11, 45, 14, 29] , it suffices to replace x with a feature map induced by a kernel K, namely ψ(x) := K x ∈ H K . Here, H K is the reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS) induced by K. In the data distribution (2), we must now replace the Gaussian marginal distribution condition x ∼ N (0, Σ) with ψ(x) ∼ N (0, Σ). The ground-truth labeling linear function in ( 2) is now just a general function f 0 ∈ L 2 . The predictor ( 7) is then given by (Representer Theorem)f pred n (x) := K(X, x) ⊤ c n , with c n = (G + λT I d ) -1 Y ∈ R n, where K(X, x) := (K(x 1 , x), . . . , K(x T , x)), and G = K(X, X) ∈ R n×n is the Gram matrix.We perform the following experiments on both simulated and real data to empirically validate our theoretical results.We consider ordinary / linear ridge regression in R d , for d = 300 and different structures for the covariance matrix Σ of the inputs: isotropic (i.e Σ = I d ) and power-law (23) , with (β, r) = (2, 0.375).For each value of n (the generation index), the fake data-generator is constructed according to the process described in (4). Then, for different values of T (between 1 and 1000, 000), a sample of size T is drawn from this fake data-generator and then a downstream ridge model ( 7) is fitted. The test set consists of 100, 000 clean pairs (x, y) form the true data distribution P Σ,w0,σ 2 . This experiment is repeated 10 times to generate error bars. The results for the isotropic setting are shown in Figure 1a and the results for the power-law setting are shown in Figure 1b . Figure 2 shows the over-parametrized setting.As in Cui et al. [14] , Wei et al. [48] we consider a distribution on MNIST [16] , a popular dataset in the ML community. The classification dataset contains 60, 000 training and 10, 000 test data points (handwritten), with labels from 0 to 9 inclusive. Like in Cui et al. [14] , we convert the labels into real numbers (i.e a regression problem) as follows: y = label mod 2 + noise , where the variance of the noise is σ 2 = 1 (for simplicity, we also set σ 2 0 = 1). The test set consists of 10, 000 pairs (x, y), with the labels y constructed as described in the previous sentence. The fake data used for training is generated as in the previous experiment, but via kernel ridge regression (instead of least squares) with the RBF kernel (bandwidth = 10 -4 ) and the polynomial kernel (degree = 5, bandwidth = 10 -3 ). Note that it was empirically shown in Cui et al. [14] that these datasets verify (23) with (β, r) ≈ (1.65, 0.097) in the case of the aforementioned RBF kernel, and (β, r) ≈ (1.2, 0.15) in the case of the polynomial kernel. Then, for different values of T (between 1 and 1000), a sample of size T is drawn from this fake data-generator and then a downstream kernel ridge model is fitted. Each of these experiments are repeated 10 times to generate error bars (due to different realizations of label noise). The results are shown in Figure 4 .We now further examine model collapse in two-layer neural networks on the MNIST dataset, beyond the linear setting and Gaussian data. We consider two scenarios:• learning with a random features (RF) model, where the first layer is fixed randomly, and only the second layer is trained, and • learning with a fully trainable neural network.For the two-layer network with the first layer fixed, our theory predicts a linear increase in test error as a function of the number of iterations n. This is because such models belong to the linearized regimes as finite-width random feature models and can be approximated by kernel regression [25, 45] . For fully-trained neural networks, our theory does not directly apply. However, we anticipate that the general trends uncovered by our asymptotic theory will hold true -for example, more parameters are expected to lead to greater model collapse, as shown in Theorem 4.1.Specifically, the models were trained using stochastic gradient descent (SGD) with a batch size of 128 and a learning rate of 0.1. We employed a regression setting where labels were converted to one-hot vectors, and the model was trained using mean squared error for 200 epochs to convergence. When generating the synthetic data, Gaussian label noise with a standard deviation of 0.1 is added. The test error is consistently evaluated on the test set using clean labels. The broken vertical line corresponds to T = T 0 , where T 0 is the number of samples (from the true data distribution) which was used to train the label faker. The value of the exponent regularization ℓ = ℓ ⋆ (broken curves) is the optimal value in the presence of iterative data relabeling, while ℓ = ℓ crit (solid curves) corresponds to the optimal value without iterative re-labelling (i.e n = 0) proposed in Cui et al. [14] (see (26) ). Specifically, we take ℓ ⋆ = (b -a)ℓ cirt = bℓ crit , where b = log T 0 / log T (so that T 0 = T b ), as proposed in Theorem 5.1, formula (28) . Notice how the effect of fake data makes the test error become non decreasing in sample size T . This is effectively a collapse of the learned model.The results for RF models of width (i.e number of hidden dimensions) k of 20,000 are presented in Figure 5 . We observe that, with the exception of the first two generations, the decay in MSE loss generally follows a linear trend, which is consistent with the predictions of our theory.Next, we consider the scenario of training the entire neural network. By varying the width k, we adjust the number of parameters to further explore the theoretical predictions on how the number of parameters influences model collapse.Observations. From Figure 6 , we can observe that • More parameters (wider neural networks, i.e large k) lead to increased model collapse. This observation is consistent with our results proved in the linear regime (Theorem 4.1). For linear models, the number of parameters is proportional to d (the input dimension), whereas in two-layer neural networks, the number of parameters is of order kd (i.e proportional to the width k).• The dependence of model collapse on the number of iterations n is linear for small values of n (with n ≤ 4 in our experiments), and becomes superlinear (possibly quadratic) for larger values of n (with n ≥ 4). Recall that n = 0 corresponds to training on clean data from the data distribution. Thus, possibly, model collapse neural networks appears to be even more severe than in linear regression. Standard deviation is calculated using 10 seeds. The set of integers from 1 through d is denoted [d] . Given a variable z (which can be the input dimension d or the sample size T , etc.) the notation f (z) ≲ g(z) means that f (z) ≤ Cg(z) for sufficiently large z and an absolute constant C, whilef (z) ≍ g(z) means f (z) ≲ g(z) ≲ f (z). Further, f (z) ≃ g(z) means f (z) = (1 + o(1))g(z), where o(1) stands for a quantity which tends to zero in the limit z → ∞. We denote with A † the Moore-Penrose pseudo-inverse any matrix A, and by ∥A∥ op is operator norm, while the trace of a square matrix A is denoted tr A. Finally, ∥u∥ Σ := √ u ⊤ Σu is the Mahalanobis norm induced by a positive-definite matrix Σ.We now consider the case of general ridge penalty λ > 0, and drop the requirements T ≥ d + 2 and T 0 ≥ d + 2. Recall the definitions of X, Y, E and the random matrices R and Σ appearing in (7) . For later reference, defineEQUATIONEQUATION)These are respectively the bias and variance terms in the classical bias-variance decompositionEQUATIONfor standard ridge regression fitted on clean data from the true data distribution P Σ,w0,σ 2 (e.g., see Hastie et al. [22] ).Theorem F.1. For an n-fold fake data generation process, the test error of a ridge predictor w pred n based on a sample of size T ≥ 1 with regularization parameter λ is given byEQUATION)where V ar is as given in (30) andC k,m := Q k,m Q ⊤ k,m for Q k,m = Q k,m X † m , Q k,m := P k P k-1 . . . P m , Q k := Q k,0 = P k P k-1 . . . P 0 , with P m = X †m X m being the orthogonal projection matrix onto the subspace of R d spanned by the rows of X m .In particular, if T 0 ≥ d + 2 (under-parametrized data-generator), then Bias = Bias as in (29) , andEQUATIONIn the second part of the theorem, the term E clean test (introduced earlier in ( 31)) corresponds to the usual test error when the downstream model is trained on real (not fake) data, for which well-known formulae exist in a variety of scenarios (see Proposition 4.2).Remark F.2. We show in Theorem 4.3 that Bias ≥ Bias + ∆Bias, where ∆Bias ≥ 0 in the appropriate asymptotic limit, with equality if T 0 ≥ d + 2 (the under-parametrized regime). Thus, apart from the variance term, an over-parametrized (T 0 < d + 2) synthetic data-generator harms the bias term of the test error of downstream models. In contrast, an under-parametrized synthetic data-generator (T 0 ≥ d + 2) only harms the variance. The increase in bias suffered in the overparametrized regime is precisely quantified in Section 4.5, and shown to be an increasing function of the number of generations n.The test error decomposition in Theorem F.1 is thus of the promised form (1). This additional term means that there is competition between the usual test error E clean test and the additional term induced by the fake labeling process. Understanding the interaction of these two terms is key to demystifying the origins of model collapse.Low-Dimensional Limit. Observe that if d is fixed and T → ∞, then the empirical covariance matrix Σ converges to2 its population version Σ, and so for T 0 ≥ d + 2, we haveρ ≃ tr Σ 2 (Σ + λI d ) -2 T 0 -d = df 2 (λ) T 0 -d ,where for any λ ≥ 0 and m ∈ N ⋆ , df m (λ) is the mth order "degree of freedom" of the covariance matrix Σ is given bydf m (λ) = df m (λ; Σ) := tr Σ m (Σ + λI d ) -m .Note that df m (λ) ≤ d always. In the high-dimensional setting (where d can grow beyond T 0 ), the precise analysis of ρ will be carried out via random matrix theory (RMT).The proof is by induction on the number of generations n of fake data. For n = 0, we haveEQUATIONwhere ϕ := d/T ∈ (0, 1) and the last step has made use of Lemma F.3 below. This is a well-known result for the test error of linear regression in the under-parametrized regime, without any AI pollution (fake / synthesized training data).Analogously, for n = 1 one computes the test error after the first generation of fake data as followsE test ( w pred 1 ) = E∥ w pred 1 -w 0 ∥ 2 Σ = E∥ w pred 1 -w 0 ∥ 2 2 = E∥ w pred 1 -w 1 + w 1 -w 0 ∥ 2 2 = E∥(X ⊤ 1 X 1 ) -1 X ⊤ 1 E 1 + w pred 0 -w 0 ∥ 2 2 = E ∥w 0 -w pred 0 ∥ 2 2 + E ∥(X ⊤ 1 X 1 ) -1 X ⊤ 1 E 1 ∥ 2 2 = E test ( w pred 0 ) + σ 2 1 d T 1 -d -1 = E test ( w pred 0 ) + σ 2 0 d T 0 -d -1 ≃ σ 2 ϕ 1 -ϕ + σ 2 0 ϕ 0 1 -ϕ 0 ,where ϕ 0 = d/T 0 ∈ (0, 1). Continuing the induction on n, we obtain the result. Lemma F.3. Let X 0 be an T 0 × d random matrix with iid rows from N (0, Σ). If T 0 ≥ d + 2, then the empirical covariance matrix Σ 0 := X ⊤ 0 X 0 /T 0 is invertible a.s and We first obtain explicit formulae for the labelling vectors w n used in the fake-data generation process (5) . For any integer m ≥ 0, define P m = X † m X m , the orthogonal projection matrix onto the subspace of R d spanned by the rows of X m . Observe from (5) thatE [ Σ -1 0 ] = T 0 T 0 -d -1 Σ -1 .EQUATIONWe get the following result. Lemma F.4. For any n ≥ 0, the following formula holdsEQUATIONwhereQ k,m := Q k,m X † m , Q k,m := P k P k-1 . . . P m and Q k := Q k,0 = P k P k-1 . . . P 0 . Moreover, w n ∈ Im P n-1 as soon as n ≥ 1.In particular, under the simplifying condition (17) , it holds thatEQUATIONwhere E n-1 := n-1 m=0 E m , a random vector of length T 0 , with iid entries from N (0, nσ 2 0 ), and independent of X 0 . Moreover, w n ∈ Im P 0 as soon as n ≥ 1.Note that the second part of the result uses the elementary linear-algebraic fact that P m X † m = X † m . In the special case where T 0 ≥ d, we have P 0 = I a.s., and so w n = w 0 + X † 0 E n-1 . Otherwise, even in the absence of generator noise (σ 0 = 0), the fake data labeller w n = P 0 w 0 drifts away from the truth w 0 , into a subspace of R d spanned by the rows of X 0 .Next, let us obtain a decomposition for the downstream predictor w pred n defined in (7) . As usual, let Σ := X ⊤ X/T be the empirical covariance matrix with resolvent R = ( Σ + λI) -1 , and observe that the downstream model writesEQUATIONF.3.2 Proof of Theorem F.1Using the decomposition (38) for the downstream model w pred n , we deduce thatEQUATIONwhere Σ := X ⊤ X/T , Bias, V ar, and ρ are as given in the theorem. On the second line, we have used independence (of X, X 0 , E, and E n-1 ) and the fact that E and E n-1 are centered Gaussian random vectors, with iid components of variances σ 2 and nσ 2 0 respectively.Analysis of Bias-like Term. An exact analysis of the Bias term appearing in Theorems F.1 and 4.3 is presumably a treacherous enterprise given dependency on X (via R and Σ) and X 0 (via P 0 ). In place of such an analysis, we shall settle for the following result which gives an instructive lower-bound. Proposition F.5. In the RMT limit (12) , it holds that lim Bias -lim Bias ≥ lim E ∥R ΣP 0 w 0 -R Σw 0 ∥ 2 Σ ≥ 0. Thus, training on fake / synthesized data increases the bias term of the downstream model's test error! Proof. Letting A := R Σ, one computesBias -Bias = ∥AP 0 w 0 -w 0 ∥ 2 Σ -∥Aw 0 -w 0 ∥ 2 Σ = ∥AP 0 w 0 -Aw 0 + Aw -w∥ 2 Σ -∥Aw 0 -w 0 ∥ 2 Σ = ∥AP 0 w 0 -Aw 0 ∥ 2 Σ + 2w ⊤ 0 (A -P 0 A)Σ(I -A)w 0 = ∥AP 0 w 0 -Aw 0 ∥ 2 Σ + 2w ⊤ 0 (I -P 0 )AΣ(I -A)w 0 .It then suffices to observe that, in the RMT limit (12) , it holds that lim E w ⊤ 0 (I -P 0 )AΣ(I -A)w 0 ≥ 0, as can be seen from repeated application of Propositions 1 and 2 of Bach [4] .Analysis of ρ Term. Define a d × d random psd matrix H := ΣRΣ ΣR. Under the simplifying assumption (17) , the matrices Q k,m defined in the theorem all equal Q 0,0 = X † 0 . It follows that the ρ-term in (32) then writesEQUATIONNow, one computes the conditional expectation as followsE [tr X † 0 (X † 0 ) ⊤ H | H] = E [tr X ⊤ 0 (X 0 X ⊤ 0 ) -2 X 0 H | H] = lim λ0→0 + 1 T 0 ∂ ∂λ 0 E [tr X ⊤ 0 (X 0 X ⊤ 0 + λ 0 T 0 I) -1 X 0 H | H].Furthermore, definingA := Σ 1/2 HΣ 1/2 and Z 0 = X 0 Σ -1/2 , we have tr X ⊤ 0 (X 0 X ⊤ 0 + λ 0 T 0 I) -1 X 0 H = tr Σ 1/2 Z ⊤ 0 (Z 0 ΣZ ⊤ 0 + λ 0 T 0 I) -1 Z 0 Σ 1/2 H = tr AZ ⊤ 0 (Z 0 ΣZ ⊤ 0 + λ 0 T 0 I) -1 Z 0 ,We deduce from Proposition 2 of Bach [4] thatE [tr X ⊤ 0 (X 0 X ⊤ 0 + λ 0 T 0 I) -1 X 0 H | H] ≃ tr A(Σ + κ(λ 0 , T 0 )I) -1 = tr H(Σ + κ(λ 0 , T 0 )I) -1 Σ.Differentiating w.r.t. λ 0 and letting this parameter tend to zero from above givesE [tr X † 0 (X † 0 ) ⊤ H | H] = - 1 T 0 lim λ0→0 + ∂ ∂λ 0 E [tr X ⊤ 0 (X 0 X ⊤ 0 + λ 0 T 0 I) -1 X 0 H | H] ≃ - 1 T 0 lim λ0→0 + ∂κ(λ 0 , T 0 ) ∂λ 0 • ∂ ∂t tr H(Σ + tI) -1 Σ t=κ(λ0,T0) ≃ tr H(Σ + κ 0 I) -2 Σ T 0 -df 2 (κ 0 ) ,where κ 0 = κ(0, T 0 ), and we have made use of Lemma I.2. Combining with (40) and then applying Proposition 1 of Bach [4] to compute E H tr H(Σ + κ 0 I) -2 Σ = E X tr ΣRΣ ΣR(Σ + κ 0 I) -2 Σ gives the following result.Proposition F.6. In the RMT limit (12) , it holds for any λ > 0 thatEQUATIONwhere κ 0 := κ(λ 0 , T 0 ) and κ = κ(λ, T ).In particular, ifEQUATION)This result completes the proof of Theorem 4.3.For the first part, we know from Theorem F.1 thatEQUATIONEQUATIONThe E test ( w pred 0 ) term is taken care of by Proposition 4.2, since this corresponds to generalization error on clean training data. For the ρ term, we use Proposition 1 of Bach [4] with A = Σ -1 and B = Σ to getρ ≃ tr(Σ + κI) -2 Σ 2 T 0 -d + κ 2 tr(Σ + κI) -2 ) T 0 -d tr(Σ + κI) -2 Σ 2 T -df 2 (κ) = df 2 (κ) T 0 -d + κ 2 tr(Σ + κI) -2 T 0 -d df 2 (κ) T -df 2 (κ) ,which proves the first part of the result.For the second part, note that df 2 (κ) = d/(1 + κ) 2 when Σ = I, (10) holds, and so(1 -1/ϕ 0 )ρ ≃ 1 (1 + κ) 2 + κ 2 (1 + κ) 4 d T -d/(1 + κ) 2 ≃ 1 (1 + κ) 2 + κ 2 (1 + κ) 4 ϕ 1 -ϕ/(1 + κ) 2 = 1 (1 + κ) 2 + 1 (1 + κ) 2 ϕκ 2 (1 + κ) 2 -ϕ ,and the result follows.F.6 A Note on Proposition 4.2As mentioned in the main text, the result is classical Richards et al. [41] , Hastie et al. [22] , Bach [4] ). Only the second part needs a comment which we now provide. Indeed, the second