az / README.md
omarkamali's picture
Upload all models and assets for az (latest)
abfac1f verified
|
raw
history blame
30.3 kB
---
language: az
language_name: Azerbaijani
language_family: turkic_oghuz
tags:
- wikilangs
- nlp
- tokenizer
- embeddings
- n-gram
- markov
- wikipedia
- feature-extraction
- sentence-similarity
- tokenization
- n-grams
- markov-chain
- text-mining
- fasttext
- babelvec
- vocabulous
- vocabulary
- monolingual
- family-turkic_oghuz
license: mit
library_name: wikilangs
pipeline_tag: text-generation
datasets:
- omarkamali/wikipedia-monthly
dataset_info:
name: wikipedia-monthly
description: Monthly snapshots of Wikipedia articles across 300+ languages
metrics:
- name: best_compression_ratio
type: compression
value: 5.131
- name: best_isotropy
type: isotropy
value: 0.8140
- name: vocabulary_size
type: vocab
value: 0
generated: 2026-01-04
---
# Azerbaijani - Wikilangs Models
## Comprehensive Research Report & Full Ablation Study
This repository contains NLP models trained and evaluated by Wikilangs, specifically on **Azerbaijani** Wikipedia data.
We analyze tokenizers, n-gram models, Markov chains, vocabulary statistics, and word embeddings.
## ๐Ÿ“‹ Repository Contents
### Models & Assets
- Tokenizers (8k, 16k, 32k, 64k)
- N-gram models (2, 3, 4, 5-gram)
- Markov chains (context of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5)
- Subword N-gram and Markov chains
- Embeddings in various sizes and dimensions (aligned and unaligned)
- Language Vocabulary
- Language Statistics
![Performance Dashboard](visualizations/performance_dashboard.png)
### Analysis and Evaluation
- [1. Tokenizer Evaluation](#1-tokenizer-evaluation)
- [2. N-gram Model Evaluation](#2-n-gram-model-evaluation)
- [3. Markov Chain Evaluation](#3-markov-chain-evaluation)
- [4. Vocabulary Analysis](#4-vocabulary-analysis)
- [5. Word Embeddings Evaluation](#5-word-embeddings-evaluation)
- [6. Morphological Analysis (Experimental)](#6--morphological-analysis-experimental)
- [7. Summary & Recommendations](#7-summary--recommendations)
- [Metrics Glossary](#appendix-metrics-glossary--interpretation-guide)
- [Visualizations Index](#visualizations-index)
---
## 1. Tokenizer Evaluation
![Tokenizer Compression](visualizations/tokenizer_compression.png)
![Tokenizer Fertility](visualizations/tokenizer_fertility.png)
![Tokenizer OOV](visualizations/tokenizer_oov.png)
![Total Tokens](visualizations/tokenizer_total_tokens.png)
### Results
| Vocab Size | Compression | Avg Token Len | UNK Rate | Total Tokens |
|------------|-------------|---------------|----------|--------------|
| **8k** | 3.945x | 3.95 | 0.0962% | 1,248,644 |
| **16k** | 4.426x | 4.43 | 0.1079% | 1,113,127 |
| **32k** | 4.825x | 4.83 | 0.1176% | 1,021,125 |
| **64k** | 5.131x ๐Ÿ† | 5.13 | 0.1251% | 960,074 |
### Tokenization Examples
Below are sample sentences tokenized with each vocabulary size:
**Sample 1:** `() โ€” alษ™minin dษ™stษ™sinin fษ™silษ™sinษ™ aid bitki cinsi. Sinonimlษ™ri Heterotipik sin...`
| Vocab | Tokens | Count |
|-------|--------|-------|
| 8k | `โ–() โ–โ€” โ–alษ™minin โ–dษ™stษ™sinin โ–fษ™silษ™sinษ™ โ–aid โ–bitki โ–cinsi . โ–sinonimlษ™ri ... (+6 more)` | 16 |
| 16k | `โ–() โ–โ€” โ–alษ™minin โ–dษ™stษ™sinin โ–fษ™silษ™sinษ™ โ–aid โ–bitki โ–cinsi . โ–sinonimlษ™ri ... (+6 more)` | 16 |
