Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This research isolates the impact of tokenization search procedures versus optimization objectives on language model efficiency, revealing that bottom-up merging consistently outperforms top-down pruning in compression tasks regardless of the underlying objective function. By introducing two novel algorithms to complete the design space, the study provides empirical guidance for constructing more principled tokenizers without conflating methodological variables.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Objective vs. Search: Decomposing What Makes a Good Tokeniser

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2609.19145v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Two dominant tokenisation algorithms are used by modern language models: byte-pair encoding (BPE) and UnigramLM. These differ along two orthogonal axes: their optimisation objective (compression vs. log-likelihood) and their search procedure (bottom-up merging vs. top-down pruning). Existing comparisons confound these axes, making it unclear whether their observed differences stem from what is being optimised vs. how it is being optimised. We disentangle the two by introducing two new tokenisation algorithms that complete this 2x2 design space: BottomUpLL, a bottom-up likelihood-based tokeniser, and TopDownComp, a top-down compression-based tokeniser. We train language models with tokenisers produced by each algorithm, varying: model size, vocabulary sizes, and domain (English-only vs. multilingual). Evaluating models on bits-per-byte, we find that the search procedure -- not the objective -- is the dominant factor: bottom-up tokenisers consistently achieve lower bits-per-byte in most settings. Evaluating models on the BLiMP task, however, shows no consistent relationship between design choice and performance. Overall, our results disentangle the effect of tokeniser design choices on language modelling performance, offering concrete guidance for their more principled construction.

Title:Objective vs. Search: Decomposing What Makes a Good Tokeniser

Abstract:Two dominant tokenisation algorithms are used by modern language models: byte-pair encoding (BPE) and UnigramLM. These differ along two orthogonal axes: their optimisation objective (compression vs. log-likelihood) and their search procedure (bottom-up merging vs. top-down pruning). Existing comparisons confound these axes, making it unclear whether their observed differences stem from what is being optimised vs. how it is being optimised. We disentangle the two by introducing two new tokenisation algorithms that complete this 2x2 design space: BottomUpLL, a bottom-up likelihood-based tokeniser, and TopDownComp, a top-down compression-based tokeniser. We train language models with tokenisers produced by each algorithm, varying: model size, vocabulary sizes, and domain (English-only vs. multilingual). Evaluating models on bits-per-byte, we find that the search procedure -- not the objective -- is the dominant factor: bottom-up tokenisers consistently achieve lower bits-per-byte in most settings. Evaluating models on the BLiMP task, however, shows no consistent relationship between design choice and performance. Overall, our results disentangle the effect of tokeniser design choices on language modelling performance, offering concrete guidance for their more principled construction.

Accepted at EMNLP 2026. 20 pages, 4 figures, 10 tables. Code: this https URL

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2609.19145 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2609.19145v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.19145 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 · 294 words

Related coverage