Standard Byte-Pair Encoding (BPE) tokenization compresses text by pairing a learned token vocabulary with a detailed merge list. Recent work has shown that this merge list exposes a potential attack surface for extracting information about language model’s training data. In this paper, we explore the downstream impact of BPE inference algorithms that do not rely on this merge list at all, and hence differ from the encoding process during the BPE training. To address this question, we investigate two broad classes of BPE inference schemes that differ from BPE application during training: a) targetted deviation from merge-lists including random merge orders, and various corruptions of merge list involving deletion/truncation, and b) non-targetted BPE inference algorithms that do not depend on the merge list but focus on compressing the text either greedily or exactly. Extensive experiments across diverse language modeling tasks like accuracy-based QA bench- marks, machine translation, and open-ended generation reveal that while the targetted deviation from the merge lists exhibit significant degradation in language model performance, the non-targetted merge-list free inference algorithms result in minimal impact on downstream performance that is often much smaller than expected. These findings pave way for simpler and potentially more privacy-preserving tokenization schemes that do not catastrophically compromise model performance.

While question-answering (QA) benchmark performance is an automatic and scalable method to compare LLMs, it is an indirect method of evaluating their underlying problem-solving capabilities. Therefore, we propose a holistic and generalizable framework based on **cascaded question disclosure** that provides a more accurate estimate of the models’ problem-solving capabilities while maintaining the scalability and automation. This approach collects model responses in a stagewise manner with each stage revealing partial information about the question designed to elicit generalized reasoning in LLMs. We find that our approach not only provides a better comparison between LLMs, but also induces better intermediate traces in models compared to the standard QA paradigm. We empirically verify this behavior on diverse reasoning and knowledge-heavy QA datasets by comparing LLMs of varying sizes and families. Our approach narrows the performance gap observed in the standard QA evaluation settings, indicating that the prevalent indirect QA paradigm of evaluation overestimates the differences in performance between models.We further validate our findings by extensive ablation studies.