Self-Consuming Generative Models Go MAD

Response to the reviewer

We thank the reviewer for the thoughtful review and many suggestions for strengthening this line of research. While we believe most of the reviewer’s suggestions are either already addressed in our work or are out of the scope of this particular project, we highly value this feedback as we investigate continuations of this work. We hope that the following responses clear up what the reviewer perceived as weaknesses of our work. **This work would benefit from a dedicated section discussing potential solutions or mitigations for Model Autophagy Disorder (MAD) in the training of generative models.** We have already incorporated a discussion on this matter within the existing Discussion section, although it is limited in length due to the page restriction. We state that effort should be made toward increasing the amount of real data compared to synthetic data. As a direction for future work, we suggest watermarking techniques for synthetic data, so that the system can detect and remove them if they are unintentionally in the dataset. The question of how to address this issue is an open area of research, which our work calls the attention of the research community to. **A more in-depth exploration of the broader implications of MAD is expected. This could involve exploring the impact of MAD in various domains beyond image generation, such as NLP or audio synthesis.** We agree that adding more experiments in other data domains, such as text and audio, would bolster the general claim of the paper. However, owing to the substantial demands of experiments and the constraints of computational power, our emphasis was primarily on image data. Visual degradation is readily noticeable in this context, allowing us to explore the impacts of various settings, such as sampling bias and different autophagic loops, within a singular data modality. As we have mentioned in the Discussion and Related Work sections, the MAD effect has been observed more generally, with other works reaching similar conclusions for other modalities (such as text) in more limited settings. **To enhance the rigor of the paper, a more comprehensive theoretical framework should be developed to formalize the concept of MAD and its implications.** We are also very interested in a unifying mathematical theory of MAD. Our limited analytical results in the Gaussian case for the fully synthetic loop relied on specific properties of Gaussian parameter estimation. Developing a general theory would require additional nontrivial innovations that are outside the scope of this paper. We believe that this will be a rich line of research in the future. **The work lacks a detailed description of the sources or methods used to generate the synthetic data used in this study.** By “synthetic data” in this work, we refer to samples of a generative model that has been trained on some combination of real data and samples from previous generative models. As we stress on the first page of the paper, we do not mean synthetic data in the sense of data generated procedurally according to fixed rules or simulations, which would of course require a detailed description for proper replication. All of our results can be replicated by using the real datasets (e.g., MNIST, FFHQ) and training the corresponding sequence of generative models (e.g., DDPM, StyleGAN) following the procedures we detail in the appendices. If the reviewer still feels that we do not adequately describe the experimental process, please let us know. **Could the authors provide a more nuanced analysis of how varying levels of sampling bias affect MAD, particularly in terms of quality and diversity?** We do provide experiments on both real and Gaussian data that detail the effect of varying $\lambda$ – see Figure 14 for the fully synthetic loop, Figures 8, 28 (new), 29 (new) for the synthetic augmentation loop, and Figures 10, 30, 31, 32, 33 for the fresh data loop. We have ensured that $\lambda$ captures the trend of having value between 0 and 1 with smaller values corresponding to more sampling bias, but due to the fact that we consider many different generative models, datasets, and biasing mechanisms, we cannot ensure that $\lambda$ is calibrated in such a way that we can give any meaning to specific values. However, the general conclusion is consistent among all models and methods, where the increasing sampling bias enhances the quality of the data, at the expense of losing diversity. We recommend the existing literature for further nuance on specific sampling bias methods in different generative models.

Response to the reviewer

We express our gratitude to the reviewer for providing thorough and constructive feedback on the manuscript. We have a few responses to specific points. **To my understand, the theory (around eq 1) and the experiments (described in A.1 and A.2 diffusion model) only consider the case that each model $\mathcal{G}^t$ is trained on data generated by $\mathcal{G}^{t-1}$** It is correct that the theoretical results consider training only on data generated by the previous model $\mathcal{G}^{t-1}$, but this is **not** true for all of our experiments. For example, in the synthetic augmentation loop for StyleGAN (Figure 7 in Appendix A.2) and the newly added MNIST DDPM experiment (Figures 28 and 29 in Appendix H), we accumulated synthetic data from all previous generations. As another example, in Figure 33 in Appendix I, we experiment with fresh data loops for Gaussian data using synthetic samples from all previous generations. **Huang et al. 2022 considers "synthetic data augmentation", but Hataya et al. 2022 (cited in p3) focuses on the effects of the first loop…on some downstream tasks, such as classification. Do I misunderstand something?** That is correct. Hataya et al. showed how AI-synthesized data can negatively impact downstream tasks like classification, but they did not investigate the limiting effects of autophagous loops. Huang et al. do consider synthetic data augmentation, but specifically from a perspective of improving language models in certain tasks. **Why the authors choose StyleGAN2 with FFHQ and DDPM with MNIST?** We selected these models because they achieve near-state-of-the-art performance at a reasonable computational expense. These models represent two widely used approaches to generating image data: diffusion models and GANs. Due to the substantial computational requirements for training and sampling from diffusion models, we opted for a less complex dataset (MNIST) for DDPM. In contrast, we used FFHQ for StyleGAN, as it is less computationally demanding.