part of the result follows from the first as we now see. Indeed, 2 and so we deduce from the first part thatw ⊤ 0 Σ(Σ + κI) -2 w 0 = r 2 /(1 + κ) 2 , df 2 (κ) = d/(1 + κ)V ar ≃ σ 2 ϕ 1 (1 + κ) 2 1 1 -ϕ/(1 + κ) 2 = σ 2 ϕ (1 + κ) 2 -ϕ , Bias ≃ κ 2 ∥w 0 ∥ 2 2 1 (1 + κ) 2 1 1 -ϕ/(1 + κ) 2 = κ 2 ∥w 0 ∥ 2 2 (1 + κ) 2 -ϕ ,from which the result follows.We now need to estimate δ ⊤ Hδ for a deterministic psd matrix H. Observe thatEQUATIONF.7 Proof of Theorem 4.5 and Theorem 4.6 (Model Collapse in the Absence of Label Noise)We first prove Theorem 4.6. Note that since we are in the isotropic case, ∆Bias defined in ( 15) is now given by ∆Bias := E ∥ ΣR(Q n-1 w 0 -w 0 )∥ 2 , where Q n-1 := P n-1 P n-1 . . . P 0 . Moreover, since T > d and λ = 0 by assumption, we have ΣR = I d , and so we further have ∆Bias := E ∥Q n-1 w 0 -w 0 ∥ 2 . Now, one computesEQUATIONwhere on the 2nd line we have used the fact thatQ ⊤ n-1 Q n-1 = Q n-1because the P m 's are projections; on the 3rd line we have used Lemma F.7 with Σ = I and u = v = w 0 ; on the 4th lineHere we discuss the consequences of Theorem 5.1 for the noisy regime. Now fix σ 2 ̸ = 0 and ϕ 0 ∈ (0, 1). In this regime, Theorem 5.1 predicts that consistency (i.e.E test ( w pred n ) T →∞ -→ 0) is only possible if ℓ ≤ ℓ ⋆ .First consider values of ℓ for which the clean variance σ 2 T -(1-ℓ/β) is less than the clean bias T -2rℓ in (27) i.e. 0 ≤ ℓ ≤ ℓ crit . We getE test ( w pred n ) ≍ T -2ℓr + T -(b-a-ℓ/β) ,which is minimized by taking ℓ = min(ℓ ⋆ , ℓ crit ). For other values of ℓ, variance dominates, givingE test ( w pred n ) ≍ T -(1-ℓ/β) + T -(b-ℓ/β-a) ≍ T -(γ-ℓ/β) ,where γ := min(1, b -a). This is minimized by taking ℓ = ℓ crit , leading toE test ( w pred n ) ≍ T -(γ-1/(2βr+1)) .This tends to zero with T → ∞ only if b > a + 1/(2βr + 1). EQUATIONNow, for small λ, κ := κ(λ) is small and one can computedf m (κ) ≍ i λ m i (λ i + κ) m = κ -m i λ m i (1 + κ -1 λ i ) m ≍ κ -m κ (m-1/β) = κ -1/β ,where we have used Lemma I.1 with D = κ -1 and n = m in the last step. On the other hand, we can use some of the results of Appendix A (Section 3) of [14] to do the following. It can be shown (see aforementioned paper) that• If ℓ > β, then κ ≍ T -β , and so df m (κ) ≍ T for all m ≥ 1.• If ℓ < β, then κ ≍ λ ≍ T -ℓ , and so df m (κ) ≍ T ℓ/β = o(T ) for all m ≥ 1.For ℓ < β, plugging this into (52) givesρ ≍ T ℓ/β T 0 -d + d T 0 -d T ℓ/β T -T ℓ/β ≍ T -1 0 T ℓ/β + ϕ 0 1 -ϕ 0 T -(1-ℓ/β) ≍ 1 1 -ϕ 0 max (T /T 0 , ϕ 0 ) T -(1-ℓ/β) ,where ϕ 0 := d/T 0 . Combining our Theorem F.1 with (57), we get the claimed result.We make a small digression to present the following curiosity: with a slight leap of faith, the main results of [14] can be obtained in a few lines from the tools developed in [4] , namely Proposition 4.2. This is significant, because the computations in [14] were done via methods of statistical physics (replica trick), while [4] is based on RMT.Indeed, for regularization parameter λ ≍ T -ℓ given in (25) , we have κ = κ(λ) ≃ λ. ThusEQUATIONNow, since λ i ≍ i -β (capacity condition) and (w ⊤ 0 v i ) 2 = c 2 i ≍ i -δ (source condition), we deduceEQUATIONwhere γ = min(2, 1 + δ/β -1/β) = min(2, 2r) = 2r, with r := min(r, 1). The exponent is so because δ = 1 + β(2r -1), and so δ/β = 1/β + 2r -1 by construction. The estimation of the last sum in (54) is thanks to Lemma I.1 applied with D = κ -1 , n = 1 + δ/β, and m = 2. Therefore, invoking Proposition 4.2 givesBias ≃ κ 2 w ⊤ 0 Σ(Σ + κ) -2 w 0 1 -df 2 (κ)/T ≍ T -ℓγ 1 -T -(1-ℓ/β) ≍ T -ℓγ = T -2ℓr(55)EQUATION)We deduce the scaling lawEQUATIONwhich is precisely the main result of [14] .Low-Noise Regime. In the low noise regime where σ 2 = O(T -2βr ), one may take ℓ = β; the variance is then much smaller than the bias, and one has the fast rateEQUATIONHigh-Noise Regime. Now, consider the case where σ 2 = Θ(1). Setting 2ℓr = 1 -ℓ/β to balance out the bias and variance gives ℓ = ℓ crit , whereEQUATION)With this value of the exponent ℓ, we get the error rateEQUATIONwhich is precisely the main result of [14] , known to be minimax optimal (de Vito [11] , etc.) !Lemma I.1. Let the sequence (λ k ) k≥1 of positive numbers be such that λ k ≍ k -β for some constant β > 0, and let m, n ≥ 0 with nβ > 1. Then, for D ≫ 1, it holds thatEQUATIONwhere c := min(m, n -1/β) ≥ 0.Proof. First observe thatEQUATION)By comparing with the corresponding integral, one can write the first sum in (62) asD -m 1≤k≤D 1/β k (m-n)β ≍ D -m D 1/β 1 u (m-n)β du ≍ D -m    (D 1/β ) 1+(m-n)β = D -(n-1/β) , if n -1/β < m, log D, if m = n -1/β, 1, else. =    D -(n-1/β) , if n -1/β < m, D -m log D, if m = n -1/β, D -m , else. = D -c log D, if m = n -1/β, 1, else,where c ≥ 0 is as given in the lemma.Analogously, one can write the second sum in (62) ask>D 1/β k -nβ ≍ ∞ D 1/β u -nβ du ≍ (D 1/β ) 1-nβ = D -(n-1/β) ,and the result follows upon putting things together.Lemma I.2. For κ = κ(λ, T ) defined as in (9) , it holds thatEQUATIONThe formula given in the above lemma is useful because it can be combined with the identitiesEQUATIONEQUATIONThe RHS of (64) is usually referred to as the omniscient risk Hastie et al. [22] , Cui et al. [13] , Wei et al. [48] .Proof of Lemma I.2. By definition of κ, we know that κ -λ = κdf 1 (κ)/T = κ tr Σ(Σ + κI) -1 /T.Let κ := ∂κ ∂λ . Differentiating the above identity w.r.t. λ gives κ′ -1 = κ ′ (tr Σ(Σ + κI) -1 -κ tr Σ(Σ + κ) -2 )/T = κ ′ tr Σ 2 (Σ + κI) -2 /T = κ ′ df 2 (κ)/T,and the result follows upon rearranging. Note that we have used the identityI -κ(Σ + κI) -1 = Σ(Σ + κI) -1 , to rewrite Σ(Σ + κI) -1 -κΣ(Σ + κI) -2 = Σ 2 (Σ + κI) -2 .Question: Does the paper provide open access to the data and code, with sufficient instructions to faithfully reproduce the main experimental results, as described in supplemental material? Answer: [No] Justification: We only use one publicly available dataset, MNIST, and no idiosyncratic model. Thus, we provide neither dataset nor code, as the dataset is publicly available, and the experiments are easy to reproduce from their description.• The answer NA means that paper does not include experiments requiring code. • Providing as much information as possible in supplemental material (appended to the paper) is recommended, but including URLs to data and code is permitted.Question: Does the paper report error bars suitably and correctly defined or other appropriate information about the statistical significance of the experiments?Answer: [Yes]Justification: Error bars are given and we describe the number of trials over which they are obtained. We believe these are chosen suitably.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.• The authors should answer "Yes" if the results are accompanied by error bars, confidence intervals, or statistical significance tests, at least for the experiments that support the main claims of the paper.• The factors of variability that the error bars are capturing should be clearly stated (for example, train/test split, initialization, random drawing of some parameter, or overall run with given experimental conditions). • The method for calculating the error bars should be explained (closed form formula, call to a library function, bootstrap, etc.) • The assumptions made should be given (e.g., Normally distributed errors). • It should be clear whether the error bar is the standard deviation or the standard error of the mean. Justification: Compared to most contributions, our experiments, which accompany our theory, do not require any significant compute whatsoever.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.• The paper should indicate the type of compute workers CPU or GPU, internal cluster, or cloud provider, including relevant memory and storage. • The paper should provide the amount of compute required for each of the individual experimental runs as well as estimate the total compute. • The paper should disclose whether the full research project required more compute than the experiments reported in the paper (e.g., preliminary or failed experiments that didn't make it into the paper). 
code of ethics: 
