arXiv:2607. 07047v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Understanding the geometric structure of pre-trained language model embeddings matters for interpretability and safety.
By Szczepan Konior, Alexandre Quemy, Przemys{\l}aw Klocek, Gr\'egoire Cattan, Bart{\l}omiej Sobieski
arXiv:2606. 18717v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Turkish is agglutinative: meaning is carried by morphemes, yet the subword tokenizers that drive modern language models split words by corpus statistics, fragmenting semantically loaded suffixes and -- in the case of WordPiece and rule-based analyzers -- failing to decode their output back to the original text.
By Tolga \c{S}akar
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
arXiv:2607. 05691v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Every chemical language model reading SMILES begins with a tokenizer, yet the field has inherited byte-pair encoding (BPE) from natural language with little scrutiny.
By Hunter Heidenreich
The standard way to compare two text embeddings is cosine similarity. Scattered studies report that a different metric does better, but never pin down the geometric condition that decides when, or why.
arXiv:2603. 18482v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Standard decoding strategies for text generation, including top-$k$, nucleus sampling, and contrastive search, select tokens based on likelihood, restricting outputs to high-probability regions.
By Esteban Garces Arias, Nurzhan Sapargali, Christian Heumann, Matthias A{\ss}enmacher