--- language: dty language_name: Dotyali language_family: indoaryan_central 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-indoaryan_central 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: 4.539 - name: best_isotropy type: isotropy value: 0.9032 - name: vocabulary_size type: vocab value: 0 generated: 2026-01-04 --- # Dotyali - Wikilangs Models ## Comprehensive Research Report & Full Ablation Study This repository contains NLP models trained and evaluated by Wikilangs, specifically on **Dotyali** Wikipedia data. We analyze tokenizers, n-gram models, Markov chains, vocabulary statistics, and word embeddings. ## ЁЯУЛ 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** | 3.506x | 3.51 | 0.1249% | 181,747 | | **16k** | 3.906x | 3.91 | 0.1391% | 163,156 | | **32k** | 4.207x | 4.21 | 0.1499% | 151,469 | | **64k** | 4.539x ЁЯПЖ | 4.55 | 0.1617% | 140,390 | ### Tokenization Examples Below are sample sentences tokenized with each vocabulary size: **Sample 1:** `рд╕реБрдЦрд╡рд┐рдВрджрд░ рд╕рд┐рдВрд╣ рднрд╛рд░рддреАрдп рд╕рд╛рдВрдЧреАрддрд┐рдХ рдХреНрд╖реЗрддреНрд░рдХрд╛ рдкрд╛рд╢реНрд╡ рдЧрд╛рдпрдХ рд╣реБрдиред рд╕рдиреНрджрд░реНрдн рдЧрд┐рджрд╛рд░рд╛рдЕрди` | Vocab | Tokens | Count | |-------|--------|-------| | 8k | `тЦБрд╕реБрдЦ рд╡рд┐ рдВрджрд░ тЦБрд╕рд┐рдВрд╣ тЦБрднрд╛рд░рддреАрдп тЦБрд╕рд╛рдВрдЧреАрддрд┐рдХ тЦБрдХреНрд╖реЗрддреНрд░рдХрд╛ тЦБрдкрд╛рд╢реНрд╡ тЦБрдЧрд╛рдпрдХ тЦБрд╣реБрди ... (+3 more)` | 13 | | 16k | `тЦБрд╕реБрдЦ рд╡рд┐ рдВрджрд░ тЦБрд╕рд┐рдВрд╣ тЦБрднрд╛рд░рддреАрдп тЦБрд╕рд╛рдВрдЧреАрддрд┐рдХ тЦБрдХреНрд╖реЗрддреНрд░рдХрд╛ тЦБрдкрд╛рд╢реНрд╡ тЦБрдЧрд╛рдпрдХ тЦБрд╣реБрди ... (+3 more)` | 13 | | 32k | `тЦБрд╕реБрдЦ рд╡рд┐рдВрджрд░ тЦБрд╕рд┐рдВрд╣ тЦБрднрд╛рд░рддреАрдп тЦБрд╕рд╛рдВрдЧреАрддрд┐рдХ тЦБрдХреНрд╖реЗрддреНрд░рдХрд╛ тЦБрдкрд╛рд╢реНрд╡ тЦБрдЧрд╛рдпрдХ тЦБрд╣реБрди ред ... (+2 more)` | 12 | | 64k | `тЦБрд╕реБрдЦрд╡рд┐рдВрджрд░ тЦБрд╕рд┐рдВрд╣ тЦБрднрд╛рд░рддреАрдп тЦБрд╕рд╛рдВрдЧреАрддрд┐рдХ тЦБрдХреНрд╖реЗрддреНрд░рдХрд╛ тЦБрдкрд╛рд╢реНрд╡ тЦБрдЧрд╛рдпрдХ тЦБрд╣реБрди ред тЦБрд╕рдиреНрджрд░реНрдн ... (+1 more)` | 11 | **Sample 2:** `рд╕рд┐рдВрдЧреМрдбреА рджреИрд▓реЗрдЦ рдЬрд┐рд▓реНрд▓рд╛рдореА рдкрдбрдбреЗ рдПрдХ рдЧрд╛рдК рд╡рд┐рдХрд╛рд╕ рд╕рдорд┐рддрд┐ рд╣реЛ ред рдпреА рдкрдирд┐ рд╣реЗрд░ рдЬрд┐рд▓реНрд▓рд╛ рд╡рд┐рдХрд╛рд╕ рд╕рдорд┐рдд...