Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Splintering Nonconcatenative Languages for Better Tokenization

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 2503.14433 v2 pith:BJ4URPVH submitted 2025-03-18 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords hebrewarabicbettercommonlanguagesmalaymeaningfulmeasures
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Common subword tokenization algorithms like BPE and UnigramLM assume that text can be split into meaningful units by concatenative measures alone. This is not true for languages such as Hebrew and Arabic, where morphology is encoded in root-template patterns, or Malay and Georgian, where split affixes are common. We present SPLINTER, a pre-processing step which rearranges text into a linear form that better represents such nonconcatenative morphologies, enabling meaningful contiguous segments to be found by the tokenizer. We demonstrate SPLINTER's merit using both intrinsic measures evaluating token vocabularies in Hebrew, Arabic, and Malay; as well as on downstream tasks using BERT-architecture models trained for Hebrew.

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. ByteSpan: Information-Driven Subword Tokenisation

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A tokeniser that groups predictable bytes using a byte-level LM's surprisal or entropy achieves higher morphological alignment than BPE without loss of compression.

  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