Small Language Models Also Work With Small Vocabularies: Probing the Linguistic Abilities of Grapheme- and Phoneme-Based Baby Llamas
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Recent work investigates whether LMs learn human-like linguistic generalizations and representations from developmentally plausible amounts of data. Yet, the basic linguistic units processed in these LMs are determined by subword-based tokenization, which limits their validity as models of learning at and below the word level. In this paper, we explore the potential of tokenization-free, phoneme- and grapheme-based language models. We demonstrate that small models based on the Llama architecture can achieve strong linguistic performance on standard syntactic and novel lexical/phonetic benchmarks when trained with character-level vocabularies. We further show that phoneme-based models almost match grapheme-based models in standard tasks and novel evaluations. Our findings suggest a promising direction for creating more linguistically plausible language models that are better suited for computational studies of language acquisition and processing.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 60 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Oct 2024.
Builds on
19 of 60 references.
References · 19
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 12,865
- 2021Probing Classifiers: Promises, Shortcomings, and Advancescited by 831
- 2022A Survey on In-context Learningcited by 717
- 2019BLiMP: The Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs for Englishcited by 553
- 2021ByT5: Towards a token-free future with pre-trained byte-to-byte modelscited by 504
- 2021CANINE: Pre-training an Efficient Tokenization-Free Encoder for Language Representationcited by 229
- 2021Charformer: Fast Character Transformers via Gradient-based Subword Tokenizationcited by 158
- 2023Baby Llama: knowledge distillation from an ensemble of teachers trained on a small dataset with no performance penaltycited by 57
- 2023Prompting is not a substitute for probability measurements in large language modelscited by 43
- 2024Greed is All You Need: An Evaluation of Tokenizer Inference Methodscited by 34
- 2023Analyzing Cognitive Plausibility of Subword Tokenizationcited by 30
- 2023BabySLM: language-acquisition-friendly benchmark of self-supervised spoken language modelscited by 29
7 more
- 2024[Call for Papers] The 2nd BabyLM Challenge: Sample-efficient pretraining on a developmentally plausible corpuscited by 26
- 2021Phoneme-BERT: Joint Language Modelling of Phoneme Sequence and ASR Transcriptcited by 21
- 2023XPhoneBERT: A Pre-trained Multilingual Model for Phoneme Representations for Text-to-Speechcited by 16
- 2019On the Use/Misuse of the Term 'Phoneme'cited by 9
- 2022Are word boundaries useful for unsupervised language learning?cited by 8
- 2023What is the best recipe for character-level encoder-only modelling?cited by 6
- 2019Tabula nearly rasa: Probing the Linguistic Knowledge of Character-Level Neural Language Models Trained on Unsegmented Textcited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 2.
5 papers.
- 2025Do Construction Distributions Shape Formal Language Learning In German BabyLMs?cited by 11
- 2025Subword models struggle with word learning, but surprisal hides itcited by 6
- 2026PRiSM: Benchmarking Phone Realization in Speech Modelscited by 4
- 2025BabyLM's First Words: Word Segmentation as a Phonological Probing Taskcited by 2
- 2026Cross-Linguistic Effects in Bilingual Phoneme BabyLMscited by 0
- 2026Cross-Linguistic Effects in Bilingual Phoneme BabyLMs29 Sep 2026
- 2026PRiSM: Benchmarking Phone Realization in Speech Models20 Jan 2026
- 2025BabyLM's First Words: Word Segmentation as a Phonological Probing Task4 Apr 2025
- 2025Do Construction Distributions Shape Formal Language Learning In German BabyLMs?14 Mar 2025
- 2025Subword models struggle with word learning, but surprisal hides it18 Feb 2025