REVIEW 2 cited by
Greed is All You Need: An Evaluation of Tokenizer Inference Methods
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
While subword tokenizers such as BPE and WordPiece are typically used to build vocabularies for NLP models, the method of decoding text into a sequence of tokens from these vocabularies is often left unspecified, or ill-suited to the method in which they were constructed. We provide a controlled analysis of seven tokenizer inference methods across four different algorithms and three vocabulary sizes, performed on a novel intrinsic evaluation suite we curated for English, combining measures rooted in morphology, cognition, and information theory. We show that for the most commonly used tokenizers, greedy inference performs surprisingly well; and that SaGe, a recently-introduced contextually-informed tokenizer, outperforms all others on morphological alignment.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Train It and Forget It: Merge Lists are Unnecessary for BPE Inference in Language Models
Non-targeted merge-list-free BPE inference causes minimal downstream performance loss, unlike targeted merge-list corruption.
-
Evaluating Morphological Alignment of Tokenizers in 70 Languages
Morphological alignment of tokenizers across 70 languages explains only about 0.5% to 6% of variance in language model task performance, with a small negative trend.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.