Papers › Entropy Law: The Story Behind Data Compression and LLM Performance

Entropy Law: The Story Behind Data Compression and LLM Performance

9 Jul 2024arXiv:2407.06645archive 2025-07-28

Mingjia Yin, Chuhan Wu, YuFei Wang, Hao Wang, Wei Guo, Yasheng Wang, Yong liu, Ruiming Tang, Defu Lian, Enhong Chen

Data is the cornerstone of large language models (LLMs), but not all data is useful for model learning. Carefully selected data can better elicit the capabilities of LLMs with much less computational overhead. Most methods concentrate on evaluating the quality of individual samples in data selection, while the combinatorial effects among samples are neglected. Even if each sample is of perfect quality, their combinations may be suboptimal in teaching LLMs due to their intrinsic homogeneity or contradiction. In this paper, we aim to uncover the underlying relationships between LLM performance and data selection. Inspired by the information compression nature of LLMs, we uncover an ``entropy law'' that connects LLM performance with data compression ratio and first-epoch training loss, which reflect the information redundancy of a dataset and the mastery of inherent knowledge encoded in this dataset, respectively. Through both theoretical deduction and empirical evaluation, we find that model performance is negatively correlated to the compression ratio of training data, which usually yields a lower training loss. Based on the findings of the entropy law, we propose a quite efficient and universal data selection method named \textbf{ZIP} for training LLMs, which aim to prioritize data subsets exhibiting a low compression ratio. Based on a multi-stage algorithm that selects diverse data in a greedy manner, we can obtain a good data subset with satisfactory diversity. Extensive experiments have been conducted to validate the entropy law and the superiority of ZIP across different LLM backbones and alignment stages. We also present an interesting application of entropy law that can detect potential performance risks at the beginning of model training.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

5 samples harvested; 4 ran; 1 honoured the contract we drafted; 1 has no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 5 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from 2 repositories linked to this paper, official or community; each sample names its own and says which. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections