Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.17096

A Glyph Is Not a Letter, a Token Is Not a Word, a Space Is Not a Space: What the Units of Voynichese Are Not

Liudmila Rozanova·Alexander Temerev
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The Voynich manuscript (Beinecke MS 408) is usually analysed on three unstated assumptions: that its glyphs are letters, that the strings between blanks are words, and that every blank is a word space. We test all three against the Zandbergen-Landini transliteration with matched prose, cipher, and pseudo-text controls and quire-level resampling. None holds, and the failures share a shape: the order in Voynichese sits at the edges of tokens and at graded boundaries between them, not in the succession of tokens themselves. Glyph regularity is too strong for one-to-one substitution of any tested plaintext (conditional entropy 2.7 bits against about 3.5 for Latin, Italian, and English) and resolves instead onto a quire-stable scale of recurrent multi-symbol units. Tokens form a plausible vocabulary, yet the identity of one token predicts the next by under 1% of token entropy, below every matched control (2-10%), while the glyphs at token edges share 0.2 bits of mutual information, more than in any prose control. Blanks fall into two regimes: the separators transcribers marked uncertain behave like word-internal junctures, are physically narrower on the page (AUC 0.905 from independent image coordinates, with the same sign in a small blind ink audit), and are crossed by learned units even when every space is erased before learning. This profile is also what discriminates. A published Voynich-imitating cipher and a self-citation text generator both reproduce the low entropy, the unit scale, the weak token order, and the null result of a calibrated substitution attack; neither reproduces the edge-glyph coupling or the open, hapax-rich vocabulary (70% singleton types against 41% and 59-60%). Any account of the manuscript must therefore earn, rather than assume, the step from glyphs, tokens, and separators to letters, words, and word spaces, and these are the measurements on which to do so.

Explore related subjects

cs.CL

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Liudmila Rozanova, Alexander Temerev. 2026-08-17. A Glyph Is Not a Letter, a Token Is Not a Word, a Space Is Not a Space: What the Units of Voynichese Are Not. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.17096

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

DA-Cramming: Enhancing Cost-Effective Language Model Pretraining with Dependency Agreement Integration

Pretraining language models is still a challenge for many researchers due to its substantial computational costs. As such, there is growing interest in developing more affordable pretraining methods. One notable advancement in this area is the Cramming technique (Geiping and Goldstein, 2022), which enables the pretraining of BERT-style language models using just one GPU in a single day. Building on this innovative approach, we introduce the Dependency Agreement Cramming (DA-Cramming), an efficient framework that integrates information about dependency agreements into the pretraining process. Unlike existing methods that leverage similar semantic information during finetuning, our approach represents a pioneering effort focusing on enhancing the foundational language understanding with semantic information during pretraining. We meticulously design a dual-stage pretraining work flow with four dedicated submodels to capture representative dependency agreements at the chunk level, effectively transforming these agreements into embeddings to benefit the pretraining. Extensive empirical results demonstrate that our method significantly outperforms previous methods across various tasks.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

BigO(Bench): Can LLMs Generate Code with Controlled Time and Space Complexity?

We introduce BigO(Bench), a novel coding benchmark designed to evaluate the capabilities of generative language models in understanding and generating code with specified time and space complexities. This benchmark addresses the gap in current evaluations that often overlook the ability of models to comprehend and produce code constrained by computational complexity. BigO(Bench) includes tooling to infer the algorithmic complexity of any Python function from profiling measurements, including human- or LLM-generated solutions. BigO(Bench) also includes of set of 3,105 coding problems and 1,190,250 solutions from Code Contests annotated with inferred (synthetic) time and space complexity labels from the complexity framework, as well as corresponding runtime and memory footprint values for a large set of input sizes. We present results from evaluating multiple state-of-the-art language models on this benchmark, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses in handling complexity requirements. In particular, token-space reasoning models are unrivaled in code generation but not in complexity understanding, hinting that they may not generalize well to tasks for which no reward was given at training time.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

SafetyFlow: An Agent-Flow System for Automated LLM Safety Benchmarking

The rapid proliferation of large language models (LLMs) has intensified the requirement for reliable safety evaluation to uncover model vulnerabilities. To this end, numerous LLM safety evaluation benchmarks are proposed. However, existing benchmarks generally rely on labor-intensive manual curation, which causes excessive time and resource consumption. They also exhibit significant redundancy and limited difficulty. To alleviate these problems, we introduce SafetyFlow, the first agent-flow system designed to automate the construction of LLM safety benchmarks. SafetyFlow can automatically build a comprehensive safety benchmark in only four days without any human intervention by orchestrating seven specialized agents, significantly reducing time and resource cost. Equipped with versatile tools, the agents of SafetyFlow ensure process and cost controllability while integrating human expertise into the automatic pipeline. The final constructed dataset, SafetyFlowBench, contains 23,446 queries with low redundancy and strong discriminative power. Our contribution includes the first fully automated benchmarking pipeline and a comprehensive safety benchmark. We evaluate the safety of 49 advanced LLMs on our dataset and conduct extensive experiments to validate our efficacy and efficiency.

cs.CL↗