How Far Should Tokenization Go? Predictive Effectiveness and Relational Losslessness
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
GPT-style models have achieved remarkable success with finite vocabularies of reusable tokens, making the token interface a central component of modern sequence modeling. Symbolic music appears naturally compatible with this paradigm: it consists of discrete note events and recurring structures such as chords, motifs, and phrases. However, when tokenization moves beyond language, the interface must be specified for each domain. Existing work offers many effective designs, but no unified criterion for deciding what tokenization should represent and how far it should go. Using predictive codelength as a common criterion, we formulate the Effectiveness--Losslessness Framework to define where tokenization should begin and where it should end. The Fact--Token Boundary marks where observation-determined structure should enter the token interface, through operations such as coordinate construction. Within this interface, the resulting carrier may be reversibly recoded without changing the represented facts. The Token--State Boundary marks where tokenization should stop: relations that depend on context should remain for model-state computation rather than being fixed in advance by the tokenizer. We validate the framework through controlled multi-seed symbolic-music experiments, with an independent-corpus replication of the temporal intervention. Making musical time explicit consistently reduces predictive code and also improves pitch and duration prediction, while tonal-frame canonicalization and pitch factorization provide further gains. Fixed circle-of-fifths pitch coordinates instead increase predictive code, suggesting that imposing a fixed pitch relation before context can burden prediction. Reversible BPE substantially shortens the carrier but increases predictive codelength in every seed, showing that carrier compaction alone does not guarantee predictive gain.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Aug 2026.
Builds on
20 of 25 references.
References · 20
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
- 2018Music Transformercited by 211
- 2020A Theory of Usable Information Under Computational Constraintscited by 162
- 2021MusicBERT: Symbolic Music Understanding with Large-Scale Pre-Trainingcited by 89
- 2024Tokenization Is More Than Compressioncited by 89
- 2024DeCo: Decoupling Token Compression from Semantic Abstraction in Multimodal Large Language Modelscited by 75
- 2023Tokenization and the Noiseless Channelcited by 59
- 2022Museformer: Transformer with Fine- and Coarse-Grained Attention for Music Generationcited by 49
- 2024MuPT: A Generative Symbolic Music Pretrained Transformercited by 33
- 2024The Foundations of Tokenization: Statistical and Computational Concernscited by 22
- 2023Byte Pair Encoding for Symbolic Musiccited by 19
8 more
- 2022A Domain-Knowledge-Inspired Music Embedding Space and a Novel Attention Mechanism for Symbolic Music Modelingcited by 17
- 2022ComMU: Dataset for Combinatorial Music Generationcited by 8
- 2025MIDI-GPT: A Controllable Generative Model for Computer-Assisted Multitrack Music Compositioncited by 8
- 2023Impact of time and note duration tokenizations on deep learning symbolic music modelingcited by 6
- 2025Moonbeam: A MIDI Foundation Model Using Both Absolute and Relative Music Attributescited by 4
- 2026Lost in Tokenization: Fundamental Trade-offs in Graph Tokenization for Transformerscited by 2
- 2025MuseTok: Symbolic Music Tokenization for Generation and Semantic Understandingcited by 1
- 2026Effective Context in Transformers: An Analysis of Fragmentation and Tokenizationcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.