Adaptive Frequency Threshold Byte Pair Encoding for Mixed Natural Language and Structured Symbolic Corpora
Organizations: DIMES Department, University of Calabria, Italy
Abstract
Modern language models rely on subwording tokenization to define the discrete units of input processing, typically using methods like Byte Pair Encoding (BPE) that treat whitespace as a fixed semantic boundary. This design is inherently limited, as many meaningful concepts---including multiword expressions and the structured environments of formal languages like LaTeX---frequently span across whitespaces. While recent superword tokenization methods attempt to address this by relaxing whitespace constraints, they often rely on greedy frequency-driven merging that fails to account for token length or the specific needs of underrepresented domain-specific languages. In this paper, we introduce Adaptive Frequency Threshold Byte Pair Encoding (AdaBPE), a new tokenization method that leverages an adaptive frequent-pattern mining approach. AdaBPE features a twofold dynamicity: it adapts minimum frequency thresholds based on both the length of a candidate token, to prevent favoring frequent short patterns, and its type, to distinguish between general and formal language patterns, using LaTeX as case in point. This allows the model to efficiently allocate vocabulary capacity to domain-specific notations, such as LaTeX, even when they represent a small fraction of the training data. We evaluate AdaBPE across five datasets spanning LaTeX and natural language, showing consistent gains in encoding efficiency and downstream language-model performance on domain-specific content without compromising general-language performance.
Figures & tables
| Dataset | BPE | SuperBPE | AdaBPE |
| CSQA | 16.63 | 12.43 (25.3%) | 12.24 (26.4%) |
| latex-formulas | 68.58 | 59.49 (13.3%) | 54.88 (20.0%) |
| SQuAD | 163.63 | 125.11 (23.5%) | 126.03 (23.0%) |
| DROP | 264.26 | 206.78 (21.7%) | 210.43 (20.4%) |
| Image2Struct | 247.32 | 212.43 (14.1%) | 207.96 (15.9%) |
| avg decr. w.r.t. BPE | – | 19.58 % | 21.14 % |
| Dataset | BPE | SuperBPE | AdaBPE |
| CSQA | 1.81 | 1.68 | 1.77 |
| latex-formulas | 34.22 | 25.52 | 25.49 |
| SQuAD | 74.41 | 68.54 | 68.77 |
| DROP | 10.88 | 8.27 | 8.32 |
| Image2Struct | 0.63 | 0.44 | 0.42 |
| Tokenizer | Super Share | Mean Savings | Total Savings | |
| latex | SuperBPE | 0.133 | 1.169 | 0.156 |
| AdaBPE | 0.272 | 2.094 | 0.569 | |
| (%) | +104.5% | +79.1% | +264.7% | |
| I2S | SuperBPE | 0.147 | 1.134 | 0.167 |
| AdaBPE | 0.366 | 2.049 | 0.750 | |
| (%) | +149.0% | +80.7% | +349.1% |
| Dataset | BPE | SuperBPE | AdaBPE | ||||||
| NDiv | RE 1 | RE 2 | NDiv | RE 1 | RE 2 | NDiv | RE 1 | RE 2 | |
| CSQA | 2.05 | 0.70 | 0.50 | 2.72 | 0.80 | 0.51 | 2.67 | 0.80 | 0.50 |
| latex | 0.48 | 0.59 | 0.48 | 0.72 | 0.63 | 0.52 | 0.74 | 0.65 | 0.52 |
| SQuAD | 0.49 | 0.66 | 0.41 | 0.67 | 0.80 | 0.57 | 0.66 | 0.80 | 0.56 |
| DROP | 0.17 | 0.67 | 0.45 | 0.23 | 0.78 | 0.59 | 0.22 | 0.77 | 0.57 |
| I2S | 0.98 | 0.67 | 0.51 | 1.26 | 0.72 | 0.57 | 1.23 | 0.72 | 0.53 |
