Learning is Forgetting: LLM Training As Lossy Compression
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Despite the increasing prevalence of large language models (LLMs), we still have a limited understanding of how their representational spaces are structured. This limits our ability to interpret how and what they learn or relate them to learning in humans. We argue LLMs are best seen as an instance of lossy compression, where over training they learn by retaining only information in their training data relevant to their objective(s). We show pre-training results in models that are optimally compressed for next-sequence prediction, approaching the Information Bottleneck bound on compression. Across an array of open weights models, each compresses differently, likely due to differences in the data and training recipes used. However even across different families of LLMs the optimality of a model's compression, and the information present in it, can predict downstream performance on across a wide array of benchmarks, letting us directly link representational structure to actionable insights about model performance. In the general case the work presented here offers a unified Information-Theoretic framing for how these models learn that is deployable at scale.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 38 of its 77 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Apr 2026.
Builds on
38 of 77 references.
References · 38
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
- 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,491
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,049
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 7,916
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,768
- 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,411
- 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,462
- 2021Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Datasetcited by 5,203
- 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,634
- 2023GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmarkcited by 2,748
26 more
- 2020The Pile: An 800GB Dataset of Diverse Text for Language Modelingcited by 2,346
- 2018The Lottery Ticket Hypothesis: Finding Sparse, Trainable Neural Networkscited by 2,250
- 2021SimCSE: Simple Contrastive Learning of Sentence Embeddingscited by 2,168
- 2022Challenging BIG-Bench Tasks and Whether Chain-of-Thought Can Solve Themcited by 1,767
- 2024MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmarkcited by 1,758
- 2023Pythia: A Suite for Analyzing Large Language Models Across Training and Scalingcited by 1,734
- 2023Instruction-Following Evaluation for Large Language Modelscited by 1,143
- 2022Toy Models of Superpositioncited by 928
- 2023Progress measures for grokking via mechanistic interpretabilitycited by 822
- 2015Deep Learning and the Information Bottleneck Principlecited by 793
- 2017Opening the Black Box of Deep Neural Networks via Informationcited by 494
- 2018Assessing Generative Models via Precision and Recallcited by 401
- 2025SmolLM2: When Smol Goes Big -- Data-Centric Training of a Small Language Modelcited by 307
- 2018Targeted Syntactic Evaluation of Language Modelscited by 239
- 2020Information-Theoretic Probing with Minimum Description Lengthcited by 230
- 2023Language Modeling Is Compressioncited by 225
- 2020Information-Theoretic Probing for Linguistic Structurecited by 204
- 2023MuSR: Testing the Limits of Chain-of-thought with Multistep Soft Reasoningcited by 195
- 2018A mathematical theory of semantic development in deep neural networkscited by 182
- 2020A Systematic Assessment of Syntactic Generalization in Neural Language Modelscited by 163
- 2019The Bottom-up Evolution of Representations in the Transformer: A Study with Machine Translation and Language Modeling Objectivescited by 139
- 2019Neural Language Models as Psycholinguistic Subjects: Representations of Syntactic Statecited by 137
- 2018RNNs as psycholinguistic subjects: Syntactic state and grammatical dependencycited by 23
- 2022Norm of Word Embedding Encodes Information Gaincited by 21
- 2025Evolution of Concepts in Language Model Pre-Trainingcited by 8
- 2025Information Structure in Mappings: An Approach to Learning, Representation, and Generalisationcited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.