arXiv:2609.39001v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM services are billed per token and context windows are measured in tokens, yet the number of tokens needed for the same content varies across lang...
arXiv:2606. 24460v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Commercial large language models bill, scale latency, and budget context per token.
Large language models (LLMs) process text through subword tokenizers rather than directly reading characters or words. Because these tokenizers are trained predominantly on English-centric corpora, they introduce a systematic and often overlooked disadvantage for many non-English languages.
arXiv:2607. 24276v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) process text through subword tokenizers rather than directly reading characters or words.
arXiv:2609.35869v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Pre-tokenisation restricts which text fragments can become prediction units, but its compression cost is obscured when tokenisers are compared only und...
The paper introduces a Mixture-of-Agents (MoA) approach to quantify the per-token compute required by large language models. By having a panel of fifteen models of varying sizes attempt to reproduce each token, the authors define the smallest successful agent’s inference cost as the token’s sufficient compute, providing an upper bound on necessary computation. Experiments on benchmarks show that a 0.5B model can reproduce most tokens, and that the MoA-derived compute map can reduce latency in model routing and drafting tasks while improving or maintaining accuracy.
arXiv:2608. 13568v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Coding agents spend most of their context budget on retrieval.
Large language models are increasingly deployed as general-purpose educational and technical assistance systems, but their underlying infrastructure does not treat languages equally. One underexamined source of disparity is tokenization: semantically equivalent content can require substantially different token counts across languages, affecting API cost, latency, and usable context length before a model is invoked.
arXiv:2607. 15232v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A tokenizer fixed at the start of pre-training allocates vocabulary in proportion to the pre-training corpus, reflecting the deployment priorities at that time.
arXiv:2610.27590v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When unique pretraining data is scarce, models see the same tokens many times and are thought to memorize. Random-token replacement, an input-corrupt...
A transformer language model performs a bounded amount of computation per token, and recent work by Vishal Sikka, former CEO of Infosys, argues that this bound limits which tasks a model can carry out...
The paper introduces two new tokenisation algorithms—BottomUpLL and TopDownComp—to systematically explore the 2x2 design space defined by optimisation objective (compression vs. log‑likelihood) and search procedure (bottom‑up merging vs. top‑down pruning). Experiments across model sizes, vocabularies, and domains show that the search procedure, rather than the objective, consistently yields lower bits‑per‑byte, while no clear pattern emerges on the BLiMP benchmark. These findings clarify how tokeniser design choices influence language‑model performance and provide guidance for constructing tokenisers more principledly.