aiqbench analysis
This research investigates the conditions under which synthetic data triggers model collapse in high-dimensional linear regression, distinguishing between detrimental mixed training protocols and beneficial two-stage curricula. The findings establish that avoiding simultaneous mixing of real and synthetic data prevents performance floors, while high-quality pretraining can actually improve generalization over real-data-only baselines. Ultimately, the study provides rigorous finite-sample bounds demonstrating that synthetic data utility is strictly dependent on the specific training architecture employed.
Learning with Synthetic Data via SGD in High-Dimensional Linear Regression
arXiv:2609.09572v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Synthetic data has become a promising way to scale model training beyond limited human-generated data but it may also induce strong model collapse (Dohmatob et al., 2024), where any fixed fraction of synthetic data prevents model performance from improving under data scaling, leaving a non-vanishing excess risk floor. In this paper, we study how synthetic data affects the generalization of one-pass SGD in high-dimensional linear regression with model shift. We establish finite-sample risk bounds for mixed and two-stage training, separating standard bias and variance from source-mismatch effects, namely fluctuation and persistent drift under mixing and filtered initialization bias under two-stage. These bounds reveal a sharp contrast: mixed training induces strong model collapse, while two-stage training avoids the floor by using synthetic data only in the first stage, showing that collapse is not inevitable under a simple data curriculum. Under a random sketch model, we further obtain scaling laws for both protocols, with tight results for mixed training in the optimization-saturated regime. These laws show that larger models may amplify synthetic-induced degradation under mixing, and quantify how high-quality synthetic pretraining may reduce bias in two-stage training. Finally, we establish an exact finite-sample necessary-and-sufficient condition for two-stage training to strictly outperform real-only training under the same real-data budget and identical real-stage updates. Overall, our results highlight that synthetic data is neither inherently harmful nor beneficial; its effect depends critically on both its quality and the training protocol used to incorporate it.
Abstract:Synthetic data has become a promising way to scale model training beyond limited human-generated data but it may also induce strong model collapse (Dohmatob et al., 2024), where any fixed fraction of synthetic data prevents model performance from improving under data scaling, leaving a non-vanishing excess risk floor. In this paper, we study how synthetic data affects the generalization of one-pass SGD in high-dimensional linear regression with model shift. We establish finite-sample risk bounds for mixed and two-stage training, separating standard bias and variance from source-mismatch effects, namely fluctuation and persistent drift under mixing and filtered initialization bias under two-stage. These bounds reveal a sharp contrast: mixed training induces strong model collapse, while two-stage training avoids the floor by using synthetic data only in the first stage, showing that collapse is not inevitable under a simple data curriculum. Under a random sketch model, we further obtain scaling laws for both protocols, with tight results for mixed training in the optimization-saturated regime. These laws show that larger models may amplify synthetic-induced degradation under mixing, and quantify how high-quality synthetic pretraining may reduce bias in two-stage training. Finally, we establish an exact finite-sample necessary-and-sufficient condition for two-stage training to strictly outperform real-only training under the same real-data budget and identical real-stage updates. Overall, our results highlight that synthetic data is neither inherently harmful nor beneficial; its effect depends critically on both its quality and the training protocol used to incorporate it.
Machine Learning (stat.ML); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2609.09572 [stat.ML]
(or arXiv:2609.09572v1 [stat.ML] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.09572 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 339 words
Related coverage
PIRAMID: Progress and Plans
LessWrong · Jul 27, 2026
Granite 4.1 LLMs: How They’re Built
Hugging Face · Apr 29, 2026
Directly Optimizing Mean Demographic Parity for Nonlinear Regression
arXiv · Oct 9, 2026
A Robust Optimization Approach to Sparse Principal Component Analysis
arXiv · Jun 3, 2026