Rate-Utility Frontiers for Language Encodings: Comparing Tokens, Bytes, and Pixels Under Controlled Linguistic Content
Authors: Ingo Ziegler, Martin Krebs, Desmond Elliott
Organizations: Department of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen
Abstract
Language models encode text as subword tokens, raw bytes, or rendered pixels, but these encodings are usually compared under modeling constraints that expose different amounts of linguistic content to models across different languages. We instead ask what each encoding preserves when both the content and the downstream capacity are controlled. Using verified parallel sentences across thirteen languages and five scripts, we compare tokens, bytes, and pixels through a shared bottleneck whose width is swept to trace rate-utility frontiers. This separates three quantities that are often conflated: the number of input positions an encoding creates, the latent capacity available after encoding, and the task-relevant information that survives compression. We evaluate three utilities: surface form preservation, cross-lingual sentence alignment, and topic classification. No encoding dominates across tasks or capacity regimes. Pixels preserve surface form best, bytes preserve cross-lingual alignment best, especially in same-script multilingual settings, and tokens support topic prediction best. These performances are not explained by sequence length alone. Short inputs can discard useful meaning, while long inputs can preserve information that compresses well. Choosing an encoding is therefore not a fixed preference for tokens, bytes, or pixels, but a rate-utility tradeoff that depends on the task, language mix, capacity regime, and compute budget.
Two dominant tokenisation algorithms are used by modern language models: byte-pair encoding (BPE) and UnigramLM. These differ along two orthogonal axes: their optimisation objective (compression vs. log-likelihood) and their search procedure (bottom-up merging vs. top-down pruning). Existing comparisons confound these axes, making it unclear whether their observed differences stem from what is being optimised vs. how it is being optimised. We disentangle the two by introducing two new tokenisation algorithms that complete this 2x2 design space: BottomUpLL, a bottom-up likelihood-based tokeniser, and TopDownComp, a top-down compression-based tokeniser. We train language models with tokenisers produced by each algorithm, varying: model size, vocabulary sizes, and domain (English-only vs. multilingual). Evaluating models on bits-per-byte, we find that the search procedure -- not the objective -- is the dominant factor: bottom-up tokenisers consistently achieve lower bits-per-byte in most settings. Evaluating models on the BLiMP task, however, shows no consistent relationship between design choice and performance. Overall, our results disentangle the effect of tokeniser design choices on language modelling performance, offering concrete guidance for their more principled construction.
Scaling laws enable the optimal selection of data amount and language model size, yet the impact of the data unit, the token, on this relationship remains underexplored. In this work, we systematically investigate how the information granularity of tokens, controlled by the compression rate (i.e., average bytes of text per token), affects scaling trends. We train 988 latent tokenized models (BLT) ranging from 50M to 7B parameters that enable setting the desired compression rate. This flexibility allows us to study the role of compression rate well beyond 4.57 bytes per token obtained with a popular BPE tokenizer. Our experiments reveal that in compute-optimal configurations, model parameter counts scale proportionally to data size measured in bytes, not in tokens as commonly perceived (Kaplan et al., 2020; Hoffmann et al., 2022). Furthermore, we discover that the optimal compression rate differs from the one obtained with BPE and decreases with compute. These findings generalize to both latent and subword tokenization, as well as to languages other than English, guiding language model developers on tokenization scheme selection for maximal compute efficiency.
Tomasz Limisiewicz, Artidoro Pagnoni, Srini Iyer +6
Subword tokenizers represent many common words twice in space-using writing systems, once with a leading space and once without. The two entries have separate embeddings in models, so occurrences of one word are divided across rows that are trained independently, and the two forms need not even segment the string the same way: " together" may be a single entry while the same word without a preceding space is tokenized as "to|gether". Capitalization divides a word further, into as many as six forms. We introduce an alternative to standard whitespace conventions using an explicit word boundary marker, which prevents such duplication. Words are delimited by the boundary markers, and spaces between words are represented as pairs of such markers. Two shift codes do the same for title case and upper case, allowing one internal representation of a word to be re-used across different settings. Switching to this convention mitigates the duplicate-entry issue, but does not improve tokenization compression: for both vocabulary-learning algorithms, the best marker scheme stays within one percent of the baseline in characters per token, averaged across six languages. It does result in better language modeling performance. Every marker scheme tested downstream reaches lower bits per byte than the baseline, suggesting that duplication carries a cost that compression does not capture.