|
|
--- |
|
|
language: az |
|
|
language_name: AZ |
|
|
language_family: turkic_oghuz |
|
|
tags: |
|
|
- wikilangs |
|
|
- nlp |
|
|
- tokenizer |
|
|
- embeddings |
|
|
- n-gram |
|
|
- markov |
|
|
- wikipedia |
|
|
- monolingual |
|
|
- family-turkic_oghuz |
|
|
license: mit |
|
|
library_name: wikilangs |
|
|
pipeline_tag: feature-extraction |
|
|
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: 4.560 |
|
|
- name: best_isotropy |
|
|
type: isotropy |
|
|
value: 0.8153 |
|
|
- name: vocabulary_size |
|
|
type: vocab |
|
|
value: 807823 |
|
|
generated: 2025-12-27 |
|
|
--- |
|
|
|
|
|
# AZ - Wikilangs Models |
|
|
## Comprehensive Research Report & Full Ablation Study |
|
|
|
|
|
This repository contains NLP models trained and evaluated by Wikilangs, specifically on **AZ** Wikipedia data. |
|
|
We analyze tokenizers, n-gram models, Markov chains, vocabulary statistics, and word embeddings. |
|
|
|
|
|
## π Repository Contents |
|
|
|
|
|
### Models & Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
- Tokenizers (8k, 16k, 32k, 64k) |
|
|
- N-gram models (2, 3, 4-gram) |
|
|
- Markov chains (context of 1, 2, 3 and 4) |
|
|
- Subword N-gram and Markov chains |
|
|
- Embeddings in various sizes and dimensions |
|
|
- Language Vocabulary |
|
|
- Language Statistics |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
### 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. Summary & Recommendations](#6-summary--recommendations) |
|
|
- [Metrics Glossary](#appendix-metrics-glossary--interpretation-guide) |
|
|
- [Visualizations Index](#visualizations-index) |
|
|
|
|
|
--- |
|
|
## 1. Tokenizer Evaluation |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
### Results |
|
|
|
|
|
| Vocab Size | Compression | Avg Token Len | UNK Rate | Total Tokens | |
|
|
|------------|-------------|---------------|----------|--------------| |
|
|
| **8k** | 3.637x | 3.59 | 0.0980% | 1,442,215 | |
|
|
| **16k** | 4.016x | 3.97 | 0.1082% | 1,305,814 | |
|
|
| **32k** | 4.326x | 4.27 | 0.1165% | 1,212,431 | |
|
|
| **64k** | 4.560x π | 4.50 | 0.1229% | 1,150,092 | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Tokenization Examples |
|
|
|
|
|
Below are sample sentences tokenized with each vocabulary size: |
|
|
|
|
|
**Sample 1:** `HadisΙlΙr |
|
|
|
|
|
DoΔumlar |
|
|
|
|
|
VΙfatlar |
|
|
Soqdian β e.Ι. 424β423-cΓΌ illΙrdΙ hakimiyyΙt...` |
|
|
|
|
|
| Vocab | Tokens | Count | |
|
|
|-------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 8k | `βhadisΙlΙr βdoΔumlar βvΙfatlar βs oq di an ββ βe . ... (+21 more)` | 31 | |
|
|
| 16k | `βhadisΙlΙr βdoΔumlar βvΙfatlar βs oq dian ββ βe . Ι ... (+19 more)` | 29 | |
|
|
| 32k | `βhadisΙlΙr βdoΔumlar βvΙfatlar βs oq dian ββ βe . Ι ... (+18 more)` | 28 | |
|
|
| 64k | `βhadisΙlΙr βdoΔumlar βvΙfatlar βsoq dian ββ βe . Ι . ... (+17 more)` | 27 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**Sample 2:** `() β alΙminin dΙstΙsinin fΙsilΙsinin cinsinΙ aid bitki nΓΆvΓΌ. |
|
|
|
|
|
Δ°stinadlar |
|
|
|
|
|
...` |
|
|
|
|
|
| Vocab | Tokens | Count | |
|
|
|-------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 8k | `β() ββ βalΙminin βdΙstΙsinin βfΙsilΙsinin βcinsinΙ βaid βbitki βnΓΆvΓΌ . ... (+3 more)` | 13 | |
|
|
| 16k | `β() ββ βalΙminin βdΙstΙsinin βfΙsilΙsinin βcinsinΙ βaid βbitki βnΓΆvΓΌ . ... (+3 more)` | 13 | |
|
|
| 32k | `β() ββ βalΙminin βdΙstΙsinin βfΙsilΙsinin βcinsinΙ βaid βbitki βnΓΆvΓΌ . ... (+3 more)` | 13 | |
|
|