 Question: Does the research conducted in the paper conform, in every respect, with the NeurIPS Code of Ethics https://neurips.cc/public/EthicsGuidelines?Justification: our research does not involve human participants, and never uses private data or models.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the authors have not reviewed the NeurIPS Code of Ethics.• If the authors answer No, they should explain the special circumstances that require a deviation from the Code of Ethics. • The authors should make sure to preserve anonymity (e.g., if there is a special consideration due to laws or regulations in their jurisdiction). 
broader impacts: 
 Question: Does the paper discuss both potential positive societal impacts and negative societal impacts of the work performed?Answer: [Yes] Justification: Our paper provides toy theory that underlines the point that retraining on data generated from currently available models might lead to a vicious loop of model collapse, which might have societal impact. We call for attention to this matter.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that there is no societal impact of the work performed.• If the authors answer NA or No, they should explain why their work has no societal impact or why the paper does not address societal impact. • Examples of negative societal impacts include potential malicious or unintended uses (e.g., disinformation, generating fake profiles, surveillance), fairness considerations (e.g., deployment of technologies that could make decisions that unfairly impact specific groups), privacy considerations, and security considerations. • The conference expects that many papers will be foundational research and not tied to particular applications, let alone deployments. However, if there is a direct path to any negative applications, the authors should point it out. For example, it is legitimate to point out that an improvement in the quality of generative models could be used to generate deepfakes for disinformation. On the other hand, it is not needed to point out that a generic algorithm for optimizing neural networks could enable people to train models that generate Deepfakes faster. • The authors should consider possible harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended and functioning correctly, harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended but gives incorrect results, and harms following from (intentional or unintentional) misuse of the technology. • If there are negative societal impacts, the authors could also discuss possible mitigation strategies (e.g., gated release of models, providing defenses in addition to attacks, mechanisms for monitoring misuse, mechanisms to monitor how a system learns from feedback over time, improving the efficiency and accessibility of ML). 
safeguards: 
 Question: Does the paper describe safeguards that have been put in place for responsible release of data or models that have a high risk for misuse (e.g., pretrained language models, image generators, or scraped datasets)? Answer: [NA] Justification: We do not release any models or new data. Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper poses no such risks.• Released models that have a high risk for misuse or dual-use should be released with necessary safeguards to allow for controlled use of the model, for example by requiring that users adhere to usage guidelines or restrictions to access the model or implementing safety filters. • Datasets that have been scraped from the Internet could pose safety risks. The authors should describe how they avoided releasing unsafe images. • We recognize that providing effective safeguards is challenging, and many papers do not require this, but we encourage authors to take this into account and make a best faith effort. 12. Licenses for existing assets Question: Are the creators or original owners of assets (e.g., code, data, models), used in the paper, properly credited and are the license and terms of use explicitly mentioned and properly respected? Answer: [Yes] Justification: The only public dataset we use is MNIST [16] , which we properly credit. The MNIST dataset is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license. Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not use existing assets.• The authors should cite the original paper that produced the code package or dataset.• The authors should state which version of the asset is used and, if possible, include a URL.• The name of the license (e.g., CC-BY 4.0) should be included for each asset.• For scraped data from a particular source (e.g., website), the copyright and terms of service of that source should be provided. • If assets are released, the license, copyright information, and terms of use in the package should be provided. For popular datasets, paperswithcode.com/datasets has curated licenses for some datasets. Their licensing guide can help determine the license of a dataset. • For existing datasets that are re-packaged, both the original license and the license of the derived asset (if it has changed) should be provided. • If this information is not available online, the authors are encouraged to reach out to the asset's creators. 
new assets: 
 Question: Are new assets introduced in the paper well documented and is the documentation provided alongside the assets?Answer: [NA] Justification: We do not release any new assets.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not release new assets.• Researchers should communicate the details of the dataset/code/model as part of their submissions via structured templates. This includes details about training, license, limitations, etc. • The paper should discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose asset is used. • At submission time, remember to anonymize your assets (if applicable). You can either create an anonymized URL or include an anonymized zip file. 
crowdsourcing and research with human subjects: 
 Question: For crowdsourcing experiments and research with human subjects, does the paper include the full text of instructions given to participants and screenshots, if applicable, as well as details about compensation (if any)?Answer: [NA] Justification: We do not involve crowdsourcing nor research on humon subjects.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects. • Including this information in the supplemental material is fine, but if the main contribution of the paper involves human subjects, then as much detail as possible should be included in the main paper. • According to the NeurIPS Code of Ethics, workers involved in data collection, curation, or other labor should be paid at least the minimum wage in the country of the data collector. 
institutional review board (irb) approvals or equivalent for research with human subjects: 
 Question: Does the paper describe potential risks incurred by study participants, whether such risks were disclosed to the subjects, and whether Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals (or an equivalent approval/review based on the requirements of your country or institution) were obtained?Answer: [NA] Justification: We do not involve crowdsourcing nor research on humon subjects.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects.• Depending on the country in which research is conducted, IRB approval (or equivalent) may be required for any human subjects research. If you obtained IRB approval, you should clearly state this in the paper. • We recognize that the procedures for this may vary significantly between institutions and locations, and we expect authors to adhere to the NeurIPS Code of Ethics and the guidelines for their institution. • For initial submissions, do not include any information that would break anonymity (if applicable), such as the institution conducting the review.we present the linear regression setting for ease, the extension to the kernel setting is straightforward.38th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS2024).e.g. weakly, w.r.t. operator-norm. 
 