| 32k | `โ–() โ–โ€” โ–alษ™minin โ–dษ™stษ™sinin โ–fษ™silษ™sinษ™ โ–aid โ–bitki โ–cinsi . โ–sinonimlษ™ri ... (+6 more)` | 16 |
| 64k | `โ–() โ–โ€” โ–alษ™minin โ–dษ™stษ™sinin โ–fษ™silษ™sinษ™ โ–aid โ–bitki โ–cinsi . โ–sinonimlษ™ri ... (+6 more)` | 16 |
**Sample 2:** `() โ€” alษ™minin dษ™stษ™sinin fษ™silษ™sinin cinsinษ™ aid bitki nรถvรผ. Sinonimlษ™ri Homotip...`
| Vocab | Tokens | Count |
|-------|--------|-------|
| 8k | `โ–() โ–โ€” โ–alษ™minin โ–dษ™stษ™sinin โ–fษ™silษ™sinin โ–cinsinษ™ โ–aid โ–bitki โ–nรถvรผ . ... (+8 more)` | 18 |
| 16k | `โ–() โ–โ€” โ–alษ™minin โ–dษ™stษ™sinin โ–fษ™silษ™sinin โ–cinsinษ™ โ–aid โ–bitki โ–nรถvรผ . ... (+8 more)` | 18 |
| 32k | `โ–() โ–โ€” โ–alษ™minin โ–dษ™stษ™sinin โ–fษ™silษ™sinin โ–cinsinษ™ โ–aid โ–bitki โ–nรถvรผ . ... (+8 more)` | 18 |
| 64k | `โ–() โ–โ€” โ–alษ™minin โ–dษ™stษ™sinin โ–fษ™silษ™sinin โ–cinsinษ™ โ–aid โ–bitki โ–nรถvรผ . ... (+8 more)` | 18 |
**Sample 3:** `.lr โ€” Liberiyanฤฑn internet kodu. Xarici keรงidlษ™r IANA .lr whois information sษ™vi...`
| Vocab | Tokens | Count |
|-------|--------|-------|
| 8k | `โ–. l r โ–โ€” โ–li ber iyanฤฑn โ–internet โ–kodu . ... (+18 more)` | 28 |
| 16k | `โ–. l r โ–โ€” โ–liber iyanฤฑn โ–internet โ–kodu . โ–xarici ... (+13 more)` | 23 |
| 32k | `โ–. lr โ–โ€” โ–liber iyanฤฑn โ–internet โ–kodu . โ–xarici โ–keรงidlษ™r ... (+8 more)` | 18 |
| 64k | `โ–. lr โ–โ€” โ–liber iyanฤฑn โ–internet โ–kodu . โ–xarici โ–keรงidlษ™r ... (+8 more)` | 18 |
### Key Findings
- **Best Compression:** 64k achieves 5.131x compression
- **Lowest UNK Rate:** 8k with 0.0962% unknown tokens
- **Trade-off:** Larger vocabularies improve compression but increase model size
- **Recommendation:** 32k vocabulary provides optimal balance for production use
---
## 2. N-gram Model Evaluation
![N-gram Perplexity](visualizations/ngram_perplexity.png)
![N-gram Unique](visualizations/ngram_unique.png)
![N-gram Coverage](visualizations/ngram_coverage.png)
### Results
| N-gram | Variant | Perplexity | Entropy | Unique N-grams | Top-100 Coverage | Top-1000 Coverage |
|--------|---------|------------|---------|----------------|------------------|-------------------|
| **2-gram** | Word | 267,397 | 18.03 | 1,224,963 | 4.8% | 13.7% |
| **2-gram** | Subword | 404 ๐Ÿ† | 8.66 | 18,219 | 58.1% | 97.7% |
| **3-gram** | Word | 584,031 | 19.16 | 1,748,154 | 4.1% | 9.8% |
| **3-gram** | Subword | 3,741 | 11.87 | 158,841 | 20.7% | 61.1% |
| **4-gram** | Word | 1,231,291 | 20.23 | 3,034,353 | 3.9% | 8.4% |
| **4-gram** | Subword | 21,126 | 14.37 | 962,195 | 10.3% | 32.7% |
| **5-gram** | Word | 931,111 | 19.83 | 2,270,890 | 4.5% | 9.8% |
| **5-gram** | Subword | 81,852 | 16.32 | 3,259,009 | 6.2% | 20.7% |
### Top 5 N-grams by Size
**2-grams (Word):**
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|------|--------|-------|
| 1 | `vษ™ ya` | 84,279 |
| 2 | `xarici keรงidlษ™r` | 65,570 |
| 3 | `hษ™mรงinin bax` | 61,824 |
| 4 | `iฬ‡stinadlar xarici` | 45,903 |
| 5 | `iฬ‡stinadlar hษ™mรงinin` | 30,953 |
**3-grams (Word):**
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|------|--------|-------|
| 1 | `iฬ‡stinadlar xarici keรงidlษ™r` | 45,411 |
| 2 | `iฬ‡stinadlar hษ™mรงinin bax` | 30,925 |
| 3 | `fษ™silษ™sinin cinsinษ™ aid` | 20,614 |
| 4 | `dษ™stษ™sinin fษ™silษ™sinin cinsinษ™` | 18,390 |
| 5 | `aid bitki nรถvรผ` | 17,244 |
**4-grams (Word):**
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|------|--------|-------|
