mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Joint Optimization for Greedy Longest-match Tokenization

arXiv 2607.23362 ↗First posted 25 Jul 2026cs.CLcited by 1

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

  1. 2015Neural Machine Translation of Rare Words with Subword Unitscited by 2,898
  2. 2020The Pile: An 800GB Dataset of Diverse Text for Language Modelingcited by 2,346
  3. 2016Google's Neural Machine Translation System: Bridging the Gap between Human and Machine Translationcited by 1,471
  4. 2018Subword Regularization: Improving Neural Network Translation Models with Multiple Subword Candidatescited by 632
  5. 2020How Good is Your Tokenizer? On the Monolingual Performance of Multilingual Language Modelscited by 313
  6. 2023Tokenizer Choice For LLM Training: Negligible or Crucial?cited by 105
  7. 2024Tokenization Is More Than Compressioncited by 87
  8. 2023The MiniPile Challenge for Data-Efficient Language Modelscited by 74
  9. 2024Unpacking Tokenization: Evaluating Text Compression and its Correlation with Model Performancecited by 61
  10. 2024Greed is All You Need: An Evaluation of Tokenizer Inference Methodscited by 34
  11. 2024Tokenisation is NP-Completecited by 10
  12. 2025Tokenisation over Bounded Alphabets is Hardcited by 5
2 more
  1. 2026Tokenisation via Convex Relaxationscited by 4
  2. 2026Tokenization with Split Treescited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.