 Appendix:  


Decision: This paper provides a theory for the model collapse phenomenon in the high dimensional regime of linear regression and Gaussian data. In addition, the paper examines the mitigation of model collapse by adjustable regularization. Although the examined regression setting has conceptual differences from model collapse in generative models, the contributions are of sufficient interest and significance and can be considered for publication. 

During the rebuttal and Authors-Reviewers discussion, the authors significantly improved their paper following detailed comments and discussion with Reviewers 16H4 and jLLV. This improvement includes better description of details and claims regrading the contributions in this paper. Moreover, the original submission did not consider the connection of its linear model theory to nonlinear models. In the rebuttal, following comments by Reviewer 16H4, the authors added experiment results showing that their theoretical principles appear (to some extent) in nonlinear two-layer neural networks. By this, the authors have adequately addressed this concern. The authors are requested to update their paper according to their discussions with the reviewers. 

Additional requests for the authors to implement in their camera-ready version of the paper: 
1. The authors claim in the paper that their results for linear regression can be *straightforwardly* extended to kernel regression. Reviewer jLLV commented about this and discussed this with the authors.  At the end of this discussion, the authors wrote that `` We agree with the reviewer that the statement about kernel regression should be a remark that our analysis can be straightforwardly extended to the case of kernel regression. This will be rectified.’’ The authors mentioned that they discuss the extension to kernel regression in Appendix B --- There they explain that it is *straightforward* to extend their results to kernels by applying the Gaussian assumption on the feature vector instead of the input vector. But this seems too simplistic, because the extension should still consider a Gaussian input and then for a nonlinear feature map the feature vector will not be Gaussian. Their assumption that the feature vector is Gaussian can hold in overly simple cases, for example, if the input is Gaussian and the feature map is linear. Alternatively, it might be that this assumption could be justified by another, more complex explanation than what currently available in the paper. Accordingly, the authors are requested to remove from the camera-ready version the claim that their results are *straightforwardly* extended to kernel regression, as well as the explanation in Appendix B. This request is also supported by further discussion I had with reviewers. Importantly, the removal of this claim from the paper does not reduces its contribution and significance.
2. The authors are requested to further search for typos and fix them. This includes the appendices and the proofs. For example, please check the proof in Appendix E.2 (the equations after line 625), as there might be a typo in the subscript numbering in the equality between the last expression of the first line of equations to the first expression in the second line of equations.

Based on reading the paper, the reviews, the authors’ rebuttal and their discussion with the reviewers, I find this paper of sufficient quality and significance for the theory of contemporary machine learning. My recommendation is therefore to accept this paper.

Reviews: review: paper_summary: paper_summary: This paper studies the model collapse problem in the context of ridge regression. The authors train a sequence of linear models which are trained on Gaussian data and characterize the test error under various settings. Their results are intuitive and theoretically support the ongoing research area of model collapse in generative models. For example, they show that the test error increases more for larger number of generations n in the ordinary least squares settings. They heavily use random matrix theory to derive their results.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: Here are some things to be improved on in decreasing order of importance:
1. The main weakness of the paper is that it seems only tangentially related to the generative model collapse problem. This is for several reasons but most importantly because the kind of experimental and theoretical setup explained in this paper is not a complex generative model. The model collapse problem occurs with generative models which are quite complex (not linear models on gaussian data). Additionally, the results in the paper are all asymptotic, which don’t tell us too much about non-asymptotic behavior which we see in practice. That being said, the work done in this paper is actually really good and definitely is really polished and should be published. Therefore, experiments using deep learning models supporting the theoretical thesis of this paper are very important for this work to appear applicable to the generative model collapse problem.
2. The abstract is very vague and doesn’t describe what actually happens in the paper. Here are several areas of improvement:
- It is not mentioned in the abstract that the paper seems to focus primarily on Gaussian data, an important point. 
- Moreover, “... quantitatively outline this phenomenon in a broad range of regimes.” Please say what regimes you are talking about otherwise this statement doesn’t really tell the reader almost any information.
- You mention “how model collapse affects both bias and variance terms” which is a very general statement but does this happen no matter what the model is? Or only with your specific setup? The evidence in the paper points to the latter and thus should be mention so that a reader does not think that this is a very general result.
- Results are pretty much all asymptotic. This is kind of hinted at by the mentioning of “scaling laws” but needs to be more explicit in order to reflect the work of the paper.
3. It is not clear what was mystified and now has been cleared up…. This is an important point because it is literally in the title of the paper.
4. Formatting:
- The axes in Figure 1 and 2 are way too small and hard to see. 
- The flowchart in Figure 3 has tiny font too.
- You don’t have to change these, but I recommend not starting sentences with citations as in lines 35, 94, 98.
- On line 213 you mention that the formula for rho is in the appendix. I would not do this because then the reader has to go to the appendix to understand what rho is. Especially since you actually state what rho is in a special case on Equation (17) after redirecting the reader to the appendix.
- The conditions in Equation (22) need to be defined
5. Typos and mistakes:
- It seems that between equation (4) and (5) that there is a mistake in defining \widehat w_0
- For large d but actually for d->inf
- There is supposed to be no space on the section title on line 173
questions: questions: None
limitations: limitations: The work is mostly on linear models with Gaussian data.
paper_summary: paper_summary: Authors analyze the problem of ´model collapse´, i.e., what happens when a generative model is retrained on data generated by itself. The authors study a slightly different and simplified setup: linear regression, where the target is iteratively generated by previous estimates of the coefficients. Based on random matrix theory tools authors provide sample complexity bounds on the estimation of the oracle regression coefficients.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: It seems that the provided analyses, in some kind of semi-supervised learning, do not match the motivations.
The motivation is clear, but the paper is overall hard to follow and often consists of a succession of arid theoretical results.
Either my area of expertise is too far, or the paper needs to be rewritten.
questions: questions: - What´s the point of figure 1a? Illustrating the degradation of the models as they are retrained on synthetic data? What is the difference betzeen the solid and the dashed curves?
- What is $T$ exactly? Is this the number of synthetic samples at each step? The size of the initial dataset? Appendix did not provide clarifications to me on this question. This information seems vital to understand Figures 1a and 1b.
- I have a clarification question on the the theoretical setup: is a `semi-supervised` setup, where you assume that you have access to $Y_0, X_1, \dots, X_n$?

- On Theorem 3 (Equation 15), it seems that there is a remaining error $n \\sigma\_0 \\rho$, even if the model is perfect at step $0$. In other words, is it normal that if the model is perfect at step $0$, then the test error still increase with the number of retraining $n$?
limitations: limitations: No
paper_summary: paper_summary: This paper provides a theoretical analysis of the "model collapse" phenomenon that can occur when machine learning models are trained on synthetic data generated by other AI models. The key contributions include:

1. A mathematical framework for studying model collapse in high-dimensional regression settings.

2. Exact analytic formulae for how test error increases as a function of the number of synthetic data generations, regularization, sample sizes, and other parameters.

3. Demonstration of how model collapse can lead to a change in scaling laws, with test error potentially plateauing or even diverging rather than continuing to decrease with more data.

4. Analysis showing that even in noiseless settings, overparameterized synthetic data generators can lead to catastrophic model collapse.

5. Insights on how to potentially mitigate model collapse through adaptive regularization.

The authors provide theoretical results as well as empirical validation through experiments. Overall, the paper offers a rigorous mathematical treatment of model collapse, providing insights into how and why performance degrades when training on iteratively generated synthetic data.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: 1. The analysis primarily focuses on regression tasks, which may not fully capture the complexities of more advanced machine learning models like large language models or image generators.

2. The theoretical framework relies on certain simplifying assumptions (e.g., Gaussian data distribution, linear models) that may not always hold in real-world scenarios.

3. While the paper includes experiments, they are primarily on synthetic datasets. Validation on real-world, large-scale datasets could further strengthen the findings.

4. While the paper proposes adaptive regularization as a potential mitigation strategy, it doesn't extensively explore or compare other possible solutions to model collapse.
questions: questions: 1. While you propose adaptive regularization as a potential solution to mitigate model collapse, could you elaborate on other practical strategies that might be effective? For instance, how might techniques like data filtering, model ensembling, or continual learning potentially address the issues you've identified?

2. Given your findings on how model performance can degrade with synthetic data, what implications do you see for AI safety and robustness, especially as AI-generated content becomes more prevalent on the internet? How might your work inform strategies for maintaining model quality and reliability in an ecosystem increasingly populated by AI-generated data?
limitations: limitations: 1. The analysis primarily focuses on linear regression models, which may not fully capture the complexities of advanced machine learning architectures like deep neural networks or transformers used in modern AI systems.

2. The theoretical framework relies on idealized data distributions (e.g., Gaussian) and noise models, which may not accurately represent the diverse and complex nature of real-world datasets used in training large AI models.

3. While the paper includes experimental validation, it primarily uses synthetic datasets. The absence of experiments on large-scale, real-world datasets limits the immediate applicability of the findings to practical scenarios.
paper_summary: paper_summary: This paper analyses a ridge regression model of the recently described phenomenon of model collapse in various settings (unregularised linear regression, large dimensional RMT limit regression), acquiring analytical expressions for scaling limits in the case of heavy tails under capacity and source conditions, which are validated against numerical experiments.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: There are a number of weakness that this paper does not address in extensive detail. To begin with, the model considered here is extremely simplistic and places itself much closer to the distillation literature, rather than generative literature. I believe too much emphasis is made on the linear regression, which does not seem to provide significantly more insights beyond that provided in the original model collapse paper by Shumailov et al. There may be more, which I may not be seeing, but they dont appear to be mentioned in the paper explicitly. The particularly interesting section establishing the scaling laws, which goes significantly beyond the model in Shumailov et al. seems to be only briefly discussed, and the novel insights from this analysis are not discussed beyond the paragraph in the introduction. 

