Tokenization is a critical component of the language modeling pipeline, but it is poorly understood. Tokenizers can drastically impact downstream performance, but currently there is mixed evidence about which intrinsic tokenizer evaluations are able to predict which tokenizers will result in a better language model before training the model. In this paper, we analyze approximately 200 language models trained on nine different languages. We evaluate both models and their tokenizers and test whether there is a relationship between any proposed intrinsic tokenizer evaluations and model performance, as measured by a wide variety of benchmarks. Despite the quantity and variety of proposed intrinsic tokenizer metrics, none consistently predicts downstream performance across model families, tasks, and languages. This motivates the need for novel tokenizer evaluation metrics and approaches. Our analysis of a novel linguistically grounded metric introduced in this work shows that new metrics can capture aspects of tokenizer quality that existing metrics miss, though their predictive power is likely to vary across model families and languages.

Weight tying, i.e. sharing parameters between input and output embedding matrices, is common practice in language model design, yet its impact on the learned embedding space remains poorly understood. In this paper, we show that tied embedding matrices align more closely with output (unembedding) matrices than with input embeddings of comparable untied models, indicating that the shared matrix is shaped primarily for output prediction rather than input representation. This unembedding bias arises because output gradients dominate early in training. Using tuned lens analysis, we show this negatively affects early-layer computations, which contribute less effectively to the residual stream. Scaling input gradients during training reduces this bias, providing causal evidence for the role of gradient imbalance. This is mechanistic evidence that weight tying optimizes the embedding matrix for output prediction, compromising its role in input representation. These results help explain why weight tying can harm performance at scale and have implications for training smaller LLMs, where the embedding matrix contributes substantially to total parameter count.