|
|
--- |
|
|
language: da |
|
|
language_name: Danish |
|
|
language_family: germanic_north |
|
|
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-germanic_north |
|
|
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: 4.557 |
|
|
- name: best_isotropy |
|
|
type: isotropy |
|
|
value: 0.7924 |
|
|
- name: vocabulary_size |
|
|
type: vocab |
|
|
value: 0 |
|
|
generated: 2026-01-08 |
|
|
--- |
|
|
|
|
|
# Danish - Wikilangs Models |
|
|
## Comprehensive Research Report & Full Ablation Study |
|
|
|
|
|
This repository contains NLP models trained and evaluated by Wikilangs, specifically on **Danish** Wikipedia data. |
|
|
We analyze tokenizers, n-gram models, Markov chains, vocabulary statistics, and word embeddings. |
|
|
|
|
|
## ๐ 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
### 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
### Results |
|
|
|
|
|
| Vocab Size | Compression | Avg Token Len | UNK Rate | Total Tokens | |
|
|
|------------|-------------|---------------|----------|--------------| |
|
|
| **8k** | 3.590x | 3.59 | 0.1227% | 1,644,330 | |
|
|
| **16k** | 3.953x | 3.95 | 0.1351% | 1,493,346 | |
|
|
| **32k** | 4.286x | 4.29 | 0.1465% | 1,377,449 | |
|
|
| **64k** | 4.557x ๐ | 4.56 | 0.1558% | 1,295,305 | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Tokenization Examples |
|
|
|
|
|
Below are sample sentences tokenized with each vocabulary size: |
|
|
|
|
|
**Sample 1:** `Ole Bornemann henviser til: Oluf Bornemann โ dansk-norsk biskop Ole Bornemann (r...` |
|
|
|
|
|
| Vocab | Tokens | Count | |
|
|
|-------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 8k | `โole โbor nem ann โhenviser โtil : โoluf โbor nem ... (+27 more)` | 37 | |
|
|
| 16k | `โole โbor nemann โhenviser โtil : โoluf โbor nemann โโ ... (+21 more)` | 31 | |
|
|
| 32k | `โole โbor nemann โhenviser โtil : โoluf โbor nemann โโ ... (+20 more)` | 30 | |
|
|
| 64k | `โole โbornemann โhenviser โtil : โoluf โbornemann โโ โdansk - ... (+16 more)` | 26 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**Sample 2:** `18. April er en dansk dokumentarfilm fra instrueret af Poul Meyer. Eksterne henv...` |
|
|
|
|
|
| Vocab | Tokens | Count | |
|
|
|-------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 8k | `โ 1 8 . โapril โer โen โdansk โdokumentarfilm โfra ... (+11 more)` | 21 | |
|
|
| 16k | `โ 1 8 . โapril โer โen โdansk โdokumentarfilm โfra ... (+11 more)` | 21 | |
|
|
| 32k | `โ 1 8 . โapril โer โen โdansk โdokumentarfilm โfra ... (+11 more)` | 21 | |
|
|
| 64k | `โ 1 8 . โapril โer โen โdansk โdokumentarfilm โfra ... (+11 more)` | 21 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**Sample 3:** `Takeshi Watanabe (fรธdt 10. september er en japansk fodboldspiller. Japans fodbol...` |
|
|
|
|
|
| Vocab | Tokens | Count | |
|
|
|-------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 8k | `โtak es hi โwat an ab e โ( fรธdt โ ... (+12 more)` | 22 | |
|
|
| 16k | `โtak es hi โwat an abe โ( fรธdt โ 1 ... (+11 more)` | 21 | |
|
|
| 32k | `โtakes hi โwat an abe โ( fรธdt โ 1 0 ... (+10 more)` | 20 | |
|
|
| 64k | `โtakes hi โwatanabe โ( fรธdt โ 1 0 . โseptember ... (+8 more)` | 18 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Key Findings |
|
|
|
|
|
- **Best Compression:** 64k achieves 4.557x compression |
|
|
- **Lowest UNK Rate:** 8k with 0.1227% 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 | Variant | Perplexity | Entropy | Unique N-grams | Top-100 Coverage | Top-1000 Coverage | |
|
|
|--------|---------|------------|---------|----------------|------------------|-------------------| |
|
|
