Pith. sign in

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

arxiv 2403.01289 v2 pith:BY5CYJQU submitted 2024-03-02 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords inferencetokenizerevaluationmethodmethodstokenizersusedvocabularies
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
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.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Train It and Forget It: Merge Lists are Unnecessary for BPE Inference in Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Non-targeted merge-list-free BPE inference causes minimal downstream performance loss, unlike targeted merge-list corruption.

  2. Evaluating Morphological Alignment of Tokenizers in 70 Languages

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    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.

Pith tools