Predictive models deployed at scale influence future data, a phenomenon called performativity. And there is always one way to cope: Train the model on new data, deploy it again, and repeat. This process, called retraining or repeated risk minimization, creates a feedback loop between model and data that real-world learning systems can't avoid. Results on performative prediction shed light on this dynamic: If the model's influence on the data is small, retraining reaches a fixed point. What remains open is why fixed points should naturally exist, and what governs retraining when the model's influence is strong. In this work we develop a new perspective on retraining -- the stable signal principle -- that addresses these questions. We start from the assumption that the prediction target has at least some small model-independent component, a stable signal, such as the intrinsic quality of an item. We prove that when a nonzero stable signal exists, repeated risk minimization, suitably regularized, converges geometrically to the direction of this stable signal. This is true even if the model's influence on the target is arbitrarily large relative to the stable signal. Regularization emerges naturally as a force to control performativity, rather than to promote generalization, revealing a new facet of an old concept. We extend the analysis to a broad family of affine retraining operators under arbitrary model-induced feature changes, heterogeneous time-varying effects, and nonlinear responses. The stable signal perspective also applies to data feedback loops in language modeling, providing new explanations for the stability of language model training from model-generated data.
Nikolai Rozanov, Subhabrata Dutta, Preslav Nakov +1cs.AI
The Bitter Lesson, which posits that general-purpose methods that scale with computation and data ultimately outperform those with built-in human knowledge, has become a dominant paradigm in the era of Large Language Models. We revisit this principle by observing a new and critical scaling dimension: the duration of the Feedback Information Loop (FIL), the time required for a system to receive a verification signal after generating a prediction. Most historic successes in Artificial Intelligence (AI) have benefited from near instantaneous feedback (e.g., games or classification tasks), but we argue that future AI applications in science and the physical world will inherently involve FILs ranging from hours to weeks. This trend poses a fundamental scaling limit, as obtaining enough verification steps required by purely data-driven methods becomes practically impossible. Additionally, we propose a method that is orthogonal to purely data-driven approaches, based on human-inspired expert knowledge. The method relies on inductive biases and constraining the solution space. We provide an initial validation of the hypothesis and the method, by studying the real-world GPU programming task, a domain with non-trivial FIL, and demonstrate that incorporating inductive biases yields superior performance over data-driven approaches. The code is released under: https://github.com/ai-nikolai/robust_kernelbench
When AI agents use language models to evaluate their own outputs in a feedback loop, systematic biases emerge. We show that Evaluator Preference Collapse (EPC) is dramatically amplified in multimodal settings. Using GPT-4o to evaluate DeepSeek-chat across text and visual tasks, we find that a single strategy (step_by_step) absorbs 48.4% of all weight -- 3.2x the collapse observed in text-only self-evaluation -- while three visual-domain strategies receive only 9.1% combined weight. We then demonstrate a novel phenomenon we term cross-modal contagion: evaluator preferences acquired on one modality transfer to and corrupt strategy selection on another. Through a four-phase isolation training paradigm, we measure contagion coefficients and document strategy inversion -- the optimal strategy for a modality reverses after cross-modal exposure. A Phase 3 statistical validation across four evaluator configurations (N=53 total independent repetitions, 15,592 API calls) reveals a clear hierarchy: cross-model evaluation (GPT-4o, N=8) produces strong but symmetric bidirectional contagion (mean gamma_{T->V}=1.176, gamma_{V->T}=1.089, Delta=-0.088, p=0.575, Cohen's d=0.29); high round counts (DashScope, 50 rounds) cause collapse to single-strategy dominance (70% zero contagion); and self-evaluation provides near-complete immunity -- 97% of runs (N=30, DeepSeek-chat) yield exactly zero contagion (mean gamma=0.033, 95% CI [-0.031, 0.010], p=0.642, d=0.07). No evaluator condition shows statistically significant directional asymmetry. We introduce the contagion matrix indexed by evaluator identity, release the MM-EPC experimental framework, and identify cross-model evaluator architecture as the primary risk factor for preference contagion.
We study how artificial intelligence (AI) interacts with social communication networks to shape the stability of collective knowledge. Agents exchange information through a network while AI systems generate content and retrain on the aggregate informational environment they influence. This interaction creates a recursive feedback loop in which informational distortions diffuse through society and subsequently feed back into future AI outputs. Despite the high dimensionality of the environment, we show that the long-run dynamics admit a two-dimensional representation whose spectral radius completely characterizes the stability of AI-mediated information systems. We derive a sharp regulatory frontier identifying the minimum filtering required for stability and show how homophily and core-periphery network structures shape systemic informational risk.