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.

arXiv:2602.19241v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Low-precision training is critical for optimizing the trade-off between model quality and training costs, necessitating the joint allocation of model size, dataset size, and numerical precision. While empirical scaling laws suggest that quantization impacts effective model and data capacities or acts as an additive error, the theoretical mechanisms governing these effects remain largely unexplored. In this work, we initiate a theoretical study of scaling laws for low-precision training within a high-dimensional sketched linear regression framework. By analyzing multiplicative (signal-dependent) and additive (signal-independent) quantization, we identify a critical dichotomy in their scaling behaviors. Our analysis reveals that while both schemes introduce an additive error and degrade the effective data size, they exhibit distinct effects on effective model size: multiplicative quantization maintains the full-precision model size, whereas additive quantization reduces the effective model size. Numerical experiments validate our theoretical findings. By rigorously characterizing the complex interplay among model scale, dataset size, and quantization error, our work provides a principled theoretical basis for optimizing training protocols under practical hardware constraints.

arXiv:2510.18259v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The use of low-bit quantization has emerged as an indispensable technique for enabling the efficient training of large-scale models. Despite its widespread empirical success, a rigorous theoretical understanding of its impact on learning performance remains notably absent, even in the simplest linear regression setting. We present the first systematic theoretical study of this fundamental question, analyzing finite-step stochastic gradient descent (SGD) for high-dimensional linear regression under a comprehensive range of quantization targets: data, label, parameter, activation, and gradient. Our novel analytical framework establishes precise algorithm-dependent and data-dependent excess risk bounds that characterize how different quantization affects learning: parameter, activation, and gradient quantization amplify noise during training; data quantization distorts the data spectrum and introduces additional approximation error. Crucially, we distinguish the effects of two quantization schemes: we prove that for additive quantization (with constant quantization steps), the noise amplification benefits from a suppression effect scaled by the batch size, while multiplicative quantization (with input-dependent quantization steps) largely preserves the spectral structure, thereby reducing the spectral distortion. Furthermore, under common polynomial-decay data spectra, we quantitatively compare the risks of multiplicative and additive quantization, drawing a parallel to the comparison between FP and integer quantization methods. Our theory provides a powerful lens to characterize how quantization shapes the learning dynamics of optimization algorithms, paving the way to further explore learning theory under practical hardware constraints.