arXiv Computation and Language By Felermino D. M. A. Ali, Millicent Ochieng, Ogbemi Ekwejunor-Etchie, Ade Famoti, Jacki O'Neill, Debjit Paul

Latent Core Tokenizer: Compress, but Meaningfully

Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →

The paper introduces the Latent Core Tokenizer (LCT), a language‑agnostic method that first discovers reusable linguistic units using Minimum Description Length, entropy‑based boundary signals, and morphotactic constraints before building a shared vocabulary. With a 200K‑token vocabulary across 104 languages, LCT shows lower fertility and higher MorphScore than BPE, Unigram, and parity‑aware BPE, while keeping tokenization cost comparable across languages. On four multilingual downstream benchmarks, LCT outperforms the baselines by 1.48, 1.83, and 2.00 aggregate points, demonstrating that compression alone does not guarantee representation quality and underscoring the role of morphology‑driven structural discovery.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Computation and Language.

arXiv AI
Sep 28

Achieving Tokenizer Flexibility in Language Models through Heuristic Adaptation and Supertoken Learning

The paper introduces TokenAdapt, a model‑agnostic tokenizer transplantation method that uses a hybrid heuristic to initialize new token embeddings, and a novel pre‑tokenization learning approach for multi‑word Supertokens to improve compression. TokenAdapt combines local subword decomposition and global semantic similarity to preserve semantics while reducing retraining needs. Empirical results show that TokenAdapt outperforms existing baselines such as Transtokenizer and ReTok, achieving lower perplexity ratios and significant compression gains.

By Shaurya Sharthak, Vinayak Pahalwan, Adithya Kamath, Adarsh Shirawalmath
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 15

To Each Language Its Tokenizer: Modular Tokenizers for Efficient Multilingual LLMs

The paper proposes a modular tokenizer framework for multilingual large language models, allowing the creation of language‑specific subtokenizers that match monolingual compression quality. It introduces a pretraining strategy that samples these subtokenizers to limit predictions to relevant vocabularies, enabling efficient training and inference. This approach reduces memory usage and speeds up inference without compromising performance.

By Franck Signe, Hippolyte Pilchen, Fran\c{c}ois Yvon, \'Edouard Grave
arXiv AI
Sep 17

Objective vs. Search: Decomposing What Makes a Good Tokeniser

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 Machine Learning
Jul 28

BHARATI: Morphology-Aware Tokenizers for Classical Indian Languages with Subword Fertility Analysis

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