What Tokens are Learned when Tokenization is Optimized Jointly with Language Modeling?

Tokenizers provide the fundamental basis through which text is represented and processed by language models (LMs). Despite the importance of tokenization, its role in LM performance and behavior is poorly understood due to the challenge of measuring the impact of tokenization in isolation. To address this need, we present TokSuite, a collection of models and a benchmark that supports research into tokenization's influence on LMs. Specifically, we release fourteen pre-trained models that use different off-the-shelf tokenizers but are otherwise identical, using the same architecture, dataset, training budget, and initialization. We also release a multilingual robustness benchmark that measures model performance under real-world perturbations in English, Chinese, Farsi, Italian, and Turkish, curated by native annotators. Together, TokSuite allows robust decoupling of the influence of a model's tokenizer, supporting a series of novel findings that elucidate the respective benefits and shortcomings of a wide range of popular tokenizers.

Tokenizers are commonly optimized for compression, but a compact vocabulary does not necessarily distribute its capacity evenly across languages. We introduce the Latent Core Tokenizer (LCT), a language-agnostic approach that separates structural discovery from vocabulary construction. LCT uses Minimum Description Length, entropy-based boundary signals, and morphotactic constraints to identify reusable linguistic units before constructing a shared vocabulary. Across 104 languages with a 200K-token vocabulary, LCT achieves lower fertility and higher MorphScore than BPE, Unigram, and parity-aware BPE, while maintaining comparable cross-lingual disparity in tokenization cost. Across four multilingual downstream benchmarks, LCT improves aggregate score by 1.48, 1.83, and 2.00 points over BPE, Unigram, and parity-aware BPE, respectively. Our findings show that compression alone does not predict representation quality and highlight the importance of morphology-driven structural discovery and how frequency is used to allocate the final vocabulary across languages.

Tokenizer choice affects multilingual language modeling, but vocabulary capacity is finite and vocabulary size is often constrained: improving representation for some languages often comes at the expense of others. We therefore ask whether tokenizer choice matters equally across languages, a question that the current literature leave unanswered. To this end, we train 123 language models spanning 54 tokenizers. In the main comparison, architecture, training corpus, training-token budget, and optimization are held fixed, so the models differ only in their tokenizer. We find that tokenizer choice matters more for languages with less language-model training data: across the 54 tokenizers, the standard deviation of a language's bits-per-byte (BPB) increases as its model training-data share decreases (Spearman rho = -0.52 over the 31 trained languages and -0.69 over the 28 written with word boundaries). Leaving a language out of tokenizer training raises its BPB in every language we study, and the penalty tends to be larger for languages with less language-model training data. Giving lower-resource languages a larger share of tokenizer-training data, however, does not unconditionally help those languages: both equal weighting and an allocation inverting the shares with respect to the language model training data increase their BPB, particularly when language-model training repeats data. Finally, which intrinsic tokenizer properties are associated with better BPB differs across languages, providing further evidence that what makes a good tokenizer depends on the language. We find that the metrics quantifying these properties can be successfully used to predict downstream models' pairwise BPB rankings, suggesting a practical strategy for screening tokenizer candidates before training language models.