| 1 | `dษ™stษ™sinin fษ™silษ™sinin cinsinษ™ aid` | 18,390 |
| 2 | `cinsinษ™ aid bitki nรถvรผ` | 17,225 |
| 3 | `fษ™silษ™sinin cinsinษ™ aid bitki` | 17,194 |
| 4 | `alษ™minin dษ™stษ™sinin fษ™silษ™sinin cinsinษ™` | 14,711 |
| 5 | `nรถvรผ iฬ‡stinadlar hษ™mรงinin bax` | 10,186 |
**5-grams (Word):**
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|------|--------|-------|
| 1 | `fษ™silษ™sinin cinsinษ™ aid bitki nรถvรผ` | 17,191 |
| 2 | `dษ™stษ™sinin fษ™silษ™sinin cinsinษ™ aid bitki` | 15,001 |
| 3 | `alษ™minin dษ™stษ™sinin fษ™silษ™sinin cinsinษ™ aid` | 14,711 |
| 4 | `cinsinษ™ aid bitki nรถvรผ iฬ‡stinadlar` | 9,355 |
| 5 | `yeni รผmumi kataloqda qeydษ™ alฤฑnmฤฑลŸ` | 8,316 |
**2-grams (Subword):**
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|------|--------|-------|
| 1 | `n _` | 8,039,357 |
| 2 | `ษ™ _` | 6,502,225 |
| 3 | `i n` | 6,211,070 |
| 4 | `a r` | 5,368,955 |
| 5 | `ษ™ r` | 5,307,819 |
**3-grams (Subword):**
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|------|--------|-------|
| 1 | `l ษ™ r` | 2,430,392 |
| 2 | `l a r` | 2,275,096 |
| 3 | `d ษ™ _` | 2,158,334 |
| 4 | `i n _` | 2,041,519 |
| 5 | `a n _` | 1,830,488 |
**4-grams (Subword):**
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|------|--------|-------|
| 1 | `_ v ษ™ _` | 1,480,720 |
| 2 | `l ษ™ r i` | 1,249,750 |
| 3 | `l a r ฤฑ` | 1,061,145 |
| 4 | `i n d ษ™` | 1,055,926 |
| 5 | `n i n _` | 957,274 |
**5-grams (Subword):**
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|------|--------|-------|
| 1 | `i n i n _` | 790,811 |
| 2 | `l ษ™ r i n` | 652,788 |
| 3 | `i n d ษ™ _` | 641,243 |
| 4 | `l a r ฤฑ n` | 574,577 |
| 5 | `ฤฑ n d a _` | 522,632 |
### Key Findings
- **Best Perplexity:** 2-gram (subword) with 404
- **Entropy Trend:** Decreases with larger n-grams (more predictable)
- **Coverage:** Top-1000 patterns cover ~21% of corpus
- **Recommendation:** 4-gram or 5-gram for best predictive performance
---
## 3. Markov Chain Evaluation
![Markov Entropy](visualizations/markov_entropy.png)
![Markov Contexts](visualizations/markov_contexts.png)
![Markov Branching](visualizations/markov_branching.png)
### Results
| Context | Variant | Avg Entropy | Perplexity | Branching Factor | Unique Contexts | Predictability |
|---------|---------|-------------|------------|------------------|-----------------|----------------|
| **1** | Word | 0.9399 | 1.918 | 11.42 | 1,720,154 | 6.0% |
| **1** | Subword | 1.1732 | 2.255 | 8.01 | 8,102 | 0.0% |
| **2** | Word | 0.3192 | 1.248 | 1.95 | 19,621,953 | 68.1% |
| **2** | Subword | 0.7463 | 1.678 | 5.27 | 64,909 | 25.4% |
| **3** | Word | 0.1046 | 1.075 | 1.20 | 38,212,993 | 89.5% |
| **3** | Subword | 0.8107 | 1.754 | 4.76 | 342,087 | 18.9% |
| **4** | Word | 0.0352 ๐Ÿ† | 1.025 | 1.06 | 45,793,057 | 96.5% |
| **4** | Subword | 0.7288 | 1.657 | 3.64 | 1,627,867 | 27.1% |
### Generated Text Samples (Word-based)
Below are text samples generated from each word-based Markov chain model:
**Context Size 1:**
1. `vษ™ 25 cilddษ™ v ษ™sr kilsษ™lษ™ri keรงmiลŸ rodeziya adlฤฑ ilk britaniya vษ™ hษ™yat vษ™ proqramlar efir`
2. `ildษ™ fiziki cษ™hษ™tdษ™n ษ™lveriลŸsiz ลŸษ™rait yaratdฤฑ o tษ™briz universitetindษ™ asiya รถlkษ™lษ™rinษ™ marลŸal รงini...`
3. `ilษ™ yenidษ™n tamaลŸaya qoyur vษ™ ลŸirvanลŸahlar taxtฤฑnda gรถzรผ ilษ™ habelษ™ qafqazฤฑn qษ™rbi avropada vษ™ genos...`