| **2-gram** | Word | 205,179 | 17.65 | 1,697,331 | 7.2% | 18.6% | |
|
|
| **2-gram** | Subword | 291 ๐ | 8.19 | 16,676 | 66.5% | 99.0% | |
|
|
| **3-gram** | Word | 930,238 | 19.83 | 3,294,874 | 2.7% | 7.8% | |
|
|
| **3-gram** | Subword | 2,629 | 11.36 | 143,880 | 25.6% | 68.8% | |
|
|
| **4-gram** | Word | 2,232,256 | 21.09 | 5,289,799 | 1.9% | 5.1% | |
|
|
| **4-gram** | Subword | 16,827 | 14.04 | 898,389 | 12.2% | 36.9% | |
|
|
| **5-gram** | Word | 1,710,284 | 20.71 | 3,467,271 | 1.9% | 5.4% | |
|
|
| **5-gram** | Subword | 78,315 | 16.26 | 3,371,746 | 6.1% | 20.8% | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Top 5 N-grams by Size |
|
|
|
|
|
**2-grams (Word):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `er en` | 214,430 | |
|
|
| 2 | `eksterne henvisninger` | 158,401 | |
|
|
| 3 | `til at` | 148,332 | |
|
|
| 4 | `for at` | 127,680 | |
|
|
| 5 | `i den` | 98,315 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**3-grams (Word):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `referencer eksterne henvisninger` | 69,492 | |
|
|
| 2 | `eksterne henvisninger fra` | 52,148 | |
|
|
| 3 | `en del af` | 36,449 | |
|
|
| 4 | `fra danmark fra` | 31,038 | |
|
|
| 5 | `pรฅ grund af` | 24,747 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**4-grams (Word):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `referencer eksterne henvisninger fra` | 31,041 | |
|
|
| 2 | `fra danmark fra danmark` | 18,040 | |
|
|
| 3 | `eksterne henvisninger fra danmark` | 13,653 | |
|
|
| 4 | `eksterne henvisninger fra usa` | 10,607 | |
|
|
| 5 | `eksterne henvisninger film fra` | 8,857 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**5-grams (Word):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `referencer eksterne henvisninger fra danmark` | 8,198 | |
|
|
| 2 | `referencer eksterne henvisninger fra usa` | 7,710 | |
|
|
| 3 | `referencer eksterne henvisninger film fra` | 6,839 | |
|
|
| 4 | `fra danmark fra danmark fra` | 6,792 | |
|
|
| 5 | `eksterne henvisninger film fra fra` | 6,671 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**2-grams (Subword):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `e r` | 14,686,017 | |
|
|
| 2 | `e _` | 12,413,595 | |
|
|
| 3 | `e n` | 11,692,715 | |
|
|
| 4 | `d e` | 11,106,628 | |
|
|
| 5 | `r _` | 9,958,657 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**3-grams (Subword):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `e r _` | 6,591,787 | |
|
|
| 2 | `e n _` | 5,761,673 | |
|
|
| 3 | `_ d e` | 4,088,356 | |
|
|
| 4 | `e t _` | 3,830,236 | |
|
|
| 5 | `_ i _` | 3,324,144 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**4-grams (Subword):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `_ o g _` | 2,559,398 | |
|
|
| 2 | `_ f o r` | 1,851,842 | |
|
|
| 3 | `_ a f _` | 1,698,296 | |
|
|
| 4 | `d e n _` | 1,598,615 | |
|
|
| 5 | `_ t i l` | 1,395,426 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**5-grams (Subword):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `_ t i l _` | 1,111,382 | |
|
|
| 2 | `_ d e n _` | 1,013,475 | |
|
|
| 3 | `_ s o m _` | 926,452 | |
|
|
| 4 | `_ f r a _` | 883,398 | |
|
|
| 5 | `_ f o r _` | 860,091 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Key Findings |
|
|
|
|
|
- **Best Perplexity:** 2-gram (subword) with 291 |
|
|
- **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 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
### Results |
|
|
|
|
|
| Context | Variant | Avg Entropy | Perplexity | Branching Factor | Unique Contexts | Predictability | |
|
|
|---------|---------|-------------|------------|------------------|-----------------|----------------| |
|
|
| **1** | Word | 0.9282 | 1.903 | 11.03 | 2,011,765 | 7.2% | |
|
|
| **1** | Subword | 1.1734 | 2.255 | 7.58 | 8,958 | 0.0% | |
|
|
| **2** | Word | 0.3698 | 1.292 | 2.34 | 22,156,805 | 63.0% | |
|
|
| **2** | Subword | 0.6816 | 1.604 | 4.74 | 67,792 | 31.8% | |
|
|
| **3** | Word | 0.1562 | 1.114 | 1.36 | 51,659,329 | 84.4% | |
|
|
| **3** | Subword | 0.7837 | 1.722 | 4.70 | 321,234 | 21.6% | |
|
|
| **4** | Word | 0.0627 ๐ | 1.044 | 1.11 | 69,884,622 | 93.7% | |
|
|
| **4** | Subword | 0.7511 | 1.683 | 3.88 | 1,508,279 | 24.9% | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Generated Text Samples (Word-based) |
|
|
|
|
|
Below are text samples generated from each word-based Markov chain model: |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 1:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `i sverige bernadotte en tidligere premierminister vladimรญr vaลกรญฤek tjekkisk eller med langt de flest...` |
|
|
2. `og kortlagte dertil uhensigtsmรฆssige reaktionsmรธnstre pรฅ denne slags rum som et individuelt hold fra...` |
|
|
3. `af det eneste gang i lรฆlehe lunden og shimonoseki afstod unionen og sydlige ishav og egyptiske` |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 2:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `er en aristokrat fra oneglia pรฅ en figur pรฅ fordi de manglede stadig konkrete beviser det objekts` |
|
|
2. `eksterne henvisninger fra nederlandene fra flandern og champagne fra reims til danmark og derpaa ble...` |
|
|
3. `til at รฅbne sine egne retoriske fรฆrdigheder selvom de ikke mangler det umiddelbares friskhed inspira...` |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 3:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `referencer eksterne henvisninger 05 i vejle i alt var omkring 100 000 lysรฅr og en tykkelse af cirka` |
|
|
2. `eksterne henvisninger fra mozambique fra maputo ved sommer ol mestre fra usa sรธlvmedaljevindere fra ...` |
|
|
3. `en del af moskenes kommune i nordland fylke i norge med et underskud pรฅ godt รฉn million kroner` |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 4:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `referencer eksterne henvisninger fra storbritannien medaljevindere i gymnastik mestre fra grรฆkenland...` |
|
|
2. `fra danmark fra danmark af videnskabernes selskab i dansk biografisk leksikon fra danmark thomas 1 f...` |
|
|
3. `eksterne henvisninger fra danmark film fra fra nordisk film dramafilm fra danmark instrueret af augu...` |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Generated Text Samples (Subword-based) |
|
|
|
|
|
Below are text samples generated from each subword-based Markov chain model: |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 1:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `_het_i_ldshic._k` |
|
|
2. `enoge_der_8.a_t.` |
|
|
3. `rerliolin,_opon_` |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 2:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `er_ers_kum._ten_e` |
|
|
2. `e_asterdyra_et_fo` |
|
|
3. `en_i_kitler_vรฆre_` |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 3:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `er_randsbog_blev_p` |
|
|
2. `en_i_han_ver_guldv` |
|
|
3. `_det_af_daktat_og_` |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 4:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `_og_kristia_schlesw` |
|
|
2. `_forfattish_music_d` |
|
|
3. `_af_storia_italiste` |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Key Findings |
|
|
|
|
|
- **Best Predictability:** Context-4 (word) with 93.7% predictability |
