Joint Optimization for Greedy Longest-match Tokenization
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Recent work has shown that subword vocabularies can be trained to optimize compression for a specific inference rule rather than relying on greedy heuristics such as Byte Pair Encoding (BPE). We extend this approach to greedy left-to-right longest-match decoding, the fast and widely used inference rule underlying WordPiece. We introduce Joint Optimization for Greedy Longest-Match Tokenization (JOLT), which formulates vocabulary learning as an integer program over vocabulary-selection and segmentation-choice variables. Greedy-consistency constraints ensure that each optimized segmentation exactly matches the segmentation produced by longest-match decoding under the selected vocabulary, aligning the training objective with deployment-time tokenization. To scale the optimization, we solve a linear programming relaxation and selectively introduce higher-order segmentations only for unresolved pretokens. The resulting relaxation is nearly integral: rounded solutions fall within 0.008 - 0.176 % of the LP lower bound on the training scope. The bound also shows that BPE is already within 1 - 2 % of the best achievable compression under greedy longest-match decoding, while JOLT closes 89.6 - 99.4 % of the remaining gap. On held-out validation data across four training scopes and vocabulary sizes of 32,000 and 64,000, JOLT produces up to 0.78 % fewer tokens than BPE, with improvements generally increasing as the training scope grows. These results demonstrate that inference-aligned vocabulary optimization can recover most of the limited compression headroom left by BPE while providing a certificate of near-optimality.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 18 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Jul 2026.
Builds on
14 of 18 references.
References · 14
- 2015Neural Machine Translation of Rare Words with Subword Unitscited by 2,898
- 2020The Pile: An 800GB Dataset of Diverse Text for Language Modelingcited by 2,346
- 2016Google's Neural Machine Translation System: Bridging the Gap between Human and Machine Translationcited by 1,471
- 2018Subword Regularization: Improving Neural Network Translation Models with Multiple Subword Candidatescited by 632
- 2020How Good is Your Tokenizer? On the Monolingual Performance of Multilingual Language Modelscited by 313
- 2023Tokenizer Choice For LLM Training: Negligible or Crucial?cited by 105
- 2024Tokenization Is More Than Compressioncited by 87
- 2023The MiniPile Challenge for Data-Efficient Language Modelscited by 74
- 2024Unpacking Tokenization: Evaluating Text Compression and its Correlation with Model Performancecited by 61
- 2024Greed is All You Need: An Evaluation of Tokenizer Inference Methodscited by 34
- 2024Tokenisation is NP-Completecited by 10
- 2025Tokenisation over Bounded Alphabets is Hardcited by 5
2 more
- 2026Tokenisation via Convex Relaxationscited by 4
- 2026Tokenization with Split Treescited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.