| 64k | `β() ββ βalΙminin βdΙstΙsinin βfΙsilΙsinin βcinsinΙ βaid βbitki βnΓΆvΓΌ . ... (+3 more)` | 13 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**Sample 3:** `() β alΙminin dΙstΙsinin fΙsilΙsinin cinsinΙ aid bitki nΓΆvΓΌ. |
|
|
|
|
|
Δ°stinadlar |
|
|
|
|
|
...` |
|
|
|
|
|
| Vocab | Tokens | Count | |
|
|
|-------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 8k | `β() ββ βalΙminin βdΙstΙsinin βfΙsilΙsinin βcinsinΙ βaid βbitki βnΓΆvΓΌ . ... (+3 more)` | 13 | |
|
|
| 16k | `β() ββ βalΙminin βdΙstΙsinin βfΙsilΙsinin βcinsinΙ βaid βbitki βnΓΆvΓΌ . ... (+3 more)` | 13 | |
|
|
| 32k | `β() ββ βalΙminin βdΙstΙsinin βfΙsilΙsinin βcinsinΙ βaid βbitki βnΓΆvΓΌ . ... (+3 more)` | 13 | |
|
|
| 64k | `β() ββ βalΙminin βdΙstΙsinin βfΙsilΙsinin βcinsinΙ βaid βbitki βnΓΆvΓΌ . ... (+3 more)` | 13 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Key Findings |
|
|
|
|
|
- **Best Compression:** 64k achieves 4.560x compression |
|
|
- **Lowest UNK Rate:** 8k with 0.0980% 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
### Results |
|
|
|
|
|
| N-gram | Perplexity | Entropy | Unique N-grams | Top-100 Coverage | Top-1000 Coverage | |
|
|
|--------|------------|---------|----------------|------------------|-------------------| |
|
|
| **2-gram** | 116,331 π | 16.83 | 1,418,191 | 12.2% | 25.0% | |
|
|
| **2-gram** | 463 π | 8.85 | 22,197 | 55.1% | 96.6% | |
|
|
| **3-gram** | 409,514 | 18.64 | 2,779,660 | 7.3% | 16.3% | |
|
|
| **3-gram** | 4,354 | 12.09 | 215,243 | 19.6% | 58.8% | |
|
|
| **4-gram** | 1,285,123 | 20.29 | 5,336,948 | 4.2% | 9.8% | |
|
|
| **4-gram** | 24,655 | 14.59 | 1,308,669 | 10.0% | 31.8% | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Top 5 N-grams by Size |
|
|
|
|
|
**2-grams:** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `i Μ` | 824,078 | |
|
|
| 2 | `- ci` | 452,530 | |
|
|
| 3 | `kateqoriya :` | 365,784 | |
|
|
| 4 | `. i` | 236,809 | |
|
|
| 5 | `ci ildΙ` | 221,298 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**3-grams:** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `. i Μ` | 227,697 | |
|
|
| 2 | `- ci ildΙ` | 220,310 | |
|
|
| 3 | `i Μ stinadlar` | 171,011 | |
|
|
| 4 | `- cΓΌ ildΙ` | 76,499 | |
|
|
| 5 | `( ) β` | 70,885 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**4-grams:** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `. i Μ stinadlar` | 103,078 | |
|
|
| 2 | `i Μ stinadlar kateqoriya` | 65,368 | |
|
|
| 3 | `Μ stinadlar kateqoriya :` | 65,368 | |
|
|
| 4 | `i Μ stinadlar xarici` | 45,918 | |
|
|
| 5 | `Μ stinadlar xarici keΓ§idlΙr` | 45,490 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Key Findings |
|
|
|
|
|
- **Best Perplexity:** 2-gram with 463 |
|
|
- **Entropy Trend:** Decreases with larger n-grams (more predictable) |
|
|
- **Coverage:** Top-1000 patterns cover ~32% of corpus |
|
|
- **Recommendation:** 4-gram or 5-gram for best predictive performance |
|
|
|
|
|
--- |
|
|
## 3. Markov Chain Evaluation |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
### Results |
|
|
|
|
|
| Context | Avg Entropy | Perplexity | Branching Factor | Unique Contexts | Predictability | |
|
|
|---------|-------------|------------|------------------|-----------------|----------------| |
|
|
| **1** | 0.7520 | 1.684 | 8.95 | 1,994,233 | 24.8% | |
|
|
| **1** | 1.3997 | 2.638 | 10.24 | 7,113 | 0.0% | |
|
|
| **2** | 0.3489 | 1.274 | 2.24 | 17,848,485 | 65.1% | |
|
|
| **2** | 0.8515 | 1.804 | 6.20 | 72,786 | 14.8% | |
|
|
| **3** | 0.1419 | 1.103 | 1.34 | 39,971,548 | 85.8% | |
