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:2511. 20849v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We introduce a new tokenizer for language models that minimizes the average tokens per character, thereby reducing the number of tokens needed to represent text during training and to generate text during inference.
By Dong Dong, Weijie Su
arXiv:2512. 20757v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Tokenizers provide the fundamental basis through which text is represented and processed by language models (LMs).
By G\"ul Sena Alt{\i}nta\c{s}, Malikeh Ehghaghi, Brian Lester, Fengyuan Liu, Wanru Zhao, Marco Ciccone, Colin Raffel
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: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...
By Thomas Serval
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.
By Jimmy T. H. Smith, Tarek Dakhran, Alberto Cabrera, Simon S. Lee, Paul Pak, Aditya Tadimeti, Tim Seyde, Maxime Labonne, Alexander Amini, Mathias Lechner
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.
By Ahmetcan Yavuz, Clara Meister, Tiago Pimentel
arXiv:2607. 24276v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) process text through subword tokenizers rather than directly reading characters or words.
By Priyansh Srivastava
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. 23319v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Standard subword tokenization algorithms such as Byte-Pair Encoding (BPE) and SentencePiece are trained predominantly on modern language corpora and produce inefficient segmentations when applied to classical Indian languages.
By Poornima Kumaresan, Pavithra Muruganantham, Lakshmi Rajendran, Santhosh Sivasubramani
The paper investigates how many languages should be jointly trained in a single lexical normalization model. Using a fixed-capacity character-level model across twelve languages, it finds that accuracy peaks when a language is trained with only a few others—typically one to four—and then declines sharply as more languages are added, dropping about forty percent. A control experiment keeping total training data constant shows the decline is due to competition for model capacity rather than data scarcity, and no reliable typological rule predicts the optimal number of co‑training languages.
By Saman Rahbar
arXiv:2608. 03803v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multilingual language models are deployed across a hundred or more languages, yet most benchmarks test whether a model can perform a task _in_ a language rather than whether it commands the language itself, conflating fluency with proficiency.
By Tom\'a\v{s} Burkert, Angelika Peljak-{\L}api\'nska, David Zelen\'y