179 questions
No questions match those filters.
Why not just use a much larger vocabulary for an LLM's...
This is one of the questions in the full AI/ML interview bank. Pro unlocks all 1789 questions; Premium includes the same bank plus the highest daily Practice limit.
See plansVocabulary size is a genuine trade-off, not a free lunch, because two of the most expensive parts of the model scale directly with it. The embedding matrix (mapping token IDs to vectors) and the output projection layer (mapping the final hidden state back to logits over the vocabulary) are both shaped by vocabulary size, so doubling it roughly doubles the parameter count and memory footprint of those two layers specifically — and for smaller models these can be a surprisingly large fraction of total parameters.
The softmax over the output layer is where the cost shows up at inference time: it’s computed once per generated token, so a larger vocabulary means more expensive normalization at every single decoding step, adding latency that compounds over a long generation.
There’s also a statistical cost that’s easy to miss: expanding the vocabulary to cover more rare or specialized terms means each of those new tokens appears less often in training data, so they receive less gradient signal and end up with weaker, less well-calibrated representations than common tokens — a sparser vocabulary tail rather than genuinely better coverage. In practice teams pick vocabulary size by balancing average tokens-per-word (smaller vocab, more fragmentation, longer sequences) against these memory, latency, and sparsity costs, not by maximizing raw coverage.