Evaluating Morphological Alignment of Tokenizers in 70 Languages

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.06378v1
• Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2025 20:32:26 GMT
• Title: Evaluating Morphological Alignment of Tokenizers in 70 Languages
• Authors: Catherine Arnett, Marisa Hudspeth, Brendan O'Connor,
• Abstract summary: We use MorphScore to measure the extent to which tokenizers preserve linguistically meaningful subwords.<n>We correlate our alignment scores with downstream task performance for five pre-trained languages models.<n>We find that morphological alignment does not explain very much variance in model performance.
• Score: 3.160609255173681
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: While tokenization is a key step in language modeling, with effects on model training and performance, it remains unclear how to effectively evaluate tokenizer quality. One proposed dimension of tokenizer quality is the extent to which tokenizers preserve linguistically meaningful subwords, aligning token boundaries with morphological boundaries within a word. We expand MorphScore (Arnett & Bergen, 2025), which previously covered 22 languages, to support a total of 70 languages. The updated MorphScore offers more flexibility in evaluation and addresses some of the limitations of the original version. We then correlate our alignment scores with downstream task performance for five pre-trained languages models on seven tasks, with at least one task in each of the languages in our sample. We find that morphological alignment does not explain very much variance in model performance, suggesting that morphological alignment alone does not measure dimensions of tokenization quality relevant to model performance.

Related papers

• Why do language models perform worse for morphologically complex languages? [0.913127392774573]
  We find new evidence for a performance gap between agglutinative and fusional languages. We propose three possible causes for this performance gap: morphological alignment of tokenizers, tokenization quality, and disparities in dataset sizes and measurement. Results suggest that no language is harder or easier for a language model to learn on the basis of its morphological typology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-21T15:06:51Z)
• Tokenization and Morphology in Multilingual Language Models: A Comparative Analysis of mT5 and ByT5 [4.779196219827507]
  We capture the impact of tokenization by contrasting two multilingual language models: mT5 and ByT5. Probing the morphological knowledge encoded in these models on four tasks and 17 languages, our analyses show that the models learn the morphological systems of some languages better than others.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-15T14:14:19Z)
• Holmes: A Benchmark to Assess the Linguistic Competence of Language Models [59.627729608055006]
  We introduce Holmes, a new benchmark designed to assess language models (LMs) linguistic competence. We use computation-based probing to examine LMs' internal representations regarding distinct linguistic phenomena. As a result, we meet recent calls to disentangle LMs' linguistic competence from other cognitive abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-29T17:58:36Z)
• Language Models for Text Classification: Is In-Context Learning Enough? [54.869097980761595]
  Recent foundational language models have shown state-of-the-art performance in many NLP tasks in zero- and few-shot settings. An advantage of these models over more standard approaches is the ability to understand instructions written in natural language (prompts) This makes them suitable for addressing text classification problems for domains with limited amounts of annotated instances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-26T12:47:39Z)
• MorphPiece : A Linguistic Tokenizer for Large Language Models [3.8073142980733]
  I propose a linguistically motivated tokenization scheme, MorphPiece, which is based partly on morphological segmentation of the underlying text. A GPT-style causal language model trained on this tokenizer (called MorphGPT) shows comparable or superior performance on a variety of supervised and unsupervised NLP tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-14T10:35:04Z)
• Morphological Inflection with Phonological Features [7.245355976804435]
  This work explores effects on performance obtained through various ways in which morphological models get access to subcharacter phonological features. We elicit phonemic data from standard graphemic data using language-specific grammars for languages with shallow grapheme-to-phoneme mapping.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-21T21:34:39Z)
• T3L: Translate-and-Test Transfer Learning for Cross-Lingual Text Classification [50.675552118811]
  Cross-lingual text classification is typically built on large-scale, multilingual language models (LMs) pretrained on a variety of languages of interest. We propose revisiting the classic "translate-and-test" pipeline to neatly separate the translation and classification stages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-08T07:33:22Z)
• Impact of Tokenization on Language Models: An Analysis for Turkish [2.4660652494309936]
  We train tokenizers and pretrain medium-sized language models using RoBERTa pretraining procedure on the Turkish split of the OSCAR corpus. Our experiments, supported by statistical tests, reveal that Morphological-level tokenizer has challenging performance with de facto tokenizers. We find that increasing the vocabulary size improves the performance of Morphological and Word-level tokenizers more than that of de facto tokenizers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-19T12:01:46Z)
• A Massively Multilingual Analysis of Cross-linguality in Shared Embedding Space [61.18554842370824]
  In cross-lingual language models, representations for many different languages live in the same space. We compute a task-based measure of cross-lingual alignment in the form of bitext retrieval performance. We examine a range of linguistic, quasi-linguistic, and training-related features as potential predictors of these alignment metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-13T21:05:37Z)
• Grounded Compositional Outputs for Adaptive Language Modeling [59.02706635250856]
  A language model's vocabulary$-$typically selected before training and permanently fixed later$-$affects its size. We propose a fully compositional output embedding layer for language models. To our knowledge, the result is the first word-level language model with a size that does not depend on the training vocabulary.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-24T07:21:14Z)
• On the Importance of Word Order Information in Cross-lingual Sequence Labeling [80.65425412067464]
  Cross-lingual models that fit into the word order of the source language might fail to handle target languages. We investigate whether making models insensitive to the word order of the source language can improve the adaptation performance in target languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-30T03:35:44Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.