**Context Size 2:**
1. `vษ™ ya yalan olan bir cismin sษ™thinin digษ™r cismin sษ™thi arasฤฑndakฤฑ ษ™laqษ™ni araลŸdฤฑrฤฑr iฬ‡sbat nษ™zษ™riyy...`
2. `xarici keรงidlษ™r ssr xalq hษ™rbi dษ™niz nazirinin kรถmษ™kรงisi iรงlษ™yib ilin iyun ayฤฑnda รงimkent ลŸษ™hษ™ri res...`
3. `iฬ‡stinadlar xarici keรงidlษ™r yanvar kaltenbrunner bir parade videosu nuremberg duruลŸmasฤฑnda kaltenbru...`
**Context Size 3:**
1. `iฬ‡stinadlar xarici keรงidlษ™r profile at sport resutls org kiลŸi velosipedรงilษ™r sรผrรผcรผlษ™ri yay olimpiya...`
2. `fษ™silษ™sinin cinsinษ™ aid bitki nรถvรผ sinonimlษ™ri heterotipik sinonimlษ™ri iฬ‡stinadlar hษ™mรงinin bax iฬ‡ra...`
3. `dษ™stษ™sinin fษ™silษ™sinin cinsinษ™ aid bitki nรถvรผ iฬ‡stinadlar hษ™mรงinin bax nizami sรผleymanov kษ™rrar ษ™bil...`
**Context Size 4:**
1. `dษ™stษ™sinin fษ™silษ™sinin cinsinษ™ aid heyvan nรถvรผ iฬ‡stinadlar hษ™mรงinin bax ildษ™ tษ™svir edilษ™n sษ™rtqanad...`
2. `cinsinษ™ aid bitki nรถvรผ tษ™bii yayฤฑlmasฤฑ botaniki tษ™sviri ekologiyasฤฑ azษ™rbaycanda yayฤฑlmasฤฑ iฬ‡stifadษ™...`
3. `fษ™silษ™sinin cinsinษ™ aid bitki nรถvรผ iฬ‡stinadlar hษ™mรงinin bax ildษ™ tษ™svir edilษ™n bitkilษ™r ildษ™ tษ™svir ...`
### Generated Text Samples (Subword-based)
Below are text samples generated from each subword-based Markov chain model:
**Context Size 1:**
1. `_sindฤฑrษ™,_ke_enฤฑ`
2. `ak,_xลŸdinrmisษ™_i`
3. `inฤฑ_bondษ™kilayaq`
**Context Size 2:**
1. `n_bษ™lษ™_hรผsymษ™tliq`
2. `ษ™_onlan_ehrษ™_il_m`
3. `indlaลŸฤฑ_atฤฑnd_eds`
**Context Size 3:**
1. `lษ™r_kuboku_olanmas`
2. `lar._sรถz_ษ™laqษ™di_b`
3. `dษ™_yabr_ilษ™_yer,_r`
**Context Size 4:**
1. `_vษ™_tษ™hsili_ilษ™_รงฤฑx`
2. `lษ™rini_100_mindษ™_il`
3. `indษ™n_yazdฤฑ,_lakin_`
### Key Findings
- **Best Predictability:** Context-4 (word) with 96.5% predictability
- **Branching Factor:** Decreases with context size (more deterministic)
- **Memory Trade-off:** Larger contexts require more storage (1,627,867 contexts)
- **Recommendation:** Context-3 or Context-4 for text generation
---
## 4. Vocabulary Analysis
![Zipf's Law](visualizations/zipf_law.png)
![Top Words](visualizations/top20_words.png)
![Coverage Curve](visualizations/vocab_coverage.png)
### Statistics
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Vocabulary Size | 756,239 |
| Total Tokens | 53,635,250 |
| Mean Frequency | 70.92 |
| Median Frequency | 4 |
| Frequency Std Dev | 2293.39 |
### Most Common Words
| Rank | Word | Frequency |
|------|------|-----------|
| 1 | vษ™ | 1,485,732 |
| 2 | ildษ™ | 413,531 |
| 3 | ilษ™ | 412,011 |
| 4 | bir | 365,123 |
| 5 | bu | 360,987 |
| 6 | dษ™ | 230,701 |
| 7 | รผรงรผn | 222,167 |
| 8 | azษ™rbaycan | 221,202 |
| 9 | olan | 220,810 |
| 10 | sonra | 181,029 |
### Least Common Words (from vocabulary)
| Rank | Word | Frequency |
|------|------|-----------|
| 1 | gallaghers | 2 |
| 2 | liamฤฑn | 2 |
| 3 | liamla | 2 |
| 4 | backstab | 2 |
| 5 | antonioi | 2 |
| 6 | nipissinq | 2 |
| 7 | votivkirche | 2 |
| 8 | pirtle | 2 |
| 9 | takaxasinin | 2 |
| 10 | caporael | 2 |
### Zipf's Law Analysis
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Zipf Coefficient | 0.9645 |
| Rยฒ (Goodness of Fit) | 0.992387 |
| Adherence Quality | **excellent** |
### Coverage Analysis
| Top N Words | Coverage |
|-------------|----------|
| Top 100 | 20.8% |
| Top 1,000 | 45.3% |