2nd response to the reviewer

1. Regarding the first comment about the manuscript's clarity concerning when some of our experiments train on multiple previous models' synthetic data rather than just the immediately preceding model's synthetic data, we hope that these existing excerpts from the manuscript will alleviate any concerns of unclarity: * Footnote 5 on Page 7 - "Unique to our StyleGAN2 synthetic augmentation loop, we linearly grow a pool of synthetic data to assess whether access to all previous generations' synthetic data could help future generations learn (see Appendix A.2). * Appendix A (Experiment Setups) Section 2 (The Synthetic Augmentation Loop) Bullet Point 1 - "Like the StyleGAN experiment in Appendix A.1, at each generation $t \geq 2$ we sample $70k$ images with no sampling bias $(\lambda = 1)$ from the immediately preceding model $\mathcal{G}^{t-1}$. However, now the synthetic dataset $\mathcal{D}^t_s$ includes samples from all the previous models $(\mathcal{G}^\tau)_{\tau=1}^{t-1}$, producing a synthetic data pool of size $n_s^t = (t-1)70k$ that grows linearly with respect to $t$. The real FFHQ dataset is always present at every generation: $\mathcal{D}_r^1 = \mathcal{D}^t_r$ and $n_r^1 = n^t_r = 70k$ for every generation $t$. * Appendix H Figure 28 - "Using samples from all previous generative models in synthetic augmentation loop will not stop MADness." * Appendix H Figure 29 - "Using samples from all previous generative models in synthetic augmentation loop slows the degradation of models more." * Appendix I Experiment 2 - "In Section 5 we assumed that we only sample from the previous generation $\mathcal{G}^{t-1}$ for creating the synthetic dataset $\mathcal{D}^t_s$. In this experiment we sample randomly from $K$ previous models $(\mathcal{G})_{\tau=t-1-K}^{t-1}$. Here $n_r = 10^3, n_s = 10^4,$ and $\lambda=1$. In Figure 33 we see how $\frac{n_e}{n_r}$ varies with respect to $K$. Increasing the memory $K$ in sampling from previous generations can boost performance, however the rate of improvement becomes slower as $K$ increases. However the rate of improvement on $n_e$ is sublinear with respect to $K$. 2. Regarding the second comment about the applicability of MNIST DDPM findings to other datasets: when we said "we opted for a less complex dataset (MNIST) for DDPM", we meant complex in the sense of lower-dimensionality, since training many diffusion models sequentially and with different guidances (sampling biases) would be computationally infeasible. Even training StyleGAN, which is far faster than SOTA diffusion models, takes roughly 1 week per model. Furthermore, sampling from diffusion models is quite lengthy since the quality of synthethic images generally scales with the number of forward passes applied during synthesis. Even using another low-dimensional dataset like CIFAR10 would still cause our computational costs to grow by a factor of $(32\times32\times3)/(28\times28) \approx 4$, so to efficiently investigate the effects of multi-generation autophagy on diffusion models, MNIST is the best option; this is especially true when considering the fresh data loop, which requires additional hyperparameter tuning due to the reduction in each model's training dataset size. Lastly and most importantly, given that our findings with MNIST DDPMs agree with those we see in FFHQ StyleGANs, there is no reason to doubt that our empirical results apply to higher-dimensional datasets.

Response to the reviewer

We thank the reviewer for the detailed and constructive comments regarding the paper. We have the following remarks for your comments. **Is random walkness in Claim observed for practical models?** Thank you for pointing out this ambiguity in the “random walk” aspect of the Claim from Section 2. To clarify the claim and remove any possible connotation with a “pure” random walk (e.g., Brownian motion), we have removed “that follows a random walk” from the Claim. **Eq. (2) is totally unclear… Where is $WD(n_r, n_s, \lambda)$ defined?** $WD(n_r, n_s, \lambda)$ represents the asymptotic Wasserstein distance that models converge to in the fresh data loop, which we have observed in our experiments depends solely on $n_r, n_s,$ and $\lambda$ (the amount of new real data, new synthetic data, and sampling bias at each iteration). We have modified Eq. (2) slightly to denote that we define $WD$ as the limiting value to increase clarity. **How does [$n_{ini}$] relate to the main claims in Introduction?**, **The observation of a phase transition is interesting…I recommend to briefly discuss the motivation and the results in Introduction.** Based on this useful feedback, we have revised the fresh data loop takeaway in the Introduction to better reflect the observations in Section 5 regarding the independence of the limiting behavior on $n_{ini}$ and regarding the phase transition in improvement due to the inclusions of synthetic data.