This benchmark evaluates the robustness of language model tokenizers against real-world input perturbations, including orthographic errors, script variations, homoglyphs, diacritics, and stylistic changes across five languages. It isolates the impact of tokenizer design by testing identical model architectures with different tokenization strategies. Use when the user wants to benchmark on TokSuite, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports relative performance drop.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill toksuite-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Toksuite Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-toksuite-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: toksuite-eval
description: This benchmark evaluates the robustness of language model tokenizers against real-world input perturbations, including orthographic errors, script variations, homoglyphs, diacritics, and stylistic changes across five languages. It isolates the impact of tokenizer design by testing identical model architectures with different tokenization strategies. Use when the user wants to benchmark on TokSuite, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports relative performance drop.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2512.20757
bibtex_key: altintas2025toksuite
confidence: high
---
# toksuite-eval
> TokSuite: Measuring the Impact of Tokenizer Choice on Language Model Behavior — Altintas et al. (2025) (arXiv:2512.20757, 2025)
## What this evaluates
This benchmark evaluates the robustness of language model tokenizers against real-world input perturbations, including orthographic errors, script variations, homoglyphs, diacritics, and stylistic changes across five languages. It isolates the impact of tokenizer design by testing identical model architectures with different tokenization strategies.
## Datasets
- **TokSuite** — total ?; splits: test (-1); repo https://github.com/r-three/Tokenizers
## Metrics
- `relative performance drop` **(primary)** — range: other
- Calculated as (Acc_can - Acc_pert) / Acc_can, where Acc_can is accuracy on canonical input and Acc_pert is accuracy on perturbed input. Lower values indicate greater robustness; negative values indicate performance improvement on perturbed inputs.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Perturbed or canonical multiple-choice questions (text + options) in English, Turkish, Italian, Farsi, or Chinese.
**Output**: Model's predicted answer choice (e.g., A, B, C, D) or generated text response.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_relative_drop(acc_can, acc_pert):
if acc_can == 0:
return 0.0
return (acc_can - acc_pert) / acc_can
# For each perturbation category:
acc_can = mean(correct_predictions on canonical inputs)
acc_pert = mean(correct_predictions on perturbed inputs)
metric = compute_relative_drop(acc_can, acc_pert)
```
## Common pitfalls
- Negative metric values indicate performance improvement on perturbed inputs, not a calculation error.
- The metric measures relative drop, so a value of 0.0 means identical performance, while 1.0 means complete failure on perturbed inputs.
- Zero-width characters and homoglyphs affect morphologically complex languages (e.g., Farsi) differently due to whitespace and ligature dependencies.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> Values represent relative performance drop $(rac{ ext{Acc}_{ ext{can}} - ext{Acc}_{ ext{pert}}}{ ext{Acc}_{ ext{can}}})$ ; lower values indicate greater robustness.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{altintas2025toksuite,
title={TokSuite: Measuring the Impact of Tokenizer Choice on Language Model Behavior},
author={Altintas et al. (2025)},
year={2025},
note={arXiv:2512.20757}
}
```
- arXiv: 2512.20757
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!