| Top 5,000 | 65.5% |
| Top 10,000 | 73.7% |
### Key Findings
- **Zipf Compliance:** Rยฒ=0.9924 indicates excellent adherence to Zipf's law
- **High Frequency Dominance:** Top 100 words cover 20.8% of corpus
- **Long Tail:** 746,239 words needed for remaining 26.3% coverage
---
## 5. Word Embeddings Evaluation
![Embedding Isotropy](visualizations/embedding_isotropy.png)
![Similarity Matrix](visualizations/embedding_similarity.png)
![t-SNE Words](visualizations/tsne_words.png)
![t-SNE Sentences](visualizations/tsne_sentences.png)
### 5.1 Cross-Lingual Alignment
![Alignment Quality](visualizations/embedding_alignment_quality.png)
![Multilingual t-SNE](visualizations/embedding_tsne_multilingual.png)
### 5.2 Model Comparison
| Model | Dimension | Isotropy | Semantic Density | Alignment R@1 | Alignment R@10 |
|-------|-----------|----------|------------------|---------------|----------------|
| **mono_32d** | 32 | 0.8140 ๐Ÿ† | 0.3681 | N/A | N/A |
| **mono_64d** | 64 | 0.8077 | 0.2833 | N/A | N/A |
| **mono_128d** | 128 | 0.7661 | 0.2223 | N/A | N/A |
| **aligned_32d** | 32 | 0.8140 | 0.3594 | 0.1680 | 0.4820 |
| **aligned_64d** | 64 | 0.8077 | 0.2928 | 0.2820 | 0.7100 |
| **aligned_128d** | 128 | 0.7661 | 0.2246 | 0.4440 | 0.7780 |
### Key Findings
- **Best Isotropy:** mono_32d with 0.8140 (more uniform distribution)
- **Semantic Density:** Average pairwise similarity of 0.2918. Lower values indicate better semantic separation.
- **Alignment Quality:** Aligned models achieve up to 44.4% R@1 in cross-lingual retrieval.
- **Recommendation:** 128d aligned for best cross-lingual performance
---
## 6. Morphological Analysis (Experimental)
This section presents an automated morphological analysis derived from the statistical divergence between word-level and subword-level models. By analyzing where subword predictability spikes and where word-level coverage fails, we can infer linguistic structures without supervised data.
### 6.1 Productivity & Complexity
| Metric | Value | Interpretation | Recommendation |
|--------|-------|----------------|----------------|
| Productivity Index | **5.000** | High morphological productivity | Reliable analysis |
| Idiomaticity Gap | **-0.527** | Low formulaic content | - |
### 6.2 Affix Inventory (Productive Units)
These are the most productive prefixes and suffixes identified by sampling the vocabulary for global substitutability patterns. A unit is considered an affix if stripping it leaves a valid stem that appears in other contexts.
#### Productive Prefixes
| Prefix | Examples |
|--------|----------|
#### Productive Suffixes
| Suffix | Examples |
|--------|----------|
| `-n` | kinopovestin, kristofferson, morfologiyasฤฑnฤฑn |
| `-a` | metraja, irradiyasiya, razumovskaya |
| `-in` | kinopovestin, kriolitin, ลŸikin |
| `-ฤฑn` | morfologiyasฤฑnฤฑn, baลŸฤฑn, buxtalarฤฑn |
| `-an` | mozaikasฤฑndan, qaรงmazdan, tsiklopropan |
| `-ar` | vษ™zifษ™simajoritar, yaratmฤฑลŸlar, tubalar |
| `-ษ™n` | pษ™rakษ™ndษ™liyindษ™n, gษ™rginlษ™ลŸmษ™sindษ™n, birincidษ™n |
| `-nฤฑn` | morfologiyasฤฑnฤฑn, tistanฤฑn, andrianฤฑn |
### 6.3 Bound Stems (Lexical Roots)
Bound stems are high-frequency subword units that are semantically cohesive but rarely appear as standalone words. These often correspond to the 'core' of a word that requires inflection or derivation to be valid.
