Language Models are not Equally Robust to Non-Canonical Tokenization across Languages
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Despite the existence of exponentially many valid tokenizations for a given string, language models operate on a single canonical sequence deterministically produced by the tokenizer, leaving the broader tokenization space largely uncharacterized. In this paper, we investigate this overlooked space by studying the behavior of language models under non-canonical tokenizations across diverse languages. For English, prior work shows that models are largely invariant to alternative tokenizations that represent the same underlying string. We ask whether this invariance generalizes to other languages beyond English. We conduct a multilingual study across 27 languages spanning diverse scripts and evaluate LLM behavior under alternative tokenizations across six downstream tasks. We find that tokenization invariance does not generalize: model behavior varies substantially across languages with instruction-tuned models exhibiting an average relative performance drop of 23.7% for Llama-3.1-8B, 11.4% for Qwen3-8B, and 9.9% for Gemma-3-12B. The variation of tokenization invariance is systematic across languages. Languages that exhibit higher token fragmentation show significantly greater sensitivity to non-canonical tokenizations. Our study of tokenization robustness serves as a diagnostic of how tightly a model is coupled to its tokenizer. These results demonstrate that tokenization robustness is not a universal property of language models, but depends strongly on the language and its interaction with the tokenizer. We also show that LoRA fine-tuning with multi-tokenization training data provides an effective mitigation for tokenization sensitivity. Fine-tuning on English alone improves tokenization robustness across languages, while systematically sampling diverse non-canonical tokenizations achieves the strongest overall performance.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Jul 2026.
Builds on
19 of 28 references.
References · 19
- 2015Neural Machine Translation of Rare Words with Subword Unitscited by 2,918
- 2018SentencePiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for Neural Text Processingcited by 1,989
- 2022No Language Left Behind: Scaling Human-Centered Machine Translationcited by 1,312
- 2018Subword Regularization: Improving Neural Network Translation Models with Multiple Subword Candidatescited by 639
- 2023The Belebele Benchmark: a Parallel Reading Comprehension Dataset in 122 Language Variantscited by 311
- 2023Language Model Tokenizers Introduce Unfairness Between Languagescited by 214
- 2023Do All Languages Cost the Same? Tokenization in the Era of Commercial Language Modelscited by 192
- 2024Global MMLU: Understanding and Addressing Cultural and Linguistic Biases in Multilingual Evaluationcited by 191
- 2023Tokenization Impacts Multilingual Language Modeling: Assessing Vocabulary Allocation and Overlap Across Languagescited by 62
- 2024Trans-Tokenization and Cross-lingual Vocabulary Transfers: Language Adaptation of LLMs for Low-Resource NLPcited by 36
- 2024From Language Models over Tokens to Language Models over Characterscited by 31
- 2021You should evaluate your language model on marginal likelihood over tokenisationscited by 30
7 more
- 2024Where is the signal in tokenization space?cited by 21
- 2023Should you marginalize over possible tokenizations?cited by 18
- 2025TokAlign: Efficient Vocabulary Adaptation via Token Alignmentcited by 11
- 2025Vocab Diet: Reshaping the Vocabulary of LLMs via Vector Arithmeticcited by 1
- 2026Stochasticity in Tokenisation Improves Robustnesscited by 1
- 2026Optimizing Korean-Centric LLMs via Token Pruningcited by 1
- 2026TokAlign++: Advancing Vocabulary Adaptation via Better Token Alignmentcited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.