` | Vocab | Tokens | Count | |-------|--------|-------| | 8k | `тЦБрд╕рд┐ рдВрдЧ реМ рдбреА тЦБрджреИрд▓реЗрдЦ тЦБрдЬрд┐рд▓реНрд▓рд╛рдореА тЦБрдкрдбрдбреЗ тЦБрдПрдХ тЦБрдЧрд╛рдК тЦБрд╡рд┐рдХрд╛рд╕ ... (+9 more)` | 19 | | 16k | `тЦБрд╕рд┐рдВрдЧ реМ рдбреА тЦБрджреИрд▓реЗрдЦ тЦБрдЬрд┐рд▓реНрд▓рд╛рдореА тЦБрдкрдбрдбреЗ тЦБрдПрдХ тЦБрдЧрд╛рдК тЦБрд╡рд┐рдХрд╛рд╕ тЦБрд╕рдорд┐рддрд┐ ... (+8 more)` | 18 | | 32k | `тЦБрд╕рд┐рдВрдЧ реМрдбреА тЦБрджреИрд▓реЗрдЦ тЦБрдЬрд┐рд▓реНрд▓рд╛рдореА тЦБрдкрдбрдбреЗ тЦБрдПрдХ тЦБрдЧрд╛рдК тЦБрд╡рд┐рдХрд╛рд╕ тЦБрд╕рдорд┐рддрд┐ тЦБрд╣реЛ ... (+7 more)` | 17 | | 64k | `тЦБрд╕рд┐рдВрдЧреМрдбреА тЦБрджреИрд▓реЗрдЦ тЦБрдЬрд┐рд▓реНрд▓рд╛рдореА тЦБрдкрдбрдбреЗ тЦБрдПрдХ тЦБрдЧрд╛рдК тЦБрд╡рд┐рдХрд╛рд╕ тЦБрд╕рдорд┐рддрд┐ тЦБрд╣реЛ тЦБред ... (+6 more)` | 16 | **Sample 3:** `рдмреЗрдирд┐рди рдЕрдлреНрд░рд┐рдХрд╛ рдорд╣рд╛рджреНрд╡реАрдкрдорд╛рдИ рд░рдпрд╛рдХреЛ рдПрдХ рджреЗрд╢ рд╣реЛред рд╕рдиреНрджрд░реНрдн рджреЗрд╢рдЕрди` | Vocab | Tokens | Count | |-------|--------|-------| | 8k | `тЦБрдмреЗрди рд┐рди тЦБрдЕрдлреНрд░рд┐рдХрд╛ тЦБрдорд╣рд╛рджреНрд╡реАрдкрдорд╛рдИ тЦБрд░рдпрд╛рдХреЛ тЦБрдПрдХ тЦБрджреЗрд╢ тЦБрд╣реЛ ред тЦБрд╕рдиреНрджрд░реНрдн ... (+1 more)` | 11 | | 16k | `тЦБрдмреЗрдирд┐рди тЦБрдЕрдлреНрд░рд┐рдХрд╛ тЦБрдорд╣рд╛рджреНрд╡реАрдкрдорд╛рдИ тЦБрд░рдпрд╛рдХреЛ тЦБрдПрдХ тЦБрджреЗрд╢ тЦБрд╣реЛ ред тЦБрд╕рдиреНрджрд░реНрдн тЦБрджреЗрд╢рдЕрди` | 10 | | 32k | `тЦБрдмреЗрдирд┐рди тЦБрдЕрдлреНрд░рд┐рдХрд╛ тЦБрдорд╣рд╛рджреНрд╡реАрдкрдорд╛рдИ тЦБрд░рдпрд╛рдХреЛ тЦБрдПрдХ тЦБрджреЗрд╢ тЦБрд╣реЛ ред тЦБрд╕рдиреНрджрд░реНрдн тЦБрджреЗрд╢рдЕрди` | 10 | | 64k | `тЦБрдмреЗрдирд┐рди тЦБрдЕрдлреНрд░рд┐рдХрд╛ тЦБрдорд╣рд╛рджреНрд╡реАрдкрдорд╛рдИ тЦБрд░рдпрд╛рдХреЛ тЦБрдПрдХ тЦБрджреЗрд╢ тЦБрд╣реЛ ред тЦБрд╕рдиреНрджрд░реНрдн тЦБрджреЗрд╢рдЕрди` | 10 | ### Key Findings - **Best Compression:** 64k achieves 4.539x compression - **Lowest UNK Rate:** 8k with 0.1249% 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 | 5,114 | 12.32 | 8,849 | 15.4% | 