On the Persistent Effects of Lexicality in Large Language Models

Tokenization is a necessary component within the current architecture of many language mod-els, including the transformer-based large language models (LLMs) of Generative AI, yet its impact on the model's cognition is often overlooked. We argue that LLMs demonstrate that the Distributional Hypothesis (DH) is sufficient for reasonably human-like language performance (particularly with respect to inferential lexical competence), and that the emergence of human-meaningful linguistic units among tokens and current structural constraints motivate changes to existing, linguistically-agnostic tokenization techniques, particularly with respect to their roles as (1) vehicles for conveying salient distributional patterns from human language to the model and as (2) semantic primitives. We explore tokenizations from a BPE tokenizer; extant model vocabularies obtained from Hugging Face and tiktoken; and the information in exemplar token vectors as they move through the layers of a RoBERTa (large) model. Besides creating suboptimal semantic building blocks and obscuring the model's access to the necessary distributional patterns, we describe how tokens and pretraining can act as a backdoor for bias and other unwanted content, which current alignment practices may not remediate. Additionally, we relay evidence that the tokenization algorithm's objective function impacts the LLM's cognition, despite being arguably meaningfully insulated from the main system intelligence. Finally, we discuss implications for architectural choices, meaning construction, the primacy of language for thought, and LLM cognition. [First uploaded to arXiv in December, 2024.]

Large language models (LLMs) are commonly prompted and interfaced with human-readable natural language, even when the intended reader is another model. This paper investigates whether semantic information can be encoded in compact, non-standard textual forms that sacrifice human readability while remaining recoverable by LLMs. We refer to this class of model-centric textual representations as BabelTele, approached here not as a fixed protocol but as an empirical probe into LLMs' capacity to generate and interpret such representations. Through readability diagnostics, model likelihood measures, human questionnaires, and downstream task evaluations, we find that BabelTele can substantially depart from ordinary natural language while preserving core semantics for instruction-tuned LLMs. As a task-agnostic representational paradigm, BabelTele demonstrates high information density, maintaining 99.5% semantic fidelity even when the text volume is condensed to 27.9% of its original length. We further evaluate its semantic robustness in cross-model transfer, agent memory, and multi-agent communication. Results suggest that BabelTele can reduce context overhead while generally maintaining reliable downstream performance, although its effectiveness depends on the compressor-reader pair and task setting. These findings indicate that human readability, natural-language typicality, and model-side semantic recoverability can be partially decoupled, opening a path toward model-native representations in future exploration of LLM systems.

One of the most common complaints about large language models (LLMs) is their prompt sensitivity -- that is, the fact that their ability to perform a task or provide a correct answer to a question can depend unpredictably on the way the question is posed. We investigate this variation by comparing two very different but commonly-used styles of prompting: instruction-based prompts, which describe the task in natural language, and example-based prompts, which provide in-context few-shot demonstration pairs to illustrate the task. We find that, despite large variation in performance as a function of the prompt, the model engages some common underlying mechanisms across different prompts of a task. Specifically, we identify task-specific attention heads whose outputs literally describe the task -- which we dub lexical task heads -- and show that these heads are shared across prompting styles and trigger subsequent answer production. We further find that behavioral variation between prompts can be explained by the degree to which these heads are activated, and that failures are at least sometimes due to competing task representations that dilute the signal of the target task. Our results together present an increasingly clear picture of how LLMs' internal representations can explain behavior that otherwise seems idiosyncratic to users and developers.