mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

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

arXiv 2508.06621 ↗First posted 8 Aug 2025cs.CLcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Standard Byte-Pair Encoding (BPE) tokenization compresses text by pairing a learned token vocabulary with a detailed merge list. Recent work has shown that this merge list exposes a potential attack surface for extracting information about language model's training data. In this paper, we explore the downstream impact of BPE inference algorithms that do not rely on this merge list at all, and hence differ from the encoding process during BPE training. To address this question, we investigate two broad classes of BPE inference schemes that differ from BPE application during training: a) targeted deviation from merge-lists including random merge orders, and various corruptions of merge list involving deletion/truncation, and b) non-targeted BPE inference algorithms that do not depend on the merge list but focus on compressing the text either greedily or exactly. Extensive experiments across diverse language modeling tasks like accuracy-based QA benchmarks, machine translation, and open-ended generation reveal that while targeted deviation from the merge lists exhibits significant degradation in language model performance, the non-targeted merge-list-free inference algorithms result in minimal impact on downstream performance that is often much smaller than expected. These findings pave way for simpler and potentially more privacy-preserving tokenization schemes that do not catastrophically compromise model performance.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Aug 2025.

Builds on

23 of 32 references.

References · 23

  1. 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,768
  2. 2018Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challengecited by 4,710
  3. 2015Neural Machine Translation of Rare Words with Subword Unitscited by 2,898
  4. 2018SentencePiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for Neural Text Processingcited by 1,973
  5. 2020COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluationcited by 1,024
  6. 2019BPE-Dropout: Simple and Effective Subword Regularizationcited by 189
  7. 2020Byte Pair Encoding is Suboptimal for Language Model Pretrainingcited by 189
  8. 2021Between words and characters: A Brief History of Open-Vocabulary Modeling and Tokenization in NLPcited by 130
  9. 2024Coercing LLMs to do and reveal (almost) anythingcited by 88
  10. 2024Unpacking Tokenization: Evaluating Text Compression and its Correlation with Model Performancecited by 61
  11. 2024From Tokens to Words: On the Inner Lexicon of LLMscited by 46
  12. 2023A Formal Perspective on Byte-Pair Encodingcited by 35
11 more
  1. 2024Greed is All You Need: An Evaluation of Tokenizer Inference Methodscited by 34
  2. 2023Analyzing Cognitive Plausibility of Subword Tokenizationcited by 30
  3. 2024Forking Paths in Neural Text Generationcited by 30
  4. 2021You should evaluate your language model on marginal likelihood over tokenisationscited by 29
  5. 2024From Language Models over Tokens to Language Models over Characterscited by 28
  6. 2024Where is the signal in tokenization space?cited by 21
  7. 2024The Foundations of Tokenization: Statistical and Computational Concernscited by 20
  8. 2023Unnatural Error Correction: GPT-4 Can Almost Perfectly Handle Unnatural Scrambled Textcited by 19
  9. 2024Data Mixture Inference: What do BPE Tokenizers Reveal about their Training Data?cited by 13
  10. 2023What changes when you randomly choose BPE merge operations? Not muchcited by 10
  11. 2025Language Models over Canonical Byte-Pair Encodingscited by 8

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.