Skip to content
Preprint

Vowel Signs Are Not Letters: A Pre-tokenization Ceiling on Multilingual Tokenizer Fertility

Aug 2026 · 3 citations · 31 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

Byte-level BPE tokenizers that use the HuggingFace ByteLevel pre-tokenizer inherit GPT-2's word regex, where a word is defined as \p{L}+, one or more Unicode letters, which splits each word at every vowel sign, and formalises this effect as a training-free lower bound on fertility.

Abstract

Byte-level BPE tokenizers that use the HuggingFace ByteLevel pre-tokenizer inherit GPT-2's word regex, where a word is defined as \p{L}+, one or more Unicode letters. In abugida scripts, vowels are written as combining marks; this pattern therefore splits each word at every vowel sign. Since BPE merges only within a pre-token, those splits persist through training regardless of vocabulary size or corpus composition. We formalise this effect as a training-free lower bound on fertility. Across 26 languages from a parallel corpus, every one of the 17 abugidas is affected, ranging from 1.47x (Tibetan) to 9.02x (Thai), whereas Latin, Cyrillic, Hangul, and Han show exactly 1.00x. For 5 languages, matched tokenizer pairs that differ only in this character class fall within 2.2% of the predicted floor, scoring 4.78 versus 1.58 tokens per word on Nepali. When the Nepali share of the training corpus is swept from 5% to 95%, the broken tokenizer barely shifts at all (1.7%) while the fixed one shifts 33.9%, which separates a structural ceiling from a data shortage without needing to inspect any code. We train three 268M models that differ only in their tokenizer; the fixed variant achieves 4.43% lower held-out Nepali bits per byte at equal compute, and it still leads when given the same bytes with 1.59x the compute. A census of 3,479 HuggingFace repositories finds the letters-only word class present in 63.3% of the most-downloaded text-generation models, accounting for 72.5% of their downloads. GPT-4o's o200k pattern already uses a mark-aware word class, making the repair itself prior art. We quantify its value, show how to recognise its absence from symptoms alone, map which scripts it reaches, measure how widely it is deployed, and release a 65,536-entry Nepali-English tokenizer with a harness that regenerates every number here from public data on a laptop.

View source

Similar papers

#natural language process... Preprint Sep 2026

Fewer Words, Not Fewer Tokens: Measuring the Sanskrit Tokenization Penalty per Proposition

Sanskrit fuses case, number, person and tense into word endings and chains clauses into compounds, so it is information-dense per word. Whether that density survives subword tokenization is a separate question, to be asked per unit of meaning rather than per word. On identical FLORES-200 devtest content, Sanskrit costs...

Dev Sharma · 0 citations
#small language model Open access Sep 2026

Root, Suffix, or Byte? A Reproducible Study of Sub Word Tokenization for a Morphologically Rich Language (Russian)

Tokenization is the first design choice in a language model and one of the most frequently overlooked for morphologically rich languages, as it directly shapes sequence length and how related word forms are segmented into reusable sub word units. Using Russian as a case study, we train sub word tokenizers from scratch...

Mardiyeva Shoxzoda Totliboy Qizi, S. Djamaldinova, Sabina Umirzakova · 0 citations
#natural language process... Preprint Aug 2026

Type-Driven Tokenization for Brahmic Scripts

Standard tokenizers used in large language models produce malformed text when applied to Brahmic scripts. They are a family of abugidas, writing systems whose consonants carry an inherent vowel that dependent marks can modify. They include Devanagari, Telugu, Tamil, Kannada, and others. The underlying issue is that the...

S. Kapila, Rakshika Bagavathy · 0 citations
Open access Oct 2026

THE SINDHI TOKEN TAX: ORTHOGRAPHIC PENALTY AND TOKENIZATION INEQUITY BETWEEN ENGLISH AND SINDHI IN LARGE LANGUAGE MODELS

Large language models (LLMs) do not read words; they read tokens, and the tokenizer decides how many tokens a language needs to say the same thing. This paper introduces the notion of a Sindhi token tax and tests it empirically for Pakistan’s English–Sindhi context. Using 1,004 parallel sentences from the FLORES-200 be...

Ali Siddiqui, Shauban Ali Solangi, Uzma Ehsan · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.