|
|
| **3** | 0.8951 | 1.860 | 5.05 | 451,475 | 10.5% | |
|
|
| **4** | 0.0656 π | 1.046 | 1.14 | 53,703,949 | 93.4% | |
|
|
| **4** | 0.7324 π | 1.661 | 3.53 | 2,281,437 | 26.8% | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Generated Text Samples |
|
|
|
|
|
Below are text samples generated from each Markov chain model: |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 1:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `. ΕerlΙr ΙsasΙn observantlar monastΔ±rlarΔ±nΔ±n bΙzilΙrinin ΙvvΙllΙr per teodor hertslin baΕlatdΔ±ΔΔ± iΕΔ...` |
|
|
2. `, buenos - dΙn az saylΔ± xΙstΙxanada hΙkim , 316 kvadrat metrdΙn Γ§ox ΓΆz qoΕunu tΙbrizi` |
|
|
3. `- ci ildΙ yarananlar kateqoriya : 46 - ci ildΙ baΕ verΙn Ιsas gΓΆtΓΌrΙrΙk . orta` |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 2:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `i Μ stinadlar xarici keΓ§idlΙr Π±ΡΡ
Π°ΡΡΠΊΠΈΠΉ ΡΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ°Ρ ΠΎ ΠΊΠ°Π»Π»ΠΈΠ³ΡΠ°ΡΠ°Ρ
ΠΈ Ρ
ΡΠ΄ΠΎΠΆΠ½ΠΈΠΊΠ°Ρ
ΡΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ°Ρ ΠΎ ΠΊΠ°Π»Π»ΠΈΠ³ΡΠ°ΡΠ°Ρ
ΠΈ Ρ
...` |
|
|
2. `- ci ildΙ i Μ raqa , hindistana vΙ hΙtta oΔlundan dΓΆrd il sonra " psm3 "` |
|
|
3. `kateqoriya : ΕuΕanΔ±n gΓΆrmΙli yerlΙri kateqoriya : sionistlΙr kateqoriya : germi ΕΙhristanΔ±nΔ±n kΙndlΙ...` |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 3:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `. i Μ ki cilddΙ . i cild . bakΔ± : nafta - press , 2013 ) (` |
|
|
2. `- ci ildΙ yarananlar kateqoriya : 8 iyunda yarananlar kateqoriya : universitas 21 kateqoriya : azΙrb...` |
|
|
3. `i Μ stinadlar xarici keΓ§idlΙr hΙmΓ§inin bax kateqoriya : yaponiya hΓΌquqΕΓΌnaslarΔ± kateqoriya : azΙrbay...` |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 4:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `. i Μ stinadlar mΙnbΙ " treska " kateqoriya : avropa daΔ sistemlΙri kateqoriya : gΓΌrcΓΌstan relyefi k...` |
|
|
2. `Μ stinadlar kateqoriya : traktorΓ§ular kateqoriya : azΙrbaycan pambΔ±qΓ§Δ±larΔ± kateqoriya : azΙrbaycan s...` |
|
|
3. `i Μ stinadlar kateqoriya : xorvatiyanΔ±n olimpiya hΙndbolΓ§ularΔ± kateqoriya : 2016 yay olimpiya oyunla...` |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Key Findings |
|
|
|
|
|
- **Best Predictability:** Context-4 with 93.4% predictability |
|
|
- **Branching Factor:** Decreases with context size (more deterministic) |
|
|
- **Memory Trade-off:** Larger contexts require more storage (2,281,437 contexts) |
|
|
- **Recommendation:** Context-3 or Context-4 for text generation |
|
|
|
|
|
--- |
|
|
## 4. Vocabulary Analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
### Statistics |
|
|
|
|
|
| Metric | Value | |
|
|
|--------|-------| |
|
|
| Vocabulary Size | 807,823 | |
|
|
| Total Tokens | 58,755,251 | |
|
|
| Mean Frequency | 72.73 | |
|
|
| Median Frequency | 4 | |
|
|
| Frequency Std Dev | 2550.61 | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Most Common Words |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Word | Frequency | |
|
|
|------|------|-----------| |
|
|
| 1 | vΙ | 1,490,176 | |
|
|
| 2 | i | 892,240 | |
|
|
| 3 | ci | 455,280 | |
|
|
| 4 | ildΙ | 414,485 | |
|
|
| 5 | ilΙ | 413,230 | |
|
|
| 6 | kateqoriya | 366,496 | |
|
|
| 7 | bir | 366,287 | |
|
|
| 8 | bu | 362,130 | |
|
|
| 9 | azΙrbaycan | 248,838 | |
|
|
| 10 | dΙ | 234,167 | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Least Common Words (from vocabulary) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Word | Frequency | |
