Where symbols are hidden: common patterns in symbolic vocabulary

Links table

Abstract and 1. Introduction

2. Blind

   2.1 Distinguished symbol analysis

   2.2 indicators to discover trained symbols without training and 2.3 checking the candidate codes

3. results

   3.1 The effectiveness of indicators and verification

   3.2 common notes

   3.3 Model notes

4. Closed source models

5. Discussion, recognition and references

A. Verification details

for. Short preliminary on UTF-8 coding

Jim Exit to check API

3.2 common notes

Although many of the results we have reached depend on the details of the model such as Tokenizer training and composition, models engineering, and training data, there are a number of common denominators that appear across many different model families.

3.2.1 Single symbols bye

The symbols that represent one byte are a common source of trained symbols. The most common occurrence is the “0xf5-0xff” by the unused in UTF-8 encrypted text[2]It is a suitable source for determining the speed of reference codes that are quickly trained for the indicators it requires. In addition, it includes many features including GEMMA, Llama2 and Mistral families per high symbol, but in addition, set a repeated code for many characters in the regular Ascii range 0x00 – 0x7f. For example, A Both symbol 282 as a non -user by vicious players ’symbol and charging 235280 A“ A ”in GEMMA models. These problems are not universal, and we also find models that include 243 bytes used in UTF-8

As symbols, including models by Eleutherai [14]. Distinctive symbols of single-non-trained pepts are usually classified as “UTF-8 Steel Steles” or “Informed”, and our indicators are effective in detecting any of them never seen or rare in training. We publish specific tables that display the case of each one byte icon for each model analyzed in our warehouse.

3.2.2 fractures of integrated symbols

3.2.3 Special codes

Many models include non -trained symbols, such as and or <| unused_123 |>. In the following discussion, we generally deleted them, unless their position as a coach (UN) symbol is particularly surprising, as its inclusion in the distinctive symbol and training data are usually deliberate, for purposes such as the ability to adjust models without changing the distinctive symbol. One of the common observations is that in many symbols such as Which we expect to be completely not trained, yet it seems that he has been seen in training. One of the possible sources of this is code warehouses or evidence about language models that use these symbols in the normal text, in addition to the symbols that allow such symbols to control the normal entry text.

---

[2] See the supplement B to introduce an introduction to the UTF-8 coding.

[3] When mentioning fragments of the most complete symbols, the distinctive symbols were not detected or verified as unwilling, unless it is explicitly mentioned.