ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2025
The impact of tokenizer selection in genomic language models.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Retrofitting language models to operate over bytes.Nature · 2026Article
- EvoSNR-Prom: Predicting promoters at single-nucleotide resolution with label-aware transfer learning of the pretrained EVO model.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Systematic contextual biases in SegmentNT potentially relevant to other nucleotide transformer models.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- Building genomic data structures from compressed representations using prefix-free parsing.Genome research · 2026Review
- Systematic contextual biases in SegmentNT potentially relevant to other nucleotide transformer models.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- The DNA dialect: a comprehensive guide to pretrained genomic language models.Molecular systems biology · 2026Review
- Optimizing genomic language models for promoter prediction: a comparative study of tokenization and cross-species learning.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
motivationGenomic language models have recently emerged as a new method to decode, interpret, and generate genetic sequences. Existing genomic language models have utilized various tokenization methods, including character tokenization, overlapping and nonoverlapping k-mer tokenization, and byte-pair encoding, a method widely used in natural language models. Genomic sequences differ from natural language because of their low character variability, complex and overlapping features, and inconsistent directionality. These features make subword tokenization in genomic language models significantly different from both traditional language models and protein language models.
resultsThis study explores the impact of tokenization in genomic language models by evaluating their downstream performance on 44 classification fine-tuning tasks. We also perform a direct comparison of byte pair encoding and character tokenization in Mamba, a state-space model. Our results indicate that character tokenization outperforms subword tokenization methods on tasks that rely on nucleotide-level resolution, such as splice site prediction and promoter detection. While byte-pair tokenization had stronger performance on the SARS-CoV-2 variant classification task, we observed limited statistically significant differences between tokenization methods on the remaining downstream tasks. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Detailed results of all benchmarking experiments are available in https://github.com/leannmlindsey/DNAtokenization. Training datasets and pretrained models are available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/leannmlindsey. Datasets and processing scripts are available at doi: 10.5281/zenodo.16287401 and doi: 10.5281/zenodo.16287130.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.