翻訳待ち：Beyond Two Bytes per Letter: Tokenization Overhead in Cyrillic AI Systems
AI サービスが一時的に利用できないため、復旧後に翻訳を補完します。ソース概要：arXiv:2608.21384v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: 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, covering 8.37 million word forms. On a corpus benchmark, Ukrainian shows 68-121% token overhead on modern tokenizers and 220% on the older cl100k, measured through full-text fertility on the BrUK and Brown corpora. Overhead is negatively associated with Cyrillic vocabulary allocation in the subset with independently verified English baselines, although the association is not statistically significant (Spearman rho = -0.536, p = 0.215, n = 7). We evaluate two mitigation strategies. LLMLingua-2 reduces Ukrainian input length by 47-49% on an e-commerce RAG benchmark of 1,536 products and 145 queries, with no compression-induced value losses among 80 retrievable cases. A balanced byte-level BPE tokenizer trained with a 200K vocabulary cap, converging at 158,184 actual entries, reduces the held-out UK/EN ratio from 2.22x to 1.30x. Romanization increases Ukrainian token counts by 2-19% on most tokenizers. Across the five languages, tokenization efficiency favors the script more prevalent in web data. These findings indicate that training data allocation contributes to Cyrillic tokenization overhead and that mitigation is possible at both inference and tokenizer-design stages.
AI サービスが一時的に利用できないため、復旧後に翻訳を補完します。
--> [Submitted on 17 Jul 2026] Title:Beyond Two Bytes per Letter: Tokenization Overhead in Cyrillic AI Systems View a PDF of the paper titled Beyond Two Bytes per Letter: Tokenization Overhead in Cyrillic AI Systems, by Ivan Dobrovolskyi View PDF Abstract: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, covering 8.37 million word forms. On a corpus benchmark, Ukrainian shows 68-121% token overhead on modern tokenizers and 220% on the older cl100k, measured through full-text fertility on the BrUK and Brown corpora. Overhead is negatively associated with Cyrillic vocabulary allocation in the subset with independently verified English baselines, although the association is not statistically significant (Spearman rho = -0.536, p = 0.215, n = 7). We evaluate two mitigation strategies. LLMLingua-2 reduces Ukrainian input length by 47-49% on an e-commerce RAG benchmark of 1,536 products and 145 queries, with no compression-induced value losses among 80 retrievable cases. A balanced byte-level BPE tokenizer trained with a 200K vocabulary cap, converging at 158,184 actual entries, reduces the held-out UK/EN ratio from 2.22x to 1.30x. Romanization increases Ukrainian token counts by 2-19% on most tokenizers. Across the five languages, tokenization efficiency favors the script more prevalent in web data. These findings indicate that training data allocation contributes to Cyrillic tokenization overhead and that mitigation is possible at both inference and tokenizer-design stages. Subjects: Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) Cite as: arXiv:2608.21384 [cs.CL] (or arXiv:2608.21384v1 [cs.CL] for this version) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.21384 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite Submission history From: Ivan Dobrovolskyi [view email] [v1] Fri, 17 Jul 2026 04:58:51 UTC (1,661 KB) Full-text links: Access Paper: View a PDF of the paper titled Beyond Two Bytes per Letter: Tokenization Overhead in Cyrillic AI Systems, by Ivan Dobrovolskyi View PDF view license Current browse context: cs.CL new | recent | 2026-08 Change to browse by: cs cs.AI References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Loading... Data provided by: Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article alphaXiv Toggle alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?) Links to Code Toggle CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?) DagsHub Toggle DagsHub (What is DagsHub?) GotitPub Toggle Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?) Huggingface Toggle Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?) ScienceCast Toggle ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?) Demos Demos Replicate Toggle Replicate (What is Replicate?) Spaces Toggle Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?) Spaces Toggle TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?) Related Papers Recommenders and Search Tools Link to Influence Flower Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?) Core recommender toggle CORE Recommender (What is CORE?) Author Venue Institution Topic About arXivLabs arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website. Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them. Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs. Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)