While it may be interesting as a generic model, the potential insights it might bring into the process of model collapse are much more important, and for this it needs to be put into context of the limitations of previous proposed models of the phenomenon. 

In addition, the paper multiple times claims to analyse the kernel ridge regression model. However, *none* of the models described are in the kernel regression setting. While it may be an uncomplicated extension, as discussed in Appendix B, the current version of the paper does not perform this extension - and none of the results are presented in this setting. Thus, currently the paper is overselling its contributions.
questions: questions: The connection to self-distillation work is briefly mentioned the appendix, however it is mentioned that it stands apart from it. I am not clear how this is the case? This is especially not true in the noiseless label setting, when design matrices are fixed to be the same. When either of those isnt true, we still find ourselves in the distillation setting, alas not exactly the model considered in Mobahi et al. Could you clarify this either for me or in the paper? 

Section 4 ends very abruptly, and no in-depth discussion of the model is presented. I believe this to be a significant limitation, as relevance of the model becomes unclear.


Further comments: 
* line 30 - kernel regression is not analysed in this paper
* line 47 - you do not mention what \epsilon is
* line 54 - Insights from this formula needs to be related to existing mathematical models of model collapse.
* line 118 - \hat{\omega} is a vector input to E_{test}? Or is it a random variable for expectation? 
* It does not seem to be clarified what the effect of sampling different design matrices is.
* around line 128 - notation seems a bit overloaded, with n subscripts being dropped, even though you may not have the exact same variables across iterations? E.g. X_n can not always be denoted by X?
* line 155 - the whole paragraph seems to be describing almost the same result as Shumailov et al., but does not mention it.
* line 173 missing citation
* I am slightly unclear why section 3.4 is underparametrized - could you clarify?
limitations: limitations: See above responses

Comments: title: End of Discussion Period
Results of Additional Experiments (Non-Gaussian Data)
Response to rebuttal #3
Response #2
Response #1
Response to rebuttal #2
Response to the rebuttal
On further comments
comment: Dear Reviewer,

Thanks again for your feedback on our work. Since we are getting close to the end of the discussion period, we would sincerely appreciate your response to our rebuttal. We would like to highlight that we have added additional experiments during the discussion, which you can find at [link](https://openreview.net/forum?id=bioHNTRnQk&noteId=YEMds4fAIE), and have addressed your concerns regarding the theoretical settings. Please let us know if we have adequately addressed your concerns, and we would be grateful if you would consider raising your score.

Thanks in advance,

The Authors
Thank you for your appreciation and support! We will include all the new results in the final version of the paper.
Dear Reviewer,

Thanks again for your feedback on our work. We would like to kindly inform you that in addition to our previous response to your review, we have added additional experiments during our discussion with Reviewer 16H4. These new experiments go beyond Gaussian data. We demonstrate that the results still hold with real data and a neural networks in a variety of relevant regimes included (linearized regimes like RF / NTK, and also fully-trained networks). The insights from theory on linear models continue to apply in realistic settings non-linear non-Gaussian settings. The results are at [link](https://openreview.net/forum?id=bioHNTRnQk&noteId=YEMds4fAIE), and will be included in our manuscript. These additional results show that the linear trend in model-collapse (the increase in test error as a function of number of generations $n$ in the synthetic process) is likely be worst (superlinear / quadratic) in the case of large fully-trained finite-width neural networks.

Reviewer 16H4 has also expressed strong support for our response, especially the aforementioned further experiments. We hope these discussions further address your concerns regarding weaknesses 1, 2, and 3, particularly the gap between the simplified setting and real-world scenarios.

Thanks again,
The Authors.
Thank you for including these experiments! It is indeed very interesting that the neural network setting seems to behave differently than in the linear setting, namely worse. I do think that these experiments do provide evidence that the work on Gaussians is useful in the general setting, at least by being a lower bound on the kind of error once can get.

And thank you for agreeing to change the title to be more descriptive.

I will update my score now and I hope that your paper gets accepted!
Next, we consider the scenario of training the full neural network. By varying the the width $k$, we change the number of parameters to further investigate the theoretical predictions. The following tables present the MSE loss for each generation ($n$) and the difference between generations (Diff).

**Table 2**. The performance of two-layer neural network on MNIST with varying hidden dimensions.

| Width (k) | n= 0 | n=1 | n=2 | n=3 | n=4 | n=5 | n=6 | n=7 | n=8 | n=9 | n=10 | n=11 |
|----------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| 100      | 0.0082 | 0.0093 | 0.0103 | 0.0109 | 0.0128 | 0.0161 | 0.0209 | 0.0275 | 0.0357 | 0.0461 | 0.0571 | 0.0705 |
| 200      | 0.0071 | 0.0089 | 0.0102 | 0.0108 | 0.0145 | 0.0209 | 0.0302 | 0.0434 | 0.0619 | 0.0816 | 0.1123 | 0.1492 |
| 800      | 0.0065 | 0.0108 | 0.0137 | 0.0183 | 0.0294 | 0.0495 | 0.0783 | 0.1099 | 0.1634 | 0.2529 | 0.3573 | 0.4856 |
| 4000     | 0.0069 | 0.0134 | 0.0177 | 0.0223 | 0.0383 | 0.0661 | 0.1134 | 0.1745 | 0.2518 | 0.3429 | 0.4357 | 0.5893 |

**Table 3**. The performance difference of the two-layer neural network  (of varying width $k$) between consecutive generations $n$.

| Width (k) | Diff 0 | Diff 1 | Diff 2 | Diff 3 | Diff 4 | Diff 5 | Diff 6 | Diff 7 | Diff 8 | Diff 9 | Diff 10 |
|----------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| 100 | 0.0011|0.0010|0.0006|0.0019|0.0032|0.0047|0.0066|0.0082|0.0104|0.0109|0.0133
| 200 | 0.0017|0.0013|0.0006|0.0037|0.0063|0.0093|0.0132|0.0184|0.0197|0.0306|0.0369
| 800 | 0.0043|0.0029|0.0046|0.0110|0.0201|0.0287|0.0316|0.0534|0.0895|0.1043|0.1282
| 4000 | 0.0065|0.0043|0.0046|0.0160|0.0278|0.0472|0.0610|0.0773|0.0910|0.0928|0.1536

**Observations.** From the table, we can observe that 

- More parameters (wider neural networks, i.e large $k$) lead to increased model collapse. This observation is consistent with our results proved linear regime (e.g Theorem 3.1). For linear models, the number of parameters is proportional to $d$ (the input dimension), whereas in two-layer neural networks, the "number of parameters"  is of order $kd$ (i.e proportional to the width $k$). 

- The dependence of model collapse on the number of iterations $n$ is linear for small values of $n$ (with $n \leq 4$ in our experiments), and becomes superlinear (possibly quadratic) for larger values of $n$ (with $n \geq 4$). Recall that $n=0$ corresponds to training on clean data from the data distribution. Thus, possibly, model collapse neural networks appears to be even more severe than in linear regression. A rigorously theoretically analysis of these new phenomena will be done in a subsequent work.

We thank the reviewer for trigering the above discussion, which will be included in the manuscript.

[1] Arthur Jacot, Franck Gabriel, and Clément Hongler. "Neural tangent kernel: Convergence and generalization in neural networks." Advances in neural information processing systems 31 (2018).

[2] Sanjeev Arora, et al. "Fine-grained analysis of optimization and generalization for overparameterized two-layer neural networks." International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2019.
We thank the reviewer for the further engagement.

### 1. Regarding using the word "demystified"

We are happy to accept the proposed title to reduce the emphasis on "demystify."

### 2. Regarding how these results apply practically
>*I don't think that the authors mean to say that these test error formulations that they develop hold for multi-layer neural networks in regression settings as well, do they?*

Let us clarify. Regarding complex neural network models

- Our theory (i.e linear increase in test error as a function of the number of iterations $n$) predicts their behavior in the linearized regimes (finite-width random features and NTK regimes, etc.). This is because such models are essentially kernel regression [1, 2]. Specifically for the RF regime, we empiriclally confirm this with additional results given in **Table 1** below, which complement the results of **Appendix C.2** of our manuscript (corresponding to classical RBF and polynomial kernels).
- For neural networks with finite widths (and fully trained), our theory doesn't direcly apply. Our speculation is that such a collapse continues to occur (consistently with empirical observations in the literature, albeit for LLMs based on transformers). We anticipate that the general trends uncovered by our asymptotic theory will hold true—for example, more parameters is expected to lead to greater model collapse, as shown in **Theorem 3.1** and demonstrated in the following **Table 2**. More on this latter. Thus, ***model collapse in neural networks is even more severe than in linear regression.***

However, it is quite possible that for general NNs (finite width, full-trained, etc.) amount of model collapse as a function of number of iterations $n$ might switch between linear increase (our current theory) to, quadratic, etc., depending on properties of the network like the the width, or other design choices.

To explore this hypothesis further, we conducted a series of experiments over **the past 24 hours**. Our aim was to extend the analysis beyond linear settings and Gaussian data by employing a two-layer neural network with ReLU activation on the MNIST dataset. The models were trained using stochastic gradient descent (SGD) with a batch size of 128 and a learning rate of 0.1. We employed a regression setting where labels were converted to one-hot vectors, and the model was trained using mean squared error for 200 epochs to convergence. For each data synthetic generation, Gaussian label noise with a standard deviation of 0.1 is added. The test error is consistently evaluated on the test set using the clean labels.

We considered two scenarios:
- (1) learning with random features (RF) models, where the first layer was fixed randomly, and only the second layer was trained, and
- (2) learning with a fully trainable neural network.

The results for RF models of width (i.e number of hidden dimensions) $k$ of 20,000 are presented in the table below (figures cannot be uploaded). For clarity, an additional column showing the test error gap between different generations (indicated by $n$) is included.

**Table 1**. Performance of very wide RF model on MNIST, with one-hidden layer NN (width $k=20,000$). Standard deviation is calculated using 10 random seeds.

| Generation | Mean   | Std    | Diff   |
|-------|--------|--------|--------|
| 0     | 0.0136 | 0.0003 | 0.0050 |
| 1     | 0.0186 | 0.0006 | 0.0024 |
| 2     | 0.0210 | 0.0005 | 0.0021 |
| 3     | 0.0232 | 0.0009 | 0.0018 |
| 4     | 0.0250 | 0.0020 | 0.0012 |
| 5     | 0.0262 | 0.0021 | 0.0020 |
| 6     | 0.0281 | 0.0031 | 0.0012 |
| 7     | 0.0293 | 0.0039 | 0.0021 |
| 8     | 0.0314 | 0.0054 | 0.0022 |
| 9     | 0.0335 | 0.0066 | -      |

We observe that, with the exception of the first two generations, the decay in MSE loss generally follows a linear trend, which is consistent with the predictions of our theory.
Thanks again for the response. 

Regarding using the word "demystified": I acknowledge that this work addresses novel areas of the Gaussian setting. And the authors have done a good job doing so. I still maintain that the "demystified" part of the paper is ambigous. The rebuttal that the authors mentioned is essentially distinguishing the previous work to their and although that is fine, it doesn't really address the concern that word does not describe very well what the paper is actually about. Something like "Model Collapse Asymptotics in The Case of Gaussian Regression," for example, would be considerablely more descriptive of what the paper is about. 

Regarding how these results apply practically: The authors mention that their findings are consistent with model collapse in practical, complex models. However, the question is how these **new findings from this work** are consistent with model collapse in practical, complex models? I don't think that the authors mean to say that these test error formulations that they develop hold for multi-layer neural networks in regression settings as well, do they? If I am mistaken then please correct me and I will retract this concern immediately and raise my score significantly. If there is no barrier to go from non-Gaussian results to Gaussian due to the Gaussianity of features, I welcome the authors to do so.

Thank you.
Thank you for appreciating our responses!

We acknowledge your comment. Yes, the statement quoted are indeed not theoretically proven. They are supported by empirical evidence and are in line with theoretical insights.
I would like to thank the authors for engaging and clarfications. I will shortly raise the score. 

One quick unrelated comment - I am not sure that Mobahi et al. actually "showed that there is an optimal value of depending on the distribution of the data and the model class over which the regression is done." In the sense that this is the intuitive explanation, yes, and it is in line with the theory, but I dont believe it directly leads from the theory presented there.
Thanks for the response. I decide to keep my original score.
*Our contribution is intentionally theoretical, not experimental.*

Indeed, this is a theory paper, in the sense that we propose to develop a effective theory which explains the emergence of the model collapse phenomenon. As such we focus on developing theory, providing valuable insights through comprehensive analyses across various settings modelled to capture relevant aspects of the real world, and supplemented by empirical validation. Given the existing empirical evidence in the literature, space constraints, and the current lack of a complete theoretical framework in this area, we have chosen to present our work with a primary focus on theory. 

[1] Hu, Hong, and Yue M. Lu. "Universality laws for high-dimensional learning with random features." IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 69.3 (2022): 1932-1964.

[2] Elvis Dohmatob, et al. "A Tale of Tails: Model Collapse as a Change of Scaling Laws." ICML 2024.

[3] Ilia Shumailov, et al. "AI models collapse when trained on recursively generated data." Nature 2024.

[4] Sina Alemohammad, et al. "Self-Consuming Generative Models Go MAD." ICLR 2024.

[5] Quentin Bertrand, et al. "On the stability of iterative retraining of generative models on their own data." ICLR 2024.
We thank the reviewer for the further discussion.  

- Being more specific about EXACTLY what is being demystified is important to make sure the work is well represented by the title.

We would like to extend our general response paragraph that begins with, "Compared to prior works, our theoretical results offer a more detailed analysis." While we acknowledge the existence of theoretical worksinvolving Gaussian data, we argue that these studies have limitations and that the theoretical framework in this area can be significantly improved. Our work addresses it by developing an analytic theory that explicitly demonstrates how model collapse quantifiably emerges from training on synthetic data.

For instance, [3] examines learning with **single-dimensional Gaussian** data, where the new distribution is generated by unbiased sample mean and variance estimators. However, model collapse is only analyzed via **lower bounds** rather than through analytic expressions. In contrast, our results provide an exact analytic characterization of model collapse in a more general setting. [5] conducts stability analysis at the distribution level with **infinite data**, focusing only on **local behavior**, which aligns more with fine-tuning rather than training from scratch. Moreover, **no actual learning is analyzed** in [5]. We, on the other hand, provide a detailed analysis of learning with finite samples and training from scratch.

Similarly, [4] makes assumptions regarding how the synthetic distribution shrinks the generation distribution from $\Sigma$ to $\lambda\Sigma$. The **martingale property** of the unbiased estimators in their work leads to collapse almost surely as the number of generations approaches infinity. They do not analyze the collapse dynamics, such as its convergence rate or dependence on the number of samples. In contrast, our work offers a much more detailed and nuanced analysis that goes beyond simply establishing almost sure collapse.

Furthermore, none of these three papers provide analysis on scaling laws, which are crucial to the success of foundation models. In contrast, our analysis in Section 4 offers precise insights into how scaling laws are affected by model collapse.

In summary, prior works [3, 4, 5] lack the fine-grained analysis needed to fully understand model collapse, offering only the existence of the phenomenon through bounds in limited settings. Our work, in contrast, delivers a comprehensive analysis that reveals the underlying mechanisms of model collapse through exact formulae derived in the high-dimensional limit, across a wide range of settings. Notably, we are the first to demonstrate the breakdown of scaling laws, the impact of label noise, and the occurrence of model collapse even in noiseless settings. Our work provides a complete analytic picture of model collapse, justifying the use of the term "demystified".

We will add all the above discussion.

- It has not been made clear how the Gaussian results on regression relate to non-Gaussian data being generated.

We would like to expand on our point that "numerous papers have already documented empirical observations of model collapse, and our findings are consistent with them." The math transformer experiment described in [2] aligns closely with our theoretical models. In this experiment, transformers were trained to predict the greatest common divisor (GCD) between two numbers, with predictions generated using next-token prediction. Importantly, the distribution in this case is clearly not Gaussian, yet the experimental results still correspond well with our theoretical predictions.

Specifically, the middle plot of Figure 4 in [2] closely matches the right plot of Figure 1(a) in our paper. The gap between AI-generated data and real data in their plot is predicted by our Theorem 3.6 and the scaling behavior described in Theorem 4.1. Additionally, the left plot of Figure 4 in [2] reflects the breakdown of scaling laws that we predicted.

We could potentially include a similar result in our paper after the rebuttal period and before the camera-ready version.

