  Subword tokenization has become the de-facto standard for tokenization,
although comparative evaluations of subword vocabulary quality across languages
are scarce. Existing evaluation studies focus on the effect of a tokenization
algorithm on the performance in downstream tasks, or on engineering criteria
such as the compression rate. We present a new evaluation paradigm that focuses
on the cognitive plausibility of subword tokenization. We analyze the
correlation of the tokenizer output with the response time and accuracy of
human performance on a lexical decision task. We compare three tokenization
algorithms across several languages and vocabulary sizes. Our results indicate
that the UnigramLM algorithm yields less cognitively plausible tokenization
behavior and a worse coverage of derivational morphemes, in contrast with prior
work.