| Dataset | OLMo2-AdaBPE | OLMo2-SuperBPE | ||
| Acc. | BPB | Acc. | BPB | |
| GSM8K | na | 1.51 | na | 1.56 |
| MATH500 | na | 1.21 | na | 1.27 |
| BoolQ | 0.6171 | 1.84 | 0.6150 | 1.44 |
| CSQA | 0.1966 | 8.27 | 0.1949 | 7.30 |
| Winogrande | 0.5043 | 0.56 | 0.4972 | 0.58 |
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Statistic | DROP | Image2Struct | CSQA | latex-forms. | SQuAD |
| # Instances | 9,535 | 600 | 9,741 | 100,000 (∗) | 87,599 |
| Characters per instance | |||||
| Min | 290 | 39 | 20 | 29 | 179 |
| Max | 5,578 | 3,869 | 405 | 440 | 26,203 |
| Avg | 1,111.27 | 632.50 | 78.84 | 145.05 | 814.94 |
| Std | 598.84 | 634.03 | 30.43 | 74.97 | 320.16 |
| OLMo-AdaBPE | OLMo-SuperBPE | |
| Architecture | OLMo-2 | OLMo-2 |
| Hidden size | 2048 | 2048 |
| Position embedding | RoPE | RoPE |
| Attention heads | 16 | 16 |
| Activation function | SiLU | SiLU |
| Layers | 16 | 16 |
| AdaBPE only | SuperBPE only | ||||
| Rank | Token | Frequency | Rank | Token | Frequency |
| 1 | end{align*} | 98,652 | 1 | left( | 15,092 |
| 2 | begin{align*} | 58,772 | 2 | (t | 12,354 |
| 3 | \begin{align | 40,418 | 3 | \right | 11,718 |
| 4 | _{n | 10,119 | 4 | ,Ġ\ | 9,964 |
| 5 | _{k | 6,384 | 5 | left(\ | 9,765 |
| AdaBPE only | SuperBPE only | ||||
| Rank | Token | Frequency | Rank | Token | Frequency |
| 1 | ĠdoĠwhat | 201 | 1 | WhatĠhappens | 80 |
| 2 | Ġdo? | 178 | 2 | ĠwasĠhe | 67 |
| 3 | ,ĠwhatĠwas | 81 | 3 | TheĠman | 65 |
| 4 | Ġdidn | 72 | 4 | WhatĠcan | 54 |
| 5 | ĠwhatĠto | 68 | 5 | Ġficus | 53 |
| AdaBPE only | SuperBPE only | ||||
| Rank | Token | Frequency | Rank | Token | Frequency |
| 1 | :Ġ | 1,735 | 1 | citationĠneeded | 3,488 |
| 2 | .ĠWhatĠwasĠthe | 1,664 | 2 | ?Ġ | 2,407 |
| 3 | ĠtheĠlateĠ | 1,239 | 3 | Ġ°C | 1,655 |
| 4 | :Ġthe | 1,121 | 4 | ĠuntilĠ | 1,564 |
| 5 | .ĠWhatĠtypeĠof | 1,061 | 5 | Ġcity’s | 1,214 |
| AdaBPE only | SuperBPE only | ||||
| Rank | Token | Frequency | Rank | Token | Frequency |
| 1 | S. | 3,874 | 1 | ),Ġ | 5,274 |
| 2 | ĠtheĠfourth | 1,637 | 2 | UnitedĠStates | 4,956 |
| 3 | ĠtheĠlead | 1,260 | 3 | U.S. | 3,864 |
| 4 | ĠunderĠtheĠageĠofĠ | 1,086 | 4 | ĠonĠaĠ | 1,890 |
| 5 | ĠThereĠwere | 640 | 5 | ĠfromĠtwo | 1,238 |
| AdaBPE only | SuperBPE only | ||||
| Rank | Token | Frequency | Rank | Token | Frequency |
| 1 | _{t | 263 | 1 | }Ċ | 1,483 |
| 2 | Ġ\textbf{ | 219 | 2 | $Ċ | 498 |
| 3 | \end{equation*} | 205 | 3 | *}Ċ | 409 |
| 4 | hat{\ | 202 | 4 | i, | 294 |
| 5 | \begin{equation*} | 198 | 5 | ]Ċ | 288 |
| Parameters | DROP | SQuAD | CSQA | LS | I2S | |
| baseline | 204,601 | 210.43 | 126.03 | 12.24 | 54.88 | 207.96 |
| 181,752 | 222.60 | 136.02 | 13.44 | 52.93 | 202.47 | |
| (-5.78%) | (-7.92%) | (-9.80%) | (+3.55%) | (+2.64%) | ||
| , | 168,292 | 222.60 | 136.02 | 13.44 | 55.75 | 211.63 |
| (-5.78%) | (-7.92%) | (-9.80%) | (-1.58%) | (-1.76%) | ||
| 208,043 | 210.43 | 126.03 | 12.24 | 52.57 | 200.41 |
Subword Tokenization
Subword tokenization divides text into reusable units smaller than words to support efficient and flexible language modeling.
See all 83 papers