aiqbench analysis
This research systematically evaluates over 20 token embedding initialization strategies for vocabulary extension in large language models, demonstrating that subword composition methods significantly outperform standard baselines. By optimizing input-output asymmetry and norm calibration, the proposed pipeline reduces continued pre-training steps by more than sixfold while achieving superior accuracy on new languages like Hindi. The study also highlights that traditional metrics such as initialization loss are unreliable predictors of convergence compared to lightweight empirical testing.
Beyond Initialization Loss: A Systematic Study of Token Embedding Initialization Strategies for LLM Vocabulary Extension
arXiv:2608.03494v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Vocabulary extension is an efficient way to adapt pretrained large language models (LLMs) to new languages, but the initialization of newly added token embeddings can strongly affect continued pre-training (CPT) efficiency. We present a systematic study of more than 20 initialization strategies for Hindi vocabulary extension in Nemotron-3-Nano-30B-A3B. Our comparison spans vocabulary-averaging baselines; external and learned initialization methods, including FOCUS, top-k semantic retrieval, and residual MLP mappings; subword composition; norm calibration; and input-output asymmetry. We find that subword composition methods outperform both vocabulary averaging and external/learned initialization approaches. Within subword composition, asymmetric variants achieve the lowest observed early validation loss and reveal distinct preferences for input and output embedding initialization. The best observed configuration initializes the input embedding matrix with uniform subword averaging and Hindi-specific norm calibration, and the output language modeling head with character-length-weighted subword averaging. Relative to the standard Mean-all baseline, this full initialization pipeline reaches comparable validation loss with over a 6x reduction in CPT steps and exceeds the baseline's 3,500-step MILU-Hindi accuracy after only 500 steps. Finally, we show that initialization loss and initialization bits-per-byte (Init BPB) are unreliable predictors of downstream convergence, whereas lightweight CPT, as few as 50 steps, provides a cost-effective and reliable signal for selecting the best initialization strategy.
Abstract:Vocabulary extension is an efficient way to adapt pretrained large language models (LLMs) to new languages, but the initialization of newly added token embeddings can strongly affect continued pre-training (CPT) efficiency. We present a systematic study of more than 20 initialization strategies for Hindi vocabulary extension in Nemotron-3-Nano-30B-A3B. Our comparison spans vocabulary-averaging baselines; external and learned initialization methods, including FOCUS, top-k semantic retrieval, and residual MLP mappings; subword composition; norm calibration; and input-output asymmetry. We find that subword composition methods outperform both vocabulary averaging and external/learned initialization approaches. Within subword composition, asymmetric variants achieve the lowest observed early validation loss and reveal distinct preferences for input and output embedding initialization. The best observed configuration initializes the input embedding matrix with uniform subword averaging and Hindi-specific norm calibration, and the output language modeling head with character-length-weighted subword averaging. Relative to the standard Mean-all baseline, this full initialization pipeline reaches comparable validation loss with over a 6x reduction in CPT steps and exceeds the baseline's 3,500-step MILU-Hindi accuracy after only 500 steps. Finally, we show that initialization loss and initialization bits-per-byte (Init BPB) are unreliable predictors of downstream convergence, whereas lightweight CPT, as few as 50 steps, provides a cost-effective and reliable signal for selecting the best initialization strategy.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2608.03494 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2608.03494v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.03494 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 305 words
Related coverage

Challenge: Hand coding weights for efficient sequence memorisation
AI Alignment Forum · Jul 23, 2026

Reflections on unlearning and inoculation
LessWrong · Sep 20, 2026

Can we change an AI model’s architecture without retraining it from scratch?
Amazon Science · Oct 12, 2026
Latent reasoning architectures would likely undermine CoT, our strongest oversight tool
AI Alignment Forum · Sep 23, 2026