Moreover, we would like to emphasize that the use of a Gaussian design in our setting primarily serves to obtain a precise characterization. However, there is no significant difference between Gaussian and non-Gaussian distributions that would hinder generalization of the general insights. Existing research indicates that high-dimensional features often exhibit a degree of Gaussianity [1], and Gaussian data with the same mean and variance can effectively predict performance—a concept known as **Universality** in the literature.
I thank the authors for the rebuttal and for addressing most of my concerns! I have a few more questions regarding the paper and the rebuttal. I think that most of the comments were addressed except for two things:
1. It still seems to me like the "mystified" part of the paper is a little bit ambigous. Specifically, the authors responded that "the concept of model collapse, as popularized by prior works, still lacks a theoretical framework to support empirically-backed findings" but also said that "In the area of model collapse, there exists a substantial body of literature [3, 4, 5], that provides theoretical analyses using Gaussian data". So these two statements seem contradicting. Being more specific about EXACTLY what is being demystified is important to make sure the work is well represented by the title.
2. The authors mention that Gaussian data is used in other papers, but this paper is SOLELY regarding Gaussian data. Which is not a bad thing, necessarily. It is really important to understand these problems with simpler models before going to more complex models. However, I still do assert that "The main weakness of the paper is that it seems only tangentially related to the generative model collapse problem" as I stated in my original response. The author's rebuttal is effectively that others ([3],[4],[5]) have studied Gaussian data, and while that is true, those papers ALSO include experiments on non-Gaussian data. So, I personally think that the paper's results are weak for this case. Again, this does not mean that the paper is bad but rather that it has not been made clear how the **Gaussian results on regression** relate to **non-Gaussian data being generated**.

I thank the authors again for addressing all of my other concerns.
We thank the reviewer for their further comments.

- About kernel regression

We agree with the reviewer that the statement about kernel regression should be a remark that our analysis can be straightforwardly extended to the the case of kernel regression. This will be rectified.

-  About self-distillation

We would like to stress that our setup **cannot** be reduced to a **noisy version of self-distillation**. Let us explain. Self-distillation for linear regression would amount to a very special **instance** of our analysis where (1) $X_0=X_1=\ldots=X_{n-1}=X_n=X$ and (2) $\sigma_0=\ldots=\sigma_{n-1}=0$. That is, there is exactly one design matrix which is used in the data generation process and in the downstream estimator, and also no additional source of label noise is present at the end of each generation.

In the general setup considered in our work, (1) is not imposed. We typically assume that $X_0,X_1,\ldots,X_{n-1},X_n$ with $X_n=X$, are all independent random matrices. An exception is line 247 ("The Dependent Case") of Section 3.5, where we assume $X_m=X_0$ for all $m \le n-1$, and independent of $X_n=X$. That setup (considered for the purposes of showing that model collapse can still occur in the absence of label noise) also assumes $\sigma_m=0$ for all $m$; the analytic picture which emerges (Theorem 3.5) is already drastically different from what one would get from self-distillation (corresponding to additional assumption that $X=X_0$).

Thus, not only are the processes in self-distillation and model collapse different, the theoretical models are drastically different.

We will add this discussion in the main paper.

>I am not sure we are reading the same paper, which result are you referring to?


By "an optimal value of $n$" we refer to the number of distillation steps that yields the best performance, as discussed in Mobahi et al. (ref [36] of our manuscript). Specifically, the authors boldface highlight it in the introduction (specifically, the contributions paragraph) like so "This implies that a few rounds of self-distillation may reduce over-fitting, further rounds may lead to under-fitting and thus worse performance". This is accordance with the theory developed in their paper, and is empirically confirmed in their Figure 3.

[36] Hossein Mobahi et al. "Self-distillation amplifies regularization in hilbert space." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020)
I would like to thank the authors for their answers and clarifications. I have a few comments for the clarifications provided. 

* As noted at line 47, "we present the linear regression setting for simplicity; the generalization to the kernel setting is straightforward." and we have discussed it in more details in Appendix B. 

This was clear from the paper and the concern is not with that statement, but rather with the claim in the introduction and a few other places, that in fact your paper does analyse the kernel ridge regression model. This is *not* the case and should not be claimed. I believe it is fine to mention that the extension may be straightforward, but it is *wrong* to claim that your perform this analysis. 

* The connection to self-distillation.

I do not believe there is any doubt that self-distillation is a different process from model collapse. However the two are related, and in fact your *theoretical* model falls closer to *theoretical* models of self-distillation, due to the regressive nature of your model. In fact, in the noiseless case the theoretical model is *exactly* the model of Mobahi et al, even though the aim of your model is different. The noisy case *does* place itself apart from the model of Mobahi et al, but can easily be viewed as a noisy version of self-distillation. 

I once again emphasise, it is not the processes that are similar. It is the theoretical models. 

"and in fact Mobahi et al. showed that there is an optimal value of depending on the distribution of the data and the model class over which the regression is done. " - I am not sure we are reading the same paper, which result are you referring to?
[8] Neel Nanda, et al. "Emergent Linear Representations in World Models of Self-Supervised Sequence Models." EMNLP 2023.

[9] Kiho Park, et al. "The Linear Representation Hypothesis and the Geometry of Large Language Models." ICML 2024.

[10] Yibo Jiang, et al. "On the Origins of Linear Representations in Large Language Models." ICML 2024.

[11] Yunzhen Feng, et al. "Beyond Model Collapse: Scaling Up with Synthesized Data Requires Reinforcement."
**Please allow us to use the official comment section to address the further comments you have in your review.**

7. > line 30 - kernel regression is not analysed in this paper

We have addressed the point raised here in the response to question 4.

8. > line 47 - you do not mention what \epsilon is

Thanks. $\epsilon$ is the label noise, and we will add it.

9. > line 54 - Insights from this formula needs to be related to existing mathematical models of model collapse.

We have addressed this point in the general response by comparing our theory with previous ones. We will also connect it with the results from Shumailov et al., as their work is the most similar to ours in mathematical form.

10. > line 118 - $\hat{\omega}$ is a vector input to $E_{test}$? Or is it a random variable for expectation?

Sorry for the confusion. $\hat{w}$ is the input and there is no expectation over it. The notation $E_{test}(\hat w)$ stands for test error of the downstream model $\hat w$ as defined in equation (3).

11. > It does not seem to be clarified what the effect of sampling different design matrices is.

In the "Dependent Case" at line 247, we analyze the scenario where the same design matrix is used for all generations, i.e $X_m=X_0$ for all $m<n$. Further restricting to the case $T_m=T_0 < d$ for all $m<n$ (i.e over-parametrized generator), our Theorem 3.5 shows that in this case, even in the absence of any label noise, there is model collapse due to an increase in the bias term in the test error. This increase in proportional to $1-\eta_0$, where $\eta_0:=T_0/d<1$. In the "Independent Case" on line 257, we study the scenario where an independent design matrix $X_m$ with $T_m<d$ rows is resampled at each stage $m<n$ of the generation process. In this case, our Theorem 3.6 shows that increase in bias is proportional to $1-\eta_0\eta_1\ldots\eta_{n-1}$, which is typically much larger than $1-\eta_0$.

12. > around line 128 - notation seems a bit overloaded, with n subscripts being dropped, even though you may not have the exact same variables across iterations? E.g. X_n can not always be denoted by X?

In our theory, we focus solely on the last generation, as illustrated by the purple boxes in Figure 3. Since we fix all previous generations and examine only the last one, it is consistent to denote $X_n$ with $X$.

13. > line 155 - the whole paragraph seems to be describing almost the same result as Shumailov et al., but does not mention it.

We will acknowledge Shumailov et al. as we arrive at a similar expression depending on the number of samples across all generations. However, our discussion focuses on how to analytically mitigate model collapse by using more samples during generation and whether this is an effective method.

14. > line 173 missing citation

It is intended to be a question mark. We have removed the question mark for better understanding.

15. > I am slightly unclear why section 3.4 is underparametrized - could you clarify?

As stated in the beginning the section, this refers to the scenario where each stage of the recursive synthetic data generator is based on at most as many samples as input dimensions, i.e $T_0 \ge d$. In this scenario, there are more data points than dimensions, resulting in a unique solution for the regression. Our theory reveals that in this setup, model collapse is due to an increase in the variance of the downstream estimator. Conversely, when $T_0 < d$, we refer to the synthetic data generator as over-parameterized, as there is no unique solution to the regression problem without regularization. In such cases, various interpolators can achieve training error:  OLS produces the one with minmal Euclidean norm. As we see in Section 3.5, model collapse appears in this scenario even in the abscence of label noise 

We thank the reviewers for all their questions and hope we have addressed them thoroughly.