Do Language Models Need a Trainable Input Embedding Table? Fixed Minimal Token Codes at 1.7B-Class Scale

Trainable input embedding tables are a standard component of modern language models. We ask whether they are actually necessary at the input interface. For a vocabulary of size $V$, exact token identity requires only $K=\lceil \log_2 V\rceil$ bits. We replace the usual trainable $V\times d_{\text{model}}$ input embedding matrix with fixed minimal binary token codes and a zero-parameter lift to model width. In our main setting, $V=65{,}536$, so $K=16$, and tokens are represented by fixed 16-dimensional binary codes tiled to $d_{\text{model}}=1024$. We also evaluate a fully table-free variant in which codes are generated from token IDs on the fly and randomly recoded by an invertible affine transform over $\mathbb{F}_2^K$. Across matched 32-layer decoder-only models trained on approximately 17B tokens and evaluated over three independent training seeds, fixed minimal codes achieve comparable held-out validation perplexity to a standard learned-input baseline while removing 67.1M trainable input parameters. The fixed-code runs have a lower mean validation perplexity in our experiments, 2.36 versus 2.44, but the observed gap is within the measured seed-to-seed variation of 4.8%; we therefore interpret the result as evidence that the trainable input table is not necessary, rather than as a statistically resolved superiority claim. The table-free affine-recoded variant remains close at 2.39 despite a slightly shorter training run. These results show that, in this regime, a trainable input embedding table is not necessary for useful language modeling. The output projection remains standard and trainable.

In a small language model the vocabulary is the single largest part. In Gemma 3 270M the embedding table holds 168M of 268M parameters, and because quantisation methods leave the embedding in 16-bit, it is also most of the file once the rest of the model is compressed. We ask what that table actually buys. We replace it with one frozen table of 512-bit codes, 16 MB, with no trainable parameters, derived once from a pretrained embedding by principal-component projection and sign binarisation, and we train the same Gemma-shaped body from scratch on the same 2.05B tokens with and without it. The learned table buys 0.20 nats of validation loss for 2.6 times the trainable parameters, but on LAMBADA, HellaSwag and PIQA the frozen-table model is better or tied; only ARC-Easy favours the learned table. With a ternary BitNet b1.58 body the whole model is a 46 MB file, still ties the float model on LAMBADA and PIQA, and on a laptop CPU generates 615 to 740 tokens per second in 62 MB of memory, five to six times the speed of the float model's 8-bit GGUF in llama.cpp at a seventh of the memory. The frozen table wins by 1.7 to 2.3 nats on rare words, accepts 10,000 new words after training with a 3% cost where the learned table collapses by 43%, and all of it is released with the weights, the data and every evaluation answer.

Large language models route every input through a learned embedding table of shape |V| x d_model, consuming hundreds of millions to billions of trainable parameters at frontier scale. We introduce Kronecker Embeddings, a deterministic byte-level character-position factorization that replaces this table with a fixed encoder and a single learned projection, compatible with standard BPE tokenizers, eliminating 91--94% of input-side trainable parameters at frontier scale. We provide five contributions. First, a cross-model probe across six LMs (135M-671B parameters) shows trained input embeddings cluster typographic variants of the probe word far more than morphological relatives; Kronecker escapes this clustering at the embedding layer. Second, a controlled three-seed comparison on nanoGPT GPT-2 124M over 2.5B tokens of FineWeb-Edu shows Kronecker reaching 2.5 +- 0.2% lower validation loss than the BPE-tied baseline (gap 0.083 +- 0.007 nats, ~9% lower perplexity), needing ~1.43x fewer steps to reach BPE's converged loss. Third, a spelling-robustness probe over 110 clean/typo pairs shows Kronecker preserves the top-1 prediction on 55.5% of pairs vs. 47.3% for BPE (+8.2 pp) and lowers KL by 7.6%, winning or tying in 10 of 11 categories; a generation probe shows Kronecker echoes byte-novel strings and typos through generation where BPE forgets them. Fourth, BPE embedding norm drifts during training while Kronecker projection norm stays near 1.0, consistent with a stable representational target. Fifth, an on-the-fly runtime variant reconstructs embeddings from a 4.5 MB byte buffer rather than a 2.15 GB table at vocabulary 131,072, with 0.01--0.24% step-time overhead. Byte-level locality has a tradeoff: byte-similar but semantically distant pairs (compute/commute, nation/notion) cluster together, shifting disambiguation to early attention layers.