Efficiency Measured in English: Tokeniser Coverage Bounds Small Language Models on Indic Scripts

arXiv:2610.24818 · cs.CL, cs.CY, cs.LG · Submitted 2026-10-17 · Read on arXiv

cs.CL, cs.CY, cs.LG

Submitted: 2026-10-17

Updated: 2026-10-17

License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

The gist: Small Language Models with quantisation and parameter-efficient adaptation are widely offered as the route to multilingual AI under compute constraints, and their efficiency is almost always reported

Abstract

Small Language Models with quantisation and parameter-efficient adaptation are widely offered as the route to multilingual AI under compute constraints, and their efficiency is almost always reported as a single memory figure. We show that this figure is measured in English and does not transfer. Across a 131k-sentence corpus spanning eleven Indic scripts, TinyLlama-1.1B's tokeniser emits 1.34 subword tokens per Latin-script word and 22.60 per Kannada word. This is not inefficiency; it is absence. Its vocabulary contains 0% of Odia's codepoints, 1% of Telugu's and 2% of Kannada's, and for five of eleven scripts the measured fertility sits at the UTF-8 byte-fallback ceiling, on Odia at 99.6% of it, with 93.6% of emitted tokens being raw bytes. Because SentencePiece byte fallback never raises an unknown-token marker, this failure is entirely silent: TinyLlama's UNK rate is 0.0% on every script, including the one it reads as bytes. We further show that low fertility can indicate the opposite of efficiency: mBERT posts its best score anywhere (1.10 tokens/word, on Odia) while discarding 87.9% of the text as UNK. MuRIL, an Indic-vocabulary encoder with a fifth of TinyLlama's parameters, reads every script at 1.23-2.26 tokens/word with zero UNK and zero byte fallback. The binding constraint is the vocabulary, not the parameter count. The consequence is concrete: on a 2048-token context window, the same model gives an English user 1,528 words of usable context and a Kannada user 91.

Related papers