| Stem | Cohesion | Substitutability | Examples |
|------|----------|------------------|----------|
| `ษ™rba` | 2.70x | 42 contexts | ษ™rbaa, ษ™rbab, lษ™rba |
| `rbay` | 2.38x | 53 contexts | orbay, arbay, erbay |
| `arix` | 2.17x | 73 contexts | larix, tarix, farix |
| `ayca` | 2.82x | 24 contexts | cayca, tayca, sayca |
| `miลŸd` | 1.65x | 164 contexts | miลŸdi, emiลŸdi, miลŸdir |
| `nlar` | 1.37x | 429 contexts | anlar, nlarฤฑ, onlar |
| `ษ™rษ™f` | 1.80x | 86 contexts | ลŸษ™rษ™f, ษ™rษ™fษ™, tษ™rษ™f |
| `lmiลŸ` | 1.76x | 94 contexts | รถlmiลŸ, almiลŸ, olmiลŸ |
| `mฤฑลŸd` | 1.60x | 142 contexts | mฤฑลŸdฤฑ, mฤฑลŸdฤฑr, camฤฑลŸda |
| `ycan` | 2.94x | 13 contexts | aycan, bษ™ycan, beycan |
| `qlar` | 1.45x | 196 contexts | aqlar, qlarn, lฤฑqlar |
| `ษ™fin` | 1.66x | 97 contexts | rษ™fin, dษ™fin, sษ™finษ™ |
### 6.4 Affix Compatibility (Co-occurrence)
This table shows which prefixes and suffixes most frequently co-occur on the same stems, revealing the 'stacking' rules of the language's morphology.
*No significant affix co-occurrences detected.*
### 6.5 Recursive Morpheme Segmentation
Using **Recursive Hierarchical Substitutability**, we decompose complex words into their constituent morphemes. This approach handles nested affixes (e.g., `prefix-prefix-root-suffix`).
| Word | Suggested Split | Confidence | Stem |
|------|-----------------|------------|------|
| foneminin | **`fonem-in-in`** | 6.0 | `fonem` |
| tษ™msillษ™rinin | **`tษ™msillษ™r-in-in`** | 6.0 | `tษ™msillษ™r` |
| qษ™tiyyษ™tinin | **`qษ™tiyyษ™t-in-in`** | 6.0 | `qษ™tiyyษ™t` |
| bรผkรผลŸlษ™rinin | **`bรผkรผลŸlษ™r-in-in`** | 6.0 | `bรผkรผลŸlษ™r` |
| hษ™disรงilษ™rinin | **`hษ™disรงilษ™r-in-in`** | 6.0 | `hษ™disรงilษ™r` |
| planlaลŸdฤฑrmaqda | **`planlaลŸdฤฑrmaq-da`** | 4.5 | `planlaลŸdฤฑrmaq` |
| bรถlmษ™lษ™rimizin | **`bรถlmษ™lษ™rimiz-in`** | 4.5 | `bรถlmษ™lษ™rimiz` |
| heteranฤฑn | **`hetera-nฤฑn`** | 4.5 | `hetera` |
| somervillin | **`somervill-in`** | 4.5 | `somervill` |
| tanฤฑmanฤฑn | **`tanฤฑma-nฤฑn`** | 4.5 | `tanฤฑma` |
| meyitlษ™rin | **`meyitlษ™r-in`** | 4.5 | `meyitlษ™r` |
| kameralizmin | **`kameralizm-in`** | 4.5 | `kameralizm` |
| burnettin | **`burnett-in`** | 4.5 | `burnett` |
| mussadฤฑqฤฑn | **`mussadฤฑq-ฤฑn`** | 4.5 | `mussadฤฑq` |
| qalaรงanฤฑn | **`qalaรงa-nฤฑn`** | 4.5 | `qalaรงa` |
### 6.6 Linguistic Interpretation
> **Automated Insight:**
The language Azerbaijani shows high morphological productivity. The subword models are significantly more efficient than word models, suggesting a rich system of affixation or compounding.
---
## 7. Summary & Recommendations
![Performance Dashboard](visualizations/performance_dashboard.png)
### Production Recommendations
| Component | Recommended | Rationale |
|-----------|-------------|-----------|
| Tokenizer | **64k BPE** | Best compression (5.13x) |
| N-gram | **2-gram** | Lowest perplexity (404) |
| Markov | **Context-4** | Highest predictability (96.5%) |
| Embeddings | **100d** | Balanced semantic capture and isotropy |
---
## Appendix: Metrics Glossary & Interpretation Guide
This section provides definitions, intuitions, and guidance for interpreting the metrics used throughout this report.
### Tokenizer Metrics
**Compression Ratio**
> *Definition:* The ratio of characters to tokens (chars/token). Measures how efficiently the tokenizer represents text.
>
> *Intuition:* Higher compression means fewer tokens needed to represent the same text, reducing sequence lengths for downstream models. A 3x compression means ~3 characters per token on average.
>
> *What to seek:* Higher is generally better for efficiency, but extremely high compression may indicate overly aggressive merging that loses morphological information.
**Average Token Length (Fertility)**
> *Definition:* Mean number of characters per token produced by the tokenizer.
