arXiv Computation and Language

When Tokenization is Secretly Output Supervision

The paper argues that tokenization in language models should be viewed as an output supervision decision rather than merely input preprocessing. In autoregressive models, the granularity of the tokenizer determines the supervision signal the model receives, influencing learning difficulty, internal representations, and task performance. Experiments on numeric reasoning show that output tokenization, rather than input tokenization, drives differences in performance and training dynamics, and a survey of recent CL papers reveals that tokenization choices are rarely reported or acknowledged.

Hugging Face Trending Papers
Aug 18

TokEval: A Tokenizer Evaluation Suite

TokEval is a tokenizer evaluation suite that introduces metrics beyond traditional fertility and compression rate, capturing linguistically and structurally meaningful properties such as UTF-8 character boundary integrity and digit place-value alignment for mathematics. The authors validate these metrics by conducting controlled language model pretraining experiments that vary tokenizer training data, pretokenization strategy, and training algorithm, then evaluate the models on bits-per-byte and benchmarks covering linguistic understanding, mathematical reasoning, and code generation. Results show that information-theoretic metrics predict language modeling performance, while structure-sensitive metrics correlate with task accuracy, suggesting TokEval can guide tokenizer selection more principledly.

arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 19

TokEval: A Tokenizer Evaluation Suite

TokEval is a tokenizer evaluation suite that introduces metrics beyond traditional fertility and compression rate, capturing linguistically and structurally meaningful properties such as UTF‑8 character boundary integrity and digit place‑value alignment for mathematics. The authors validate these metrics by pretraining language models with varied tokenizers and measuring downstream performance on bits‑per‑byte and benchmarks covering linguistic understanding, mathematical reasoning, and code generation. Their results show that information‑theoretic metrics predict language modeling performance, while structure‑sensitive metrics correlate with task accuracy, suggesting TokEval can guide tokenizer selection more principledly.

By Clara Meister
arXiv AI
Jun 2

Cornerstones or Stumbling Blocks? Deciphering the Rock Tokens in On-Policy Distillation

arXiv:2605. 09253v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: While recent work in Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has shown that a small subset of critical tokens disproportionately drives reasoning gains, an analogous token-level understanding of On-Policy Distillation (OPD) remains largely unexplored.

By Yuxuan Jiang, Runchao Li, Shubhashis Roy Dipta, Dawei Li, Zhao Yang
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jun 10

Teaching Diffusion to Speculate Left-to-Right

Large language models (LLMs) achieve remarkable performance across a wide range of tasks, but their autoregressive decoding process incurs substantial inference costs due to inherently sequential token generation. Speculative decoding addresses this bottleneck by employing a lightweight draft model to propose multiple future tokens that are subsequently verified in parallel by a larger target model.

arXiv AI
Jul 20

Verbalizable Representations Form a Global Workspace in Language Models

arXiv:2607. 15495v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Out of everything the human brain processes, only a small fraction is consciously accessible, in the sense of being available for verbal report, deliberate control, and flexible reasoning.

By Wes Gurnee, Nicholas Sofroniew, Adam Pearce, Mateusz Piotrowski, Isaac Kauvar, Runjin Chen, Anna Soligo, Paul Bogdan, Euan Ong, Rowan Wang, Ben Thompson, David Abrahams, Subhash Kantamneni, Emmanuel Ameisen, Joshua Batson, Jack Lindsey
arXiv AI
Aug 24

Can LLMs Introspect? A Reality Check

The paper questions whether large language models (LLMs) truly introspect by critiquing recent studies that claim they can detect and report their internal states. It proposes two necessary conditions for genuine introspection: privileged access to internal representations and second‑order computation that distinguishes from first‑order task performance. Re‑examining two existing paradigms, the authors find that apparent introspective abilities can be explained by input‑based classifiers or generic anomaly detection, concluding that current evidence does not support metacognitive monitoring in LLMs.

By Shashwat Singh, Tal Linzen, Shauli Ravfogel