This work quantifies the tokenizer tax for Indian languages using the FLORES-200 parallel corpus, measuring tokenization fertility across six widely used tokenizers and fourteen languages, and identifies the primary mechanism behind this disparity: failed byte-pair merges that leave text fragmented into single-byte tokens.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) process text through subword tokenizers rather than directly reading characters or words. Because these tokenizers are trained predominantly on English-centric corpora, they introduce a systematic and often overlooked disadvantage for many non-English languages. In this work, we quantify this tokenizer tax for Indian languages using the FLORES-200 parallel corpus, measuring tokenization fertility across six widely used tokenizers and fourteen languages. Under cl100k_base (used by GPT-3.5 and GPT-4), Indian languages experience an average 8.0x tokenization tax relative to English, reaching 13.0x for Malayalam, reducing the effective context window to as little as 12% of that available to English users for equivalent semantic content. We identify the primary mechanism behind this disparity: failed byte-pair merges that leave text fragmented into single-byte tokens, with merge failure strongly correlating with tokenizer tax (Pearson r = 0.89). We further show that this phenomenon is not an inherent property of Indic scripts but a consequence of tokenizer design. Multilingual tokenizers such as XLM-R and OpenAI's o200k_base reduce the average Indic tokenizer tax by 73%, demonstrating that the disparity is largely remediable. Beyond token statistics, we quantify a practical consequence by showing that, under fixed context budgets, Indian-language documents preserve substantially less original content than equivalent English documents. Finally, we examine the relationship between tokenizer fertility and reading comprehension performance on the Belebele benchmark, finding that the apparent correlation is largely explained by language resource availability rather than tokenizer behavior alone.
The experimental results revealed the strengths and weaknesses of various approaches to subword segmentation and identified the most effective tokenization strategies under the conditions of the morphological complexity of the Tajik language.
M. Arabov, S. S. Khaybullina· Automatic Documentation and...· 0 citations
It is demonstrated that tokenization can create measurable economic and functional barriers, highlighting the need to treat tokenization as an equity-relevant infrastructure layer for underserved language communities, particularly where educational systems depend on low-cost or offline-capable AI tools.
A token-cost ledger is assembled that splits each language's cost, at fixed parallel content, into a removable coding redundancy, a residual coding slack, an intrinsic-content term, and an orthogonal, irreducible grapheme-to-phoneme term that governs the multimodal rather than the text cost.
Modern multilingual tokenizers often fragment Ukrainian and other underrepresented Cyrillic-script languages more heavily than English, creating disparities in cost and context capacity. We quantify this overhead across nine production tokenizers and five languages with standardized Cyrillic and Latin representations,...
BHARATI is presented, a set of SentencePiece BPE tokenizers trained on a balanced 781 MB corpus spanning seven languages with native script support for all languages, and three successive tokenizer versions are described.
P. Kumaresan, P. Muruganantham, L. Rajendran et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
Byte-level BPE tokenizers that use the HuggingFace ByteLevel pre-tokenizer inherit GPT-2's word regex, where a word is defined as \p{L}+, one or more Unicode letters, which splits each word at every vowel sign, and formalises this effect as a training-free lower bound on fertility.
S. Regmi, Siddhartha Pudasaini, Chetan Phakami Pun· 2 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.