|
|
|------|------|-----------| |
|
|
| 1 | cΓ«rrik | 2 | |
|
|
| 2 | liamΔ±n | 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 | 0.9771 | |
|
|
| RΒ² (Goodness of Fit) | 0.992093 | |
|
|
| Adherence Quality | **excellent** | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Coverage Analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
| Top N Words | Coverage | |
|
|
|-------------|----------| |
|
|
| Top 100 | 22.3% | |
|
|
| Top 1,000 | 46.6% | |
|
|
| Top 5,000 | 66.6% | |
|
|
| Top 10,000 | 74.5% | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Key Findings |
|
|
|
|
|
- **Zipf Compliance:** RΒ²=0.9921 indicates excellent adherence to Zipf's law |
|
|
- **High Frequency Dominance:** Top 100 words cover 22.3% of corpus |
|
|
- **Long Tail:** 797,823 words needed for remaining 25.5% coverage |
|
|
|
|
|
--- |
|
|
## 5. Word Embeddings Evaluation |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
### Model Comparison |
|
|
|
|
|
| Model | Vocab Size | Dimension | Avg Norm | Std Norm | Isotropy | |
|
|
|-------|------------|-----------|----------|----------|----------| |
|
|
| **mono_32d** | 509,900 | 32 | 3.229 | 0.928 | 0.8153 π | |
|
|
| **mono_64d** | 509,900 | 64 | 3.675 | 0.940 | 0.8024 | |
|
|
| **mono_128d** | 509,900 | 128 | 4.156 | 0.943 | 0.7626 | |
|
|
| **embeddings_enhanced** | 0 | 0 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.0000 | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Key Findings |
|
|
|
|
|
- **Best Isotropy:** mono_32d with 0.8153 (more uniform distribution) |
|
|
- **Dimension Trade-off:** Higher dimensions capture more semantics but reduce isotropy |
|
|
- **Vocabulary Coverage:** All models cover 509,900 words |
|
|
- **Recommendation:** 100d for balanced semantic capture and efficiency |
|
|
|
|
|
--- |
|
|
## 6. Summary & Recommendations |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
### Production Recommendations |
|
|
|
|
|
| Component | Recommended | Rationale | |
|
|
|-----------|-------------|-----------| |
|
|
| Tokenizer | **32k BPE** | Best compression (4.56x) with low UNK rate | |
|
|
| N-gram | **5-gram** | Lowest perplexity (463) | |
|
|
| Markov | **Context-4** | Highest predictability (93.4%) | |
|
|
| 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) Γ 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
**RΒ² (Coefficient of Determination)** |
|
|
> *Definition:* Measures how well the linear fit explains the frequency-rank relationship. Ranges from 0 to 1. |
|
|
> |
|
|
> *Intuition:* RΒ² near 1.0 means the data closely follows Zipf's law; lower values indicate deviation from expected word frequency patterns. |
|
|
> |
|
|
> *What to seek:* RΒ² > 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}, |
|
|
publisher = {HuggingFace}, |
|
|
url = {https://huggingface.co/wikilangs} |
|
|
institution = {Omneity Labs} |
|
|
} |
|
|
``` |
|
|
|
|
|
### License |
|
|
|
|
|
MIT License - Free for academic and commercial use. |
|
|
|
|
|
### Links |
|
|
|
|
|
- π Website: [wikilangs.org](https://wikilangs.org) |
|
|
- π€ Models: [huggingface.co/wikilangs](https://huggingface.co/wikilangs) |
|
|
- π Data: [wikipedia-monthly](https://huggingface.co/datasets/omarkamali/wikipedia-monthly) |
|
|
- π€ Author: [Omar Kamali](https://huggingface.co/omarkamali) |
|
|
--- |
|
|
*Generated by Wikilangs Models Pipeline* |
|
|
|
|
|
*Report Date: 2025-12-27 22:29:22* |
|
|
|