mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Removable and Irreducible: A Token-Cost Ledger for the Multilingual Tokenization Tax

arXiv 2609.00378 ↗First posted 17 Jul 2026cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models pay a well-documented tax on non-English text: the same content costs several times more tokens, and because attention is quadratic in sequence length, far more compute. We ask how much of this tax is removable. Framing the token layer as source coding -- transformer compute is monotone in sequence length, whose per-atom floor is the Shannon rate H/log2 V, an object already applied to tokenizers in prior work -- we assemble a token-cost ledger that splits each language's cost, at fixed parallel content, into a removable coding redundancy, a residual coding slack, an intrinsic-content term, and an orthogonal, irreducible grapheme-to-phoneme term that governs the multimodal rather than the text cost. On FLORES-200 across eight languages, a production tokenizer costs up to 8.9× more tokens for Indic scripts than for English; a script-matched code trained on 1,012 sentences removes a median 64% of that excess (bootstrap 95% CI [0.638, 0.647]), and a script-fair information floor shows the intrinsic content differs by under 6% -- the tax is representational, not informational. A constructed code removes 98% of a controlled source's redundancy, and the token tax implies up to 79× attention cost. We are explicit about scope and failure: this is compute-and-memory accounting, not a model-quality claim; we neither measure nor claim the cross-lingual direction of the orthographic term; and our matched code is a conservative small-data demonstration. We contribute the unifying ledger, the removable-versus-intrinsic attribution, and an open one-command harness.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 20 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Jul 2026.

Builds on

13 of 20 references.

References · 13

  1. 2022No Language Left Behind: Scaling Human-Centered Machine Translationcited by 1,312
  2. 2023Language Model Tokenizers Introduce Unfairness Between Languagescited by 214
  3. 2020Byte Pair Encoding is Suboptimal for Language Model Pretrainingcited by 192
  4. 2024Byte Latent Transformer: Patches Scale Better Than Tokenscited by 146
  5. 2024Scaling Laws with Vocabulary: Larger Models Deserve Larger Vocabulariescited by 118
  6. 2024Tokenization Is More Than Compressioncited by 89
  7. 2023Tokenization and the Noiseless Channelcited by 59
  8. 2024Toward a Theory of Tokenization in LLMscited by 30
  9. 2024The Foundations of Tokenization: Statistical and Computational Concernscited by 22
  10. 2025The Token Tax: Systematic Bias in Multilingual Tokenizationcited by 14
  11. 2025MUTANT: A Recipe for Multilingual Tokenizer Designcited by 4
  12. 2026Compute Optimal Tokenizationcited by 4
1 more
  1. 2025Clarifying orthography: Orthographic transparency as compressibilitycited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.