Token Sugar: Making Source Code Sweeter for LLMs through Token-Efficient Shorthand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) have shown exceptional performance in code generation and understanding tasks, yet their high computational costs hinder broader adoption. One important factor is the inherent verbosity of programming languages, such as unnecessary formatting elements and lengthy boilerplate code. This leads to inflated token counts in both input and generated outputs, which increases inference costs and slows down the generation process. Prior work improves this through simplifying programming language grammar, reducing token usage across both code understanding and generation tasks. However, it is confined to syntactic transformations, leaving significant opportunities for token reduction unrealized at the semantic level.In this work, we propose Token Sugar, a concept that replaces frequent and verbose code patterns with reversible, token-efficient shorthand in the source code. To realize this concept in practice, we designed a systematic solution that mines high-frequency, token-heavy patterns from a code corpus, maps each to a unique shorthand, and integrates them into LLM pretraining via code transformation. With this solution, we obtain 799 (code pattern, shorthand) pairs, which can reduce up to 15.1% token count in the source code and is complementary to existing syntax-focused methods. We further trained three widely used LLMs on Token Sugar-augmented data. Experimental results show that these models not only achieve significant token savings (up to 11.2% reduction) during generation but also maintain near-identical Pass@1 scores compared to baselines trained on unprocessed code.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".