>
> *Intuition:* Reflects the granularity of tokenization. Longer tokens capture more context but may struggle with rare words; shorter tokens are more flexible but increase sequence length.
>
> *What to seek:* Balance between 2-5 characters for most languages. Arabic/morphologically-rich languages may benefit from slightly longer tokens.
**Unknown Token Rate (OOV Rate)**
> *Definition:* Percentage of tokens that map to the unknown/UNK token, indicating words the tokenizer cannot represent.
>
> *Intuition:* Lower OOV means better vocabulary coverage. High OOV indicates the tokenizer encounters many unseen character sequences.
>
> *What to seek:* Below 1% is excellent; below 5% is acceptable. BPE tokenizers typically achieve very low OOV due to subword fallback.
### N-gram Model Metrics
**Perplexity**
> *Definition:* Measures how "surprised" the model is by test data. Mathematically: 2^(cross-entropy). Lower values indicate better prediction.
>
> *Intuition:* If perplexity is 100, the model is as uncertain as if choosing uniformly among 100 options at each step. A perplexity of 10 means effectively choosing among 10 equally likely options.
>
> *What to seek:* Lower is better. Perplexity decreases with larger n-grams (more context). Values vary widely by language and corpus size.
**Entropy**
> *Definition:* Average information content (in bits) needed to encode the next token given the context. Related to perplexity: perplexity = 2^entropy.
>
> *Intuition:* High entropy means high uncertainty/randomness; low entropy means predictable patterns. Natural language typically has entropy between 1-4 bits per character.
>
> *What to seek:* Lower entropy indicates more predictable text patterns. Entropy should decrease as n-gram size increases.
**Coverage (Top-K)**
> *Definition:* Percentage of corpus occurrences explained by the top K most frequent n-grams.
>
> *Intuition:* High coverage with few patterns indicates repetitive/formulaic text; low coverage suggests diverse vocabulary usage.
>
> *What to seek:* Depends on use case. For language modeling, moderate coverage (40-60% with top-1000) is typical for natural text.
### Markov Chain Metrics
**Average Entropy**
> *Definition:* Mean entropy across all contexts, measuring average uncertainty in next-word prediction.
>
> *Intuition:* Lower entropy means the model is more confident about what comes next. Context-1 has high entropy (many possible next words); Context-4 has low entropy (few likely continuations).
>
> *What to seek:* Decreasing entropy with larger context sizes. Very low entropy (<0.1) indicates highly deterministic transitions.
**Branching Factor**
> *Definition:* Average number of unique next tokens observed for each context.
>
> *Intuition:* High branching = many possible continuations (flexible but uncertain); low branching = few options (predictable but potentially repetitive).
>
> *What to seek:* Branching factor should decrease with context size. Values near 1.0 indicate nearly deterministic chains.
**Predictability**
> *Definition:* Derived metric: (1 - normalized_entropy) ร— 100%. Indicates how deterministic the model's predictions are.
>
> *Intuition:* 100% predictability means the next word is always certain; 0% means completely random. Real text falls between these extremes.
>
> *What to seek:* Higher predictability for text generation quality, but too high (>98%) may produce repetitive output.
### Vocabulary & Zipf's Law Metrics
**Zipf's Coefficient**
> *Definition:* The slope of the log-log plot of word frequency vs. rank. Zipf's law predicts this should be approximately -1.
>
> *Intuition:* A coefficient near -1 indicates the corpus follows natural language patterns where a few words are very common and most words are rare.
>
> *What to seek:* Values between -0.8 and -1.2 indicate healthy natural language distribution. Deviations may suggest domain-specific or artificial text.
**Rยฒ (Coefficient of Determination)**
> *Definition:* Measures how well the linear fit explains the frequency-rank relationship. Ranges from 0 to 1.
>
> *Intuition:* Rยฒ near 1.0 means the data closely follows Zipf's law; lower values indicate deviation from expected word frequency patterns.
>
> *What to seek:* Rยฒ > 0.95 is excellent; > 0.99 indicates near-perfect Zipf adherence typical of large natural corpora.
**Vocabulary Coverage**
> *Definition:* Cumulative percentage of corpus tokens accounted for by the top N words.
>
> *Intuition:* Shows how concentrated word usage is. If top-100 words cover 50% of text, the corpus relies heavily on common words.
>
> *What to seek:* Top-100 covering 30-50% is typical. Higher coverage indicates more repetitive text; lower suggests richer vocabulary.
### Word Embedding Metrics
**Isotropy**
> *Definition:* Measures how uniformly distributed vectors are in the embedding space. Computed as the ratio of minimum to maximum singular values.
>
> *Intuition:* High isotropy (near 1.0) means vectors spread evenly in all directions; low isotropy means vectors cluster in certain directions, reducing expressiveness.