|
|
- **Branching Factor:** Decreases with context size (more deterministic) |
|
|
- **Memory Trade-off:** Larger contexts require more storage (1,508,279 contexts) |
|
|
- **Recommendation:** Context-3 or Context-4 for text generation |
|
|
|
|
|
--- |
|
|
## 4. Vocabulary Analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
### Statistics |
|
|
|
|
|
| Metric | Value | |
|
|
|--------|-------| |
|
|
| Vocabulary Size | 885,946 | |
|
|
| Total Tokens | 86,775,295 | |
|
|
| Mean Frequency | 97.95 | |
|
|
| Median Frequency | 4 | |
|
|
| Frequency Std Dev | 6460.78 | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Most Common Words |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Word | Frequency | |
|
|
|------|------|-----------| |
|
|
| 1 | i | 3,396,891 | |
|
|
| 2 | og | 2,568,581 | |
|
|
| 3 | af | 1,716,528 | |
|
|
| 4 | en | 1,361,402 | |
|
|
| 5 | til | 1,134,702 | |
|
|
| 6 | er | 1,086,363 | |
|
|
| 7 | den | 1,040,601 | |
|
|
| 8 | at | 980,457 | |
|
|
| 9 | pรฅ | 948,450 | |
|
|
| 10 | som | 939,070 | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Least Common Words (from vocabulary) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Word | Frequency | |
|
|
|------|------|-----------| |
|
|
| 1 | elektronikinteresserede | 2 | |
|
|
| 2 | sinoefloden | 2 | |
|
|
| 3 | deathconsciousness | 2 | |
|
|
| 4 | folkedanseforeninger | 2 | |
|
|
| 5 | affranchi | 2 | |
|
|
| 6 | superfilmen | 2 | |
|
|
| 7 | kettletoft | 2 | |
|
|
| 8 | sandays | 2 | |
|
|
| 9 | crummack | 2 | |
|
|
| 10 | rousays | 2 | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Zipf's Law Analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
| Metric | Value | |
|
|
|--------|-------| |
|
|
| Zipf Coefficient | 1.0001 | |
|
|
| Rยฒ (Goodness of Fit) | 0.998027 | |
|
|
| Adherence Quality | **excellent** | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Coverage Analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
| Top N Words | Coverage | |
|
|
|-------------|----------| |
|
|
| Top 100 | 38.2% | |
|
|
| Top 1,000 | 58.1% | |
|
|
| Top 5,000 | 73.3% | |
|
|
| Top 10,000 | 79.5% | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Key Findings |
|
|
|
|
|
- **Zipf Compliance:** Rยฒ=0.9980 indicates excellent adherence to Zipf's law |
|
|
- **High Frequency Dominance:** Top 100 words cover 38.2% of corpus |
|
|
- **Long Tail:** 875,946 words needed for remaining 20.5% coverage |
|
|
|
|
|
--- |
|
|
## 5. Word Embeddings Evaluation |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### 5.1 Cross-Lingual Alignment |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### 5.2 Model Comparison |
|
|
|
|
|
| Model | Dimension | Isotropy | Semantic Density | Alignment R@1 | Alignment R@10 | |
|
|
|-------|-----------|----------|------------------|---------------|----------------| |
|
|
| **mono_32d** | 32 | 0.7924 ๐ | 0.3816 | N/A | N/A | |
|
|
| **mono_64d** | 64 | 0.7720 | 0.3058 | N/A | N/A | |
|
|
| **mono_128d** | 128 | 0.7142 | 0.2314 | N/A | N/A | |
|
|
| **aligned_32d** | 32 | 0.7924 | 0.3910 | 0.4140 | 0.7940 | |
|
|
| **aligned_64d** | 64 | 0.7720 | 0.3076 | 0.6360 | 0.9000 | |
|
|
| **aligned_128d** | 128 | 0.7142 | 0.2447 | 0.7560 | 0.9480 | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Key Findings |
|
|
|
|
|
- **Best Isotropy:** mono_32d with 0.7924 (more uniform distribution) |
|
|
- **Semantic Density:** Average pairwise similarity of 0.3104. Lower values indicate better semantic separation. |
|
|
