Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study conducts a controlled comparison between byte-pair encoding (BPE) and Unigram-LM tokenizers in the context of chemistry SMILES, revealing that the two methods produce nearly disjoint subword vocabularies across various corpus types. The analysis shows that Unigram-LM segments molecules into significantly more tokens (29-41% more) than BPE, indicating that BPE's segmentation is a coarsening of Unigram-LM's. These findings highlight that the choice of subword algorithm is a critical modeling decision rather than a trivial default, with implications for the performance of chemical language models.
Unigram-LM outperforms BPE by segmenting chemical structures into 29-41% more tokens, revealing the critical impact of tokenizer choice on model performance.
Every chemical language model reading SMILES begins with a tokenizer, yet the field has inherited byte-pair encoding (BPE) from natural language with little scrutiny. In natural language, BPE's principal alternative, Unigram-LM, is known to build structurally different vocabularies. Whether that contrast survives in chemistry was open. We report a controlled comparison of BPE and Unigram-LM over a fixed 165-token chemistry base, at the small vocabulary sizes where token embeddings are learnable, across three corpus typologies (diverse, drug-like, natural-products) and both pre-tokenization boundary policies. The two do not converge. In all 22 matched conditions they build near-disjoint subword vocabularies: cross-algorithm Jaccard overlap on the learned pieces never exceeds 0.161, and at most 0.05 once weighted toward the high-frequency pieces a model updates most. Unigram-LM also segments held-out molecules into 29-41% more tokens; the arms largely agree on where to cut but not how deeply, so BPE's segmentation is a strict coarsening of Unigram-LM's on 80-99% of molecules. The separation holds across corpus, boundary, and vocabulary size, persisting even at eight times that scale. The subword algorithm is therefore a modeling decision, not a free default. The study trains no language models.