>
> *What to seek:* Higher isotropy generally indicates better-quality embeddings. Values > 0.1 are reasonable; > 0.3 is good. Lower-dimensional embeddings tend to have higher isotropy.
**Average Norm**
> *Definition:* Mean magnitude (L2 norm) of word vectors in the embedding space.
>
> *Intuition:* Indicates the typical "length" of vectors. Consistent norms suggest stable training; high variance may indicate some words are undertrained.
>
> *What to seek:* Relatively consistent norms across models. The absolute value matters less than consistency (low std deviation).
**Cosine Similarity**
> *Definition:* Measures angular similarity between vectors, ranging from -1 (opposite) to 1 (identical direction).
>
> *Intuition:* Words with similar meanings should have high cosine similarity. This is the standard metric for semantic relatedness in embeddings.
>
> *What to seek:* Semantically related words should score > 0.5; unrelated words should be near 0. Synonyms often score > 0.7.
**t-SNE Visualization**
> *Definition:* t-Distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding - a dimensionality reduction technique that preserves local structure for visualization.
>
> *Intuition:* Clusters in t-SNE plots indicate groups of semantically related words. Spread indicates vocabulary diversity; tight clusters suggest semantic coherence.
>
> *What to seek:* Meaningful clusters (e.g., numbers together, verbs together). Avoid over-interpreting distances - t-SNE preserves local, not global, structure.
### General Interpretation Guidelines
1. **Compare within model families:** Metrics are most meaningful when comparing models of the same type (e.g., 8k vs 64k tokenizer).
2. **Consider trade-offs:** Better performance on one metric often comes at the cost of another (e.g., compression vs. OOV rate).
3. **Context matters:** Optimal values depend on downstream tasks. Text generation may prioritize different metrics than classification.
4. **Corpus influence:** All metrics are influenced by corpus characteristics. Wikipedia text differs from social media or literature.
5. **Language-specific patterns:** Morphologically rich languages (like Arabic) may show different optimal ranges than analytic languages.
### Visualizations Index
| Visualization | Description |
|---------------|-------------|
| Tokenizer Compression | Compression ratios by vocabulary size |
| Tokenizer Fertility | Average token length by vocabulary |
| Tokenizer OOV | Unknown token rates |
| Tokenizer Total Tokens | Total tokens by vocabulary |
| N-gram Perplexity | Perplexity by n-gram size |
| N-gram Entropy | Entropy by n-gram size |
| N-gram Coverage | Top pattern coverage |
| N-gram Unique | Unique n-gram counts |
| Markov Entropy | Entropy by context size |
| Markov Branching | Branching factor by context |
| Markov Contexts | Unique context counts |
| Zipf's Law | Frequency-rank distribution with fit |
| Vocab Frequency | Word frequency distribution |
| Top 20 Words | Most frequent words |
| Vocab Coverage | Cumulative coverage curve |
| Embedding Isotropy | Vector space uniformity |
| Embedding Norms | Vector magnitude distribution |
| Embedding Similarity | Word similarity heatmap |
| Nearest Neighbors | Similar words for key terms |
| t-SNE Words | 2D word embedding visualization |
| t-SNE Sentences | 2D sentence embedding visualization |
| Position Encoding | Encoding method comparison |
| Model Sizes | Storage requirements |
| Performance Dashboard | Comprehensive performance overview |
---
## About This Project
### Data Source
Models trained on [wikipedia-monthly](https://huggingface.co/datasets/omarkamali/wikipedia-monthly) - a monthly snapshot of Wikipedia articles across 300+ languages.
### Project
A project by **[Wikilangs](https://wikilangs.org)** - Open-source NLP models for every Wikipedia language.
### Maintainer
[Omar Kamali](https://omarkamali.com) - [Omneity Labs](https://omneitylabs.com)
### Citation
If you use these models in your research, please cite:
```bibtex
@misc{wikilangs2025,
author = {Kamali, Omar},
title = {Wikilangs: Open NLP Models for Wikipedia Languages},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.5281/zenodo.18073153},
publisher = {Zenodo},
url = {https://huggingface.co/wikilangs}
institution = {Omneity Labs}
}
```
### License
MIT License - Free for academic and commercial use.
### Links
- ๐ŸŒ Website: [wikilangs.org](https://wikilangs.org)
- ๐Ÿค— Models: [huggingface.co/wikilangs](https://huggingface.co/wikilangs)
- ๐Ÿ“Š Data: [wikipedia-monthly](https://huggingface.co/datasets/omarkamali/wikipedia-monthly)
- ๐Ÿ‘ค Author: [Omar Kamali](https://huggingface.co/omarkamali)
- ๐Ÿค Sponsor: [Featherless AI](https://featherless.ai)
---
*Generated by Wikilangs Models Pipeline*
*Report Date: 2026-01-04 14:36:36*