Large language models (LLMs) were shown to encode word form variations, such as "walk"->"walked", as linear directions in embedding space. However, standard tokenization algorithms treat these variations as distinct tokens – filling the size-capped vocabulary with surface form variants (e.g., "walk", "walking", "Walk"), at the expense of less frequent words and multilingual coverage. We show that many of these variations can be captured by transformation vectors – additive offsets that yield the appropriate word's representation when applied to the base form word embedding – in both the input and output spaces. Building on this, we propose a compact reshaping of the vocabulary: rather than assigning unique tokens to each surface form, we compose them from shared base form and transformation vectors (e.g., "walked" = "walk" + past tense). We apply our approach to multiple LLMs and across five languages, removing up to 10% of vocabulary entries – thereby freeing space to allocate new, more diverse tokens. Importantly, we do so while also expanding vocabulary coverage to out-of-vocabulary words, with minimal impact on downstream performance, and without modifying model weights. Our findings motivate a foundational rethinking of vocabulary design, moving from string enumeration to a compositional vocabulary that leverages the underlying structure of language.

Large language models (LLMs) often fail to scale their performance on long-context tasks performance in line with the context lengths they support. This gap is commonly attributed to retrieval failures – the models' inability to identify relevant information in the long inputs. Accordingly, recent efforts often focus on evaluating and improving LLMs' retrieval performance: if retrieval is perfect, a model should, in principle, perform just as well on a long input as it does on a short one – or should it? This paper presents findings that the answer to this question may be negative. Our systematic experiments across 5 open- and closed-source LLMs on math, question answering, and coding tasks reveal that, even when models can perfectly retrieve all relevant information, their performance still degrades substantially (13.9%–85%) as input length increases but remains well within the models' claimed lengths. This failure occurs even when the irrelevant tokens are replaced with minimally distracting whitespace, and, more surprisingly, when they are all masked and the models are forced to attend only to the relevant tokens. A similar performance drop is observed when all relevant evidence is placed immediately before the question. Our findings reveal a previously-unrealized limitation: the sheer length of the input alone can hurt LLM performance, independent of retrieval quality and without any distraction. They motivate our simple, model-agnostic mitigation strategy that transforms a long-context task into a short-context one by prompting the model to recite the retrieved evidence before attempting to solve the problem. On RULER, we observe a consistent improvement of GPT-4o up to 4% on an already strong baseline.

This work presents a comprehensive evaluation of how quantization affects model bias, with particular attention to its impact on individual demographic subgroups. We focus on weight and activation quantization strategies and examine their effects across a broad range of bias types, including stereotypes, toxicity, sentiment, and fairness. We employ both probabilistic and generated text-based metrics across nine benchmarks and evaluate models varying in architecture family and reasoning ability. Our findings show that quantization has a nuanced impact on bias: while it can reduce model toxicity and does not significantly impact sentiment, it tends to slightly increase stereotypes and unfairness in generative tasks, especially under aggressive compression. These trends are generally consistent across demographic categories and model types, although their magnitude depends on the specific setting. Overall, our results highlight the importance of carefully balancing efficiency and ethical considerations when applying quantization in practice.

Scaling LLM vocabulary is often used to reduce input sequence length and alleviate attention's quadratic cost. Yet, current LLM architectures impose a critical bottleneck to this procedure: the output projection layer scales linearly with vocabulary size, rendering substantial expansion impractical. We propose SpeLLM, a method that decouples input and output vocabularies by predicting character-level strings through multiple output heads. In SpeLLM, each of the k linear heads predicts a single character simultaneously, enabling the model to represent a much larger output space using smaller, independent linear heads. We present a self-distillation approach for converting a standard LLM to a SpeLLM. Our experiments with four pre-trained LLMs show their SpeLLM variants achieve competitive performance on downstream tasks while reducing runtime by 5.1% on average across models. Our approach provides a potential avenue for reducing LLM costs, while increasing support for underrepresented languages and domains.

Reasoning large language models (LLMs) heavily rely on scaling test-time compute to perform complex reasoning tasks by generating extensive "thinking" chains. While demonstrating impressive results, this approach incurs significant computational costs and inference time. In this work, we challenge the assumption that long thinking chains results in better reasoning capabilities. We first demonstrate that shorter reasoning chains within individual questions are significantly more likely to yield correct answers - up to 34.5% more accurate than the longest chain sampled for the same question. Based on these results, we suggest short-m@k, a novel reasoning LLM inference method. Our method executes k independent generations in parallel and halts computation once the first m thinking processes are done. The final answer is chosen using majority voting among these m chains. Basic short-1@k demonstrates similar or even superior performance over standard majority voting in low-compute settings - using up to 40% fewer thinking tokens. short-3@k, while slightly less efficient than short-1@k, consistently surpasses majority voting across all compute budgets, while still being substantially faster (up to 33% wall time reduction). Inspired by our results, we finetune an LLM using short, long, and randomly selected reasoning chains. We then observe that training on the shorter ones leads to better performance. Our findings suggest rethinking current methods of test-time compute in reasoning LLMs, emphasizing that longer "thinking" does not necessarily translate to improved performance and can, counter-intuitively, lead to degraded results.