Writing-System-Level Tokenizer Adaptation for Byte-Level BPE
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Pretrained byte-level BPE tokenizers can segment underrepresented languages inefficiently. Replacing a tokenizer changes the meaning of nearly every token ID, while vocabulary expansion enlarges the model's embedding and output matrices. We study post-hoc adaptation that keeps the model-vocabulary size fixed and preserves most existing token-to-ID assignments as a construction-time compatibility property. Directly transferring tokens from a language-specific tokenizer does not guarantee derivability through the target BPE merge graph: an inserted entry can conflict with the target's greedy merge ranks. We formalize this failure as the merge ordering problem and introduce BPE-guided insertion, which builds each transferred token through a target-reachable decomposition. Our pipeline uses script-aware row selection to limit collateral fragmentation, reconstructs target-script byte-level prerequisites, and applies guided insertion to maintain merge-graph reachability. On Ukrainian adaptations of Nemotron and GPT-OSS, it reduces token counts by 33.5% and 36.6%, keeps changes on English and the evaluated four-language European aggregate within 0.05%, and retains 78.5%/77.3% of original model-vocabulary rows at the same IDs. Constraint-matched global and frequency-based removal achieve similar Ukrainian compression but increase English/European token counts by 0.7-2.2%; fresh same-size retraining compresses Ukrainian slightly more but retains effectively no same-ID rows and increases English token counts by 7.6-8.6%. The reallocation increases token counts on the evaluated three-language Cyrillic micro-aggregate by 6.7%/10.1%. Structural audits find all 28,134/45,398 inserted BPE nodes reachable under ordinary rank-ordered merging and no retained same-ID model-vocabulary entry newly broken. We release all tokenizers and code.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Aug 2026.
Builds on
17 of 27 references.
References · 17
- 2020How Good is Your Tokenizer? On the Monolingual Performance of Multilingual Language Modelscited by 318
- 2023Language Model Tokenizers Introduce Unfairness Between Languagescited by 214
- 2022Adapting Pre-trained Language Models to African Languages via Multilingual Adaptive Fine-Tuningcited by 149
- 2024Aya Expanse: Combining Research Breakthroughs for a New Multilingual Frontiercited by 129
- 2020Extending Multilingual BERT to Low-Resource Languagescited by 88
- 2023XLM-V: Overcoming the Vocabulary Bottleneck in Multilingual Masked Language Modelscited by 88
- 2024Fishing for Magikarp: Automatically Detecting Under-trained Tokens in Large Language Modelscited by 46
- 2022Overlap-based Vocabulary Generation Improves Cross-lingual Transfer Among Related Languagescited by 25
- 2023Embedding structure matters: Comparing methods to adapt multilingual vocabularies to new languagescited by 16
- 2024Efficient and Effective Vocabulary Expansion Towards Multilingual Large Language Modelscited by 15
- 2024Bielik 7B v0.1: A Polish Language Model -- Development, Insights, and Evaluationcited by 15
- 2025Tokenization is Sensitive to Language Variationcited by 13
5 more
- 2023Tik-to-Tok: Translating Language Models One Token at a Time: An Embedding Initialization Strategy for Efficient Language Adaptationcited by 11
- 2025Beyond Text Compression: Evaluating Tokenizers Across Scalescited by 11
- 2025Model-Aware Tokenizer Transfercited by 6
- 2024From English-Centric to Effective Bilingual: LLMs with Custom Tokenizers for Underrepresented Languagescited by 5
- 2025Achieving Tokenizer Flexibility in Language Models through Heuristic Adaptation and Supertoken Learningcited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.