- **Alignment Quality:** Aligned models achieve up to 75.6% 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 | **-0.739** | 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 | |
|
|
|--------|----------| |
|
|
| `-e` | uforfalskede, ledocarpaceae, hรฆrgende | |
|
|
| `-n` | fjerntogsperron, flexlinjen, industriudstillingen | |
|
|
| `-s` | bialiks, epicurus, ratios | |
|
|
| `-r` | bredevandsbakker, provinshertugdรธmmer, linseskyer | |
|
|
| `-er` | bredevandsbakker, provinshertugdรธmmer, linseskyer | |
|
|
| `-en` | flexlinjen, industriudstillingen, jordbundslรฆren | |
|
|
| `-et` | affrikeret, polyarkiet, panserkorpset | |
|
|
| `-ne` | heatene, beslutningsevne, skillingsviserne | |
|
|
|
|
|
### 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 | |
|
|
|------|----------|------------------|----------| |
|
|
| `irke` | 2.09x | 181 contexts | birke, virke, dirke | |
|
|
| `elig` | 1.65x | 256 contexts | helig, selig, zelig | |
|
|
| `embe` | 2.00x | 89 contexts | tembe, rembe, embed | |
|
|
| `nger` | 1.45x | 439 contexts | inger, enger, anger | |
|
|
| `tisk` | 1.73x | 152 contexts | tiske, etisk, tiski | |
|
|
| `ndel` | 1.42x | 393 contexts | andel, endel, ndele | |
|
|
| `mber` | 1.52x | 264 contexts | imber, amber, ember | |
|
|
| `nmar` | 1.77x | 85 contexts | anmary, enmark, donmar | |
|
|
| `lsen` | 1.52x | 174 contexts | elsen, รณlsen, olsen | |
|
|
| `rste` | 1.33x | 307 contexts | erste, fรธrste, fyrste | |
|
|
| `rden` | 1.38x | 227 contexts | erden, urden, arden | |
|
|
| `oner` | 1.34x | 260 contexts | zoner, joner, loner | |
|
|
|
|
|
### 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 | |
|
|
|------|-----------------|------------|------| |
|
|
| profeterne | **`prof-et-er-ne`** | 7.5 | `prof` | |
|
|
| regierende | **`regi-er-en-de`** | 7.5 | `regi` | |
|
|
| kunstkritikeres | **`kunstkritik-er-es`** | 6.0 | `kunstkritik` | |
|
|
| buccaneer | **`bucca-ne-er`** | 6.0 | `bucca` | |
|
|
| udvikleres | **`udvikl-er-es`** | 6.0 | `udvikl` | |
|
|
| hรฅndredskaberne | **`hรฅndredskab-er-ne`** | 6.0 | `hรฅndredskab` | |
|
|
| bolvรฆrkerne | **`bolvรฆrk-er-ne`** | 6.0 | `bolvรฆrk` | |
|
|
| autogenereret | **`autog-en-er-er-et`** | 6.0 | `autog` | |
|
|
| fรฆllesgraven | **`fรฆllesgrav-en`** | 4.5 | `fรฆllesgrav` | |
|
|
| feltflyvepladser | **`feltflyveplads-er`** | 4.5 | `feltflyveplads` | |
|
|
| sangtrioen | **`sangtrio-en`** | 4.5 | `sangtrio` | |
|
|
| teknologiparken | **`teknologipark-en`** | 4.5 | `teknologipark` | |
|
|
| finnmarken | **`finnmark-en`** | 4.5 | `finnmark` | |
|
|
| patriarker | **`patriark-er`** | 4.5 | `patriark` | |
|
|
| synonymordbogen | **`synonymordbog-en`** | 4.5 | `synonymordbog` | |
|
|
|
|
|
### 6.6 Linguistic Interpretation |
|
|
|
|
|
> **Automated Insight:** |
|
|
The language Danish 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
### Production Recommendations |
|
|
|
|
|
| Component | Recommended | Rationale | |
|
|
|-----------|-------------|-----------| |
|
|
| Tokenizer | **64k BPE** | Best compression (4.56x) | |
|
|
| N-gram | **2-gram** | Lowest perplexity (291) | |
|
|
| Markov | **Context-4** | Highest predictability (93.7%) | |
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
- ๐ Website: [wikilangs.org](https://wikilangs.org) |
|
|
- ๐ค Models: [huggingface.co/wikilangs](https://huggingface.co/wikilangs) |
|
|
- ๐ Data: [wikipedia-monthly](https://huggingface.co/datasets/omarkamali/wikipedia-monthly) |
|
|
- ๐ค Author: [Omar Kamali](https://huggingface.co/omarkamali) |
|
|
- ๐ค Sponsor: [Featherless AI](https://featherless.ai) |
|
|
--- |
|
|
*Generated by Wikilangs Models Pipeline* |
|
|
|
|
|
*Report Date: 2026-01-08 09:40:43* |
|
|
|