Papers › Rate-Utility Frontiers for Language Encodings: Comparing Tokens, Bytes, and Pixels...

Rate-Utility Frontiers for Language Encodings: Comparing Tokens, Bytes, and Pixels Under Controlled Linguistic Content

17 Jul 2026arXiv:2607.16117added by Syntology

Ingo Ziegler, Martin Krebs, Desmond Elliott

Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).

Language models encode text as subword tokens, raw bytes, or rendered pixels, but these encodings are usually compared under modeling constraints that expose different amounts of linguistic content to models across different languages. We instead ask what each encoding preserves when both the content and the downstream capacity are controlled. Using verified parallel sentences across thirteen languages and five scripts, we compare tokens, bytes, and pixels through a shared bottleneck whose width is swept to trace rate-utility frontiers. This separates three quantities that are often conflated: the number of input positions an encoding creates, the latent capacity available after encoding, and the task-relevant information that survives compression. We evaluate three utilities: surface form preservation, cross-lingual sentence alignment, and topic classification. No encoding dominates across tasks or capacity regimes. Pixels preserve surface form best, bytes preserve cross-lingual alignment best, especially in same-script multilingual settings, and tokens support topic prediction best. These performances are not explained by sequence length alone. Short inputs can discard useful meaning, while long inputs can preserve information that compresses well. Choosing an encoding is therefore not a fixed preference for tokens, bytes, or pixels, but a rate-utility tradeoff that depends on the task, language mix, capacity regime, and compute budget.

PaperPDFCode Syntology ran

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2607.16117")

Code

Syntology Ran 4 of 4 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 0 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 4 ran with no contract checked.

By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 4 samples from 1 repository, 4 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.

ziegler-ingo/rate-utility-frontiers found in paper text by Syntology report

Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

4 samples harvested; 4 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

4ran

Licence: 0 of the 4 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from ziegler-ingo/rate-utility-frontiers. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

count_bytes ziegler-ingo/rate-utility-frontiers/ruf/sourcerate/source_rate.py found in paper text by Syntology ran fingerprinted Apache-2.0 (permissive) · 29367ad2a7c6a8a9 · report
count_chars ziegler-ingo/rate-utility-frontiers/ruf/sourcerate/source_rate.py found in paper text by Syntology ran fingerprinted Apache-2.0 (permissive) · 5033dc780c4bc271 · report
deepcopy_state_dict_to_cpu ziegler-ingo/rate-utility-frontiers/ruf/utils.py found in paper text by Syntology ran Apache-2.0 (permissive) · b9d25fd4a110efb9 · report
unwrap_model ziegler-ingo/rate-utility-frontiers/ruf/utils.py found in paper text by Syntology ran Apache-2.0 (permissive) · d353aa5026e7865e · report

Results from the paper

The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2607.16117, was issued in July 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections