aiqbench analysis
This study demonstrates how recursive synthetic-data training degrades performance in biomedical question answering, revealing significant declines in entity recognition and factual support across multiple generations. The findings highlight critical risks of feedback loops where models amplify their own errors, particularly affecting larger parameter counts in specialized domains like healthcare. For researchers relying on self-generated data to scale models, this underscores the necessity of periodic retraining on high-quality human-verified datasets to prevent capability erosion.
Recursive LLM Degradation in Biomedical Question Answering: A Cross-Generation Study
arXiv:2609.34257v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Repeatedly training language models on their own generated data may create a synthetic-data feedback loop in which errors and distributional biases are reintroduced into subsequent training datasets. This paper studies that process in biomedical question answering (QA) using PubMedQA and two Qwen2.5 model sizes, 0.5B and 3B parameters. The study compares a recursive synthetic-data condition, in which generation G(k+1) is trained on answers produced by G(k), against a Human-Control condition that repeatedly uses the original human training data. The study evaluates across four generations from G0-G3 with two random seeds (42 and 123) and a fixed evaluation set of 1,000 expert-labeled samples. The evaluation includes disease and chemical entity F1, context-supported rate, lexical and semantic similarity, answer length, repetition rate, and other evaluation metrics. The Recursive condition for both model sizes and both seeds showed larger declines than the Human-Control condition in disease entity F1, chemical entity F1, context-supported rate, ROUGE-L, and cosine similarity. Under the fixed no-repeat 3-gram decoding constraint, the main observed behavioral change was increased answer length, while the measured 3-gram repetition rate did not increase. The magnitude of the difference-in-change was larger for the 3B model than for the 0.5B model. This difference was particularly apparent in disease F1, context-supported rate, cosine similarity, and answer length. These results show domain-specific changes associated with using recursive synthetic-data training in biomedical QA, but do not establish clinical hallucination rates or universal model collapse.
Abstract:Repeatedly training language models on their own generated data may create a synthetic-data feedback loop in which errors and distributional biases are reintroduced into subsequent training datasets. This paper studies that process in biomedical question answering (QA) using PubMedQA and two Qwen2.5 model sizes, 0.5B and 3B parameters. The study compares a recursive synthetic-data condition, in which generation G(k+1) is trained on answers produced by G(k), against a Human-Control condition that repeatedly uses the original human training data. The study evaluates across four generations from G0-G3 with two random seeds (42 and 123) and a fixed evaluation set of 1,000 expert-labeled samples. The evaluation includes disease and chemical entity F1, context-supported rate, lexical and semantic similarity, answer length, repetition rate, and other evaluation metrics. The Recursive condition for both model sizes and both seeds showed larger declines than the Human-Control condition in disease entity F1, chemical entity F1, context-supported rate, ROUGE-L, and cosine similarity. Under the fixed no-repeat 3-gram decoding constraint, the main observed behavioral change was increased answer length, while the measured 3-gram repetition rate did not increase. The magnitude of the difference-in-change was larger for the 3B model than for the 0.5B model. This difference was particularly apparent in disease F1, context-supported rate, cosine similarity, and answer length. These results show domain-specific changes associated with using recursive synthetic-data training in biomedical QA, but do not establish clinical hallucination rates or universal model collapse.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2609.34257 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2609.34257v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.34257 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 · 333 words
Related coverage

[AINews] Reality Checks on AI News (Yegge shuts down Gas Town, Databricks’ +60% Astra cost)
Latent Space · Sep 17, 2026

Game Design Creativity evals
LessWrong · Oct 12, 2026

Biomedical Imaging's Real Bottleneck Is the Data, Not the Model
Databricks · Oct 8, 2026

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · Oct 3, 2026