44.5% | | **2-gram** | Subword | 2,395 ЁЯПЖ | 11.23 | 19,229 | 33.4% | 67.5% | | **3-gram** | Word | 5,204 | 12.35 | 8,802 | 15.6% | 43.7% | | **3-gram** | Subword | 18,338 | 14.16 | 76,407 | 10.5% | 33.0% | | **4-gram** | Word | 9,926 | 13.28 | 16,181 | 11.8% | 33.3% | | **4-gram** | Subword | 63,062 | 15.94 | 207,437 | 6.1% | 20.3% | | **5-gram** | Word | 7,716 | 12.91 | 12,232 | 12.4% | 36.5% | | **5-gram** | Subword | 95,990 | 16.55 | 239,024 | 4.9% | 15.8% | ### Top 5 N-grams by Size **2-grams (Word):** | Rank | N-gram | Count | |------|--------|-------| | 1 | `рд╕рдиреНрджрд░реНрдн рд╕рд╛рдордЧреНрд░реАрдЕрди` | 752 | | 2 | `рдЧрд╛рдЙрдБ рд╡рд┐рдХрд╛рд╕` | 631 | | 3 | `рд╡рд┐ рд╕рдВ` | 572 | | 4 | `рд╕рдиреН рдореА` | 549 | | 5 | `рд╣реЛ рдпреЛ` | 514 | **3-grams (Word):** | Rank | N-gram | Count | |------|--------|-------| | 1 | `рд╕рдиреНрджрд░реНрдн рд╕рд╛рдордЧреНрд░реАрдЕрди рднрд╛рдЗрд░рд╛` | 305 | | 2 | `рд╕рд╛рдордЧреНрд░реАрдЕрди рднрд╛рдЗрд░рд╛ рд▓рд┐рдЩреНрдХрдЕрди` | 282 | | 3 | `рд╡рд┐рдХрд╛рд╕ рд╕рдорд┐рддрд┐ рд╣реЛ` | 281 | | 4 | `рдпреЛ рд▓реИ рд╣реЗрд░` | 276 | | 5 | `рдЧрд╛рдЙрдБ рд╡рд┐рдХрд╛рд╕ рд╕рдорд┐рддрд┐` | 253 | **4-grams (Word):** | Rank | N-gram | Count | |------|--------|-------| | 1 | `рд╕рдиреНрджрд░реНрдн рд╕рд╛рдордЧреНрд░реАрдЕрди рднрд╛рдЗрд░рд╛ рд▓рд┐рдЩреНрдХрдЕрди` | 282 | | 2 | `рдЧрд╛рдЙрдБ рд╡рд┐рдХрд╛рд╕ рд╕рдорд┐рддрд┐ рд╣реЛ` | 232 | | 3 | `рдПрдХ рдЧрд╛рдЙрдБ рд╡рд┐рдХрд╛рд╕ рд╕рдорд┐рддрд┐` | 173 | | 4 | `рд░рдпрд╛рдХреЛ рдПрдХ рджреЗрд╢ рд╣реЛ` | 150 | | 5 | `рд╕рдиреНрджрд░реНрднрдЕрди рдпрд┐рди рд▓реИ рд╣реЗрд░рд╜` | 130 | **5-grams (Word):** | Rank | N-gram | Count | |------|--------|-------| | 1 | `рдПрдХ рдЧрд╛рдЙрдБ рд╡рд┐рдХрд╛рд╕ рд╕рдорд┐рддрд┐ рд╣реЛ` | 173 | | 2 | `рдЧрд╛рдЙрдБ рд╡рд┐рдХрд╛рд╕ рд╕рдорд┐рддреАрди рдордзреНрдпреЗрдХреЛ рдПрдХ` | 123 | | 3 | `рдордзреНрдпреЗрдХреЛ рдПрдХ рдЧрд╛рдЙрдБ рд╡рд┐рдХрд╛рд╕ рд╕рдорд┐рддрд┐` | 123 | | 4 | `рд╕рдорд┐рддреАрди рдордзреНрдпреЗрдХреЛ рдПрдХ рдЧрд╛рдЙрдБ рд╡рд┐рдХрд╛рд╕` | 123 | | 5 | `рд╡рд┐рдХрд╛рд╕ рд╕рдорд┐рддреАрди рдордзреНрдпреЗрдХреЛ рдПрдХ рдЧрд╛рдЙрдБ` | 123 | **2-grams (Subword):** | Rank | N-gram | Count | |------|--------|-------| | 1 | `рдХреЛ _` | 29,200 | | 2 | `ред _` | 25,775 | | 3 | `рди _` | 25,224 | | 4 | `рд░ _` | 22,897 | | 5 | `_ рд╕` | 20,865 | **3-grams (Subword):** | Rank | N-gram | Count | |------|--------|-------| | 1 | `_ ред _` | 7,563 | | 2 | `_ рд░реЗ _` | 7,379 | | 3 | `рдЕ рди _` | 5,308 | | 4 | `рд▓рд╛ рдИ _` | 4,856 | | 5 | `_ рдЙ рди` | 4,051 | **4-grams (Subword):** | Rank | N-gram | Count | |------|--------|-------| | 1 | `_ рд╕ рдиреНрдж рд░реНрдн` | 2,988 | | 2 | `_ рдП рдХ _` | 2,776 | | 3 | `_ рдиреЗ рдкрд╛ рд▓` | 2,487 | | 4 | `_ рд╣реЛ ред _` | 2,146 | | 5 | `рд╕ рдиреНрдж рд░реНрдн _` | 2,025 | **5-grams (Subword):** | Rank | N-gram | Count | |------|--------|-------| | 1 | `_ рд╕ рдиреНрдж рд░реНрдн _` | 2,024 | | 2 | `ред _ рд╕ рдиреНрдж рд░реНрдн` | 1,726 | | 3 | `_ рдЪ рд▓ рдЪрд┐ рддреНрд░` | 1,346 | | 4 | `_ рд╣реЛ _ ред _` | 1,310 | | 5 | `_ рдЙ рди рд▓реЗ _` | 1,285 | ### Key Findings - **Best Perplexity:** 2-gram (subword) with 2,395 - **Entropy Trend:** Decreases with larger n-grams (more predictable) - **Coverage:** Top-1000 patterns cover ~16% 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 | 0.6976 | 1.622 | 4.02 | 85,572 | 30.2% | | **1** | Subword | 0.8621 | 1.818 | 10.06 | 6,314 | 13.8% | | **2** | Word | 0.1550 | 1.113 | 1.27 | 343,062 | 84.5% | | **2** | Subword | 0.5671 | 1.482 | 3.71 | 63,513 | 43.3% | | **3** | Word | 0.0392 | 1.028 | 1.05 | 434,501 | 96.1% | | **3** | Subword | 0.4781 | 1.393 | 2.53 | 235,438 | 52.2% | | **4** | Word | 0.0141 ЁЯПЖ | 1.010 | 1.02 | 456,418 | 98.6% | | **4** | Subword | 0.2801 | 1.214 | 1.62 | 594,541 | 72.0% | ### Generated Text Samples (Word-based) Below are text samples generated from each word-based Markov chain model: **Context Size 1:** 1. `рд░реЗ рд╕рдЪрд┐рд╡рдореА рдирд┐рдпреБрдХреНрдд рдЧрд░реЗрдХреЛ рдерд┐рдпреЛ рд╡рд┐ рд╕ рди рдкрд╛ рд╣рд░реВрд╕рд╛рд╡рд┐рдХ рд╡рдбрд╛ рдЫрдиреН рдпреИ рдЬрд┐рд▓реНрд▓рд╛рдорд╛ рдмрд╕реЛрдмрд╛рд╕ рдЧрд░реНрджрд╛` 2. `рд╣реЛ рдпреА рд▓реИ рдкреНрд░рдЬрдирди рднрд╛рд░рдд рд╕рд░рдХрд╛рд░рд▓реЗ рд╡рд┐рд╡рд╛рджрд┐рдд рдореМрдЬрд╛рд╣рд░реВрдХреЛ рдлрд┐рд░рд╛рдж рдерд┐рдпреЛ рд╣рд╛рд░реНрдЯ рднрд▓реНрдн рд╣рд░реБ рдХреЛ рдХреЗрдиреНрджреНрд░ рдмрдареЗ` 3. `рдЫ рдпрджреНрдпрдкрд┐ рдпреИ рдЬрд┐рд▓реНрд▓рд╛рдореА рдзрд╛рди рдирд╛рдЪ рддрдорд░рд╛ рд░реВрдЪрд┐рдХрд╛ рд╡рд┐рд╖рдпрдиреНрдореА рд▓реЗрдЦ рдирдпрд╛рдБ рджрд┐рд▓реНрд▓реАрдореА рдирд╛рдирд╛рдЬреА рджреЗрд╢рдореБрдЦрд▓рд╛рдИ рдЧреЛрд▓рд╡рд▓рдХрд░рд▓реЗ рдЙрддреНрддрд░` **Context Size 2:** 1. `рд╕рдиреНрджрд░реНрдн рд╕рд╛рдордЧреНрд░реАрдЕрди рдмрд╛рд╣реНрдп рдХрдбреАрдЕрди рдорд╛рдЗрд╕реНрдкреЗрд╕ рдЖрдзрд┐рдХрд╛рд░рд┐рдХ рдкреГрд╖реНрда рд░рдЩреНрдЧрд╢рд╛рд▓рд╛рдХреЛ рд╡рд╛рддрд╛рд╡рд░рдг рдлрд┐рдлрд╛ рд╡рд┐рд╢реНрд╡рдХрдкрдХрд╛ рд░рдЩреНрдЧрд╢рд╛рд▓рд╛рдЕрди рдп...` 2. `рдЧрд╛рдЙрдБ рд╡рд┐рдХрд╛рд╕ рд╕рдорд┐рддрд┐ рд╣реЛ рдЬрдирдЧрдгрдирд╛ рдЕрдиреНрд╕рд╛рд░рдЕ рдпреЗрдЗ рдардЙрд░ рдХреЛ рдЬрдирд╕рдЩреНрдЦреНрдпрд╛ резрем релреореп рд░рд╣реНрдпрд╛рдХреЛ рдереНрдпреЛ рд╕рдиреНрджрд░реНрдн рд╕рд╛рдордЧреНрд░реАрдЕрди рдмрд╛рдЗрд▓реНрд▓...` 3. `рд╡рд┐ рд╕рдВ рд░рд╛рдгрд╛ рд╢рдорд╢реЗрд░ рдЬрдЩреНрдЧрдмрд╣рд╛рджреБрд░ рд░рд╛рдгрд╛ рд╕рддреНрдЪрд┐рдд рд╢рдорд╢реЗрд░ рдЬрдЩреНрдЧрдмрд╣рд╛рджреБрд░ рд░рд╛рдгрд╛ рдирд░ рд╢рдорд╢реЗрд░ рдЬрдЩреНрдЧрдмрд╣рд╛рджреБрд░ рд░рд╛рдгрд╛ рдмрдордмрд╣рд╛рджреБрд░ рд░рд╛рдгрд╛...` **Context Size 3:** 1. `рд╕рдиреНрджрд░реНрдн рд╕рд╛рдордЧреНрд░реАрдЕрди рднрд╛рдЗрд░рд╛ рд▓рд┐рдЩреНрдХрдЕрди рдЕрднрд┐рдиреЗрддрд╛рдЕрди рд░рд╛рдЬрдиреАрддрд┐рдЬреНрдЮ` 2. `рдпреЛ рд▓реИ рд╣реЗрд░ рдШрдирдкреНрд░рд╕рд╛рдж рд╢рд░реНрдорд╛ рд╕рдиреНрджрд░реНрдн рд╕рд╛рдордЧреНрд░реАрдЕрди рдкрд┐рдбрд┐рдд рдирд╛рдЧрд░рд┐рдХ` 3. `рд╕рд╛рдордЧреНрд░реАрдЕрди рднрд╛рдЗрд░рд╛ рд▓рд┐рдЩреНрдХрдЕрди рдХрдордВрд╕ рдХрд╛рд░реНрд▓ рдорд╛рд░реНрдХреНрд╕ рдХрд╛рд░реНрд▓ рдорд╛рд░реНрдХреНрд╕рдХреЛ рд╣реЛ рд░рд╛рд╖реНрдЯреНрд░рдзрд░реНрдо рдЪрд░реНрдЪрд┐рдд рд╡реНрдпрдХреНрддрд┐рддреНрд╡рдЕрди` **Context Size 4:** 1. `рд╕рдиреНрджрд░реНрдн рд╕рд╛рдордЧреНрд░реАрдЕрди рднрд╛рдЗрд░рд╛ рд▓рд┐рдЩреНрдХрдЕрди рдпреЛ рд▓реИ рд╣реЗрд░ рдЪрд▓рдЪрд┐рддреНрд░ рдЕрднрд┐рдиреЗрддреНрд░реАрдЕрди рдорд╛рдиреНрд╕реБ` 2. `рдЧрд╛рдЙрдБ рд╡рд┐рдХрд╛рд╕ рд╕рдорд┐рддрд┐ рд╣реЛ рд╡рд┐рдХрд╛рд╕ рд╕рдорд┐рддрд┐рдЕрди` 3. `рдПрдХ рдЧрд╛рдЙрдБ рд╡рд┐рдХрд╛рд╕ рд╕рдорд┐рддрд┐ рд╣реЛ рдпреА рдкрди рд╣реЗрд░реНрдпрд╛ рдЬрд┐рд▓реНрд▓рд╛ рд╡рд┐рдХрд╛рд╕ рд╕рдорд┐рддрд┐рдЕрди` ### Generated Text Samples (Subword-based) Below are text samples generated from each subword-based Markov chain model: **Context Size 1:** 1. `_рдЧрдг_рдпреВрдХреНрдд_рднрд╛рдЗрдиреН_'рдХреЗрд╕рдореНрдкрд░реНрдХ` 2. `рд░рдкрд╛рдЧрд░реЗрдХреАрдп_рдкрдирд┐рдХрдХреНрд╖_рд░реИ_рдЕрдиреБ` 3. `рди_рд╕рдпрдирд▓реЗ_рд╕реНрд░реЛ,_рд╡рд┐рднрд┐рдиреНрди_d_` **Context Size 2:** 1. `рдХреЛ_рдкреИрд▓реНрд▓реА_рдХрд┐_рд▓реЗрдкреНрдЪрд╛_рд╕рдореНрдмрдиреНрдзрд┐рдд_рдЕрд░реЗ` 2. `ред_рдпреИ_рдкреНрд░рд╕реНрддрд╛рд╡_рднрд╛рд░рддрдХрд╛_рджреАрдмрд╣рд┐рдиреА` 3. `рди_рдлреБрдЯрдмрд▓"_рдЖрдзреБрдирд┐рдХ_рдирд╕рдЩреНрдЦреНрдпрд╛_` **Context Size 3:** 1. `_ред_рдЙрдк-рдЕрд╡рдзрд╛рд░рдгрд╛рд▓рд╛рдИ_рдЖрдЬ_рд╕` 2. `_рд░реЗ_рд╕рдореНрдмрдд_рд╕рд╛рдлреНрдЯрд╡реЗрдпрд░_рд▓рд┐рдЧ_рдЪреНрдпрд╛рдореНрдкрд┐` 3. `рдЕрди_рдкрд┐рдЙрдиреЗ_рд╡рд┐рд╢реНрд╡рд╛рдорд┐рддреНрд░реЛ_рдЬрдордШрдЯрдХрд╛_` **Context Size 4:** 1. `_рд╕рдиреНрджрд░реНрднрд╣рд░реВ_рдорд╛рдЗ_рд╡рд┐рд╖реЗрд╢_рджрд┐рди_рдирдЬрд┐` 2. `_рдПрдХ_рдЕрдЩреНрдЧ_рднрдЩреНрдЧ_рдЧрд░реНрдиреЗ_рдЕрдиреБрдорддрд┐_рджрд┐` 3. `_рдиреЗрдкрд╛рд▓_рд░реЗрдбреНрдбреА_рдирд┐рд░реНрджреЗрд╢рдХ_рд╣рд┐рдиреНрджреА_рд╕рд┐рдиреЗрдорд╛` ### Key Findings - **Best Predictability:** Context-4 (word) with 98.6% predictability - **Branching Factor:** Decreases with context size (more deterministic) - **Memory Trade-off:** Larger contexts require more storage (594,541 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 | 32,797 | | Total Tokens | 456,553 | | Mean Frequency | 13.92 | | Median Frequency | 3 | | Frequency Std Dev | 85.63 | ### Most Common Words | Rank | Word | Frequency | |------|------|-----------| | 1 | рд░реЗ | 7,392 | | 2 | рд╣реЛ | 4,556 | | 3 | рдЫ | 3,784 | | 4 | рдореА | 3,555 | | 5 | рдПрдХ | 2,814 | | 6 | рдпреЛ | 2,747 | | 7 | рдХреЛ | 2,624 | | 8 | рд░ | 2,560 | | 9 | рд╕рдиреНрджрд░реНрдн | 2,229 | | 10 | рдорд╛рдЗ | 2,088 | ### Least Common Words (from vocabulary) | Rank | Word | Frequency | |------|------|-----------| | 1 | рдкрд┐рдХреНрд╕реЗрд▓ | 2 | | 2 | рдкреНрд░рдпреЛрдЧрдХрд░реНрддрд╛рд╣рд░реВрджреНрд╡рд╛рд░рд╛ | 2 | | 3 | рдорд╣рд╛рдирд┐рд░реАрдХреНрд╖рдХрд▓рд╛рдИ | 2 | | 4 | рдорд╣рд╛рдирд┐рд░реАрдХреНрд╖рдХрдЕрди | 2 | | 5 | рджреБрдмрдзрд╛рдЧреЛ | 2 | | 6 | рд╣рд╛рд░реНрдмрд┐рдирдХреЛ | 2 | | 7 | рдЕрдЧреБрджрд╛ | 2 | | 8 | рд╢рд╛рдЩреНрдЬрд┐рдЩ | 2 | | 9 | рдкреНрд░рд┐рдлреЗрдХреНрдЪрд░ | 2 | | 10 | рд▓рд┐рдЖрдЩрд▓реЗ | 2 | ### Zipf's Law Analysis | Metric | Value | |--------|-------| | Zipf Coefficient | 0.9878 | | R┬▓ (Goodness of Fit) | 0.989849 | | Adherence Quality | **excellent** | ### Coverage Analysis | Top N Words | Coverage | |-------------|----------| | Top 100 | 23.7% | | Top 1,000 | 52.9% | | Top 5,000 | 76.7% | | Top 10,000 | 85.9% | ### Key Findings - **Zipf Compliance:** R┬▓=0.9898 indicates excellent adherence to Zipf's law - **High Frequency Dominance:** Top 100 words cover 23.7% of corpus - **Long Tail:** 22,797 words needed for remaining 14.1% 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 | 0.9032 ЁЯПЖ | 0.3305 | N/A | N/A | | **mono_64d** | 64 | 0.7587 | 0.2622 | N/A | N/A | | **mono_128d** | 128 | 0.3039 | 0.2479 | N/A | N/A | | **aligned_32d** | 32 | 0.9032 | 0.3256 | 0.0040 | 0.0640 | | **aligned_64d** | 64 | 0.7587 | 0.2643 | 0.0060 | 0.0960 | | **aligned_128d** | 128 | 0.3039 | 0.2488 | 0.0220 | 0.1640 | ### Key Findings - **Best Isotropy:** mono_32d with 0.9032 (more uniform distribution) - **Semantic Density:** Average pairwise similarity of 0.2799. Lower values indicate better semantic separation. - **Alignment Quality:** Aligned models achieve up to 2.2% 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 | **1.309** | High formulaic/idiomatic 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 | |--------|----------| | `-рдкреН` | рдкреНрд░рдпреЛрдЧрдХрд░реНрддрд╛, рдкреНрд░рд╡реЗрд╢рдореА, рдкреНрд░реЗрд╕рд┐рдбреЗрдиреНрдЯ | #### Productive Suffixes | Suffix | Examples | |--------|----------| | `-рд╛` | рдХреНрд╖реЗрддреНрддреАрдорд╛, рдиреИрдкрд╛рд▓рдорд╛, рдкрдгрдпрд╛ | | `-рдХреЛ` | рддрд╛рд░рд╛рдХреЛ, рд╕рд┐рдЬрдирдХреЛ, рдЧреЛрд▓реНрдбрдХрдкрдХреЛ | | `-рдХрд╛` | рднрдиреЗрдХрд╛, рдЖрджрд┐рдХрд╛, рдлрд╛рд░рд╛рдХреНрдХрд╛ | | `-рд▓реЗ` | рдЛрд╖рд┐рд▓реЗ, рдЕрд╣рд┐рд▓реЗ, рджреЗрд╕рд╛рдИрд▓реЗ | | `-рдореА` | рд▓рдбрд╛рдЗрдБрдореА, рдкреНрд░рд╡реЗрд╢рдореА, рдЖрд░рдХреНрд╖рдореА | | `-рд╛рдИ` | рдЬреЗрдлрд░рд╕рдирд▓рд╛рдИ, рдкрд░реНрд╡рд▓рд╛рдИ, рдХрд╛рд░реНрдХреАрд▓рд╛рдИ | | `-рдпрд╛` | рдкрдгрдпрд╛, рд▓рдЧрд╛рдЗрдпрд╛, рдЖрддреНрдорд╣рддреНрдпрд╛ | ### 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. *No significant bound stems detected.* ### 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. | Prefix | Suffix | Frequency | Examples | |--------|--------|-----------|----------| | `-рдкреН` | `-рд╛` | 27 words | рдкреНрд░рддрд┐рд░рдХреНрд╖рд╛, рдкреНрдпрд╛рд╕рд╛ | | `-рдкреН` | `-рдХреЛ` | 26 words | рдкреНрд░рдЬрд╛рдХреЛ, рдкреНрд░рд╛рдгреАрдХреЛ | | `-рдкреН` | `-рдХрд╛` | 13 words | рдкреНрд░рд┐рдпрдЩреНрдХрд╛, рдкреНрд░рджрд░реНрд╢рдирдХрд╛ | | `-рдкреН` | `-рдореА` | 10 words | рдкреНрд░рдХреГрддрд┐рдореА, рдкреНрд░рд╣рд░реАрдореА | | `-рдкреН` | `-рд▓реЗ` | 9 words | рдкреНрд░рдХрд╛рд░рд▓реЗ, рдкреНрд░рд╡рд┐рдзрд┐рд▓реЗ | | `-рдкреН` | `-рд╛рдИ` | 9 words | рдкреНрд░рдзрд╛рдирдордиреНрддреНрд░реАрд▓рд╛рдИ, рдкреНрд░рдЪрд▓рдирдорд╛рдИ | ### 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 | |------|-----------------|------------|------| | рд╕рдВрд╕реНрдерд╛рдирдХреЛ | **`рд╕рдВрд╕реНрдерд╛рди-рдХреЛ`** | 4.5 | `рд╕рдВрд╕реНрдерд╛рди` | | рд╕рдВрд╕реНрдХрд╛рд░рдореА | **`рд╕рдВрд╕реНрдХрд╛рд░-рдореА`** | 4.5 | `рд╕рдВрд╕реНрдХрд╛рд░` | | рд╕рд░рд╕реНрд╡рддреАрд▓реЗ | **`рд╕рд░рд╕реНрд╡рддреА-рд▓реЗ`** | 4.5 | `рд╕рд░рд╕реНрд╡рддреА` | | рдЖрдиреНрджреЛрд▓рдирдХреЛ | **`рдЖрдиреНрджреЛрд▓рди-рдХреЛ`** | 4.5 | `рдЖрдиреНрджреЛрд▓рди` | | рдорд╣рд┐рдирд╛рд╣рд░реВрдХреЛ | **`рдорд╣рд┐рдирд╛рд╣рд░реВ-рдХреЛ`** | 4.5 | `рдорд╣рд┐рдирд╛рд╣рд░реВ` | | рддреНрд░рд┐рдкрд╛рдареАрдХреЛ | **`рддреНрд░рд┐рдкрд╛рдареА-рдХреЛ`** | 4.5 | `рддреНрд░рд┐рдкрд╛рдареА` | | рдкрдЮреНрдЪрд╛рдпрддрдХреЛ | **`рдкрдЮреНрдЪрд╛рдпрдд-рдХреЛ`** | 4.5 | `рдкрдЮреНрдЪрд╛рдпрдд` | | рд╕реБрд░реНрдорд╛рд╕рд░реЛрд╡рд░рдХреЛ | **`рд╕реБрд░реНрдорд╛рд╕рд░реЛрд╡рд░-рдХреЛ`** | 4.5 | `рд╕реБрд░реНрдорд╛рд╕рд░реЛрд╡рд░` | | рдмреНрд░рд╛рдЬрд┐рд▓рд▓реЗ | **`рдмреНрд░рд╛рдЬрд┐рд▓-рд▓реЗ`** | 4.5 | `рдмреНрд░рд╛рдЬрд┐рд▓` | | рд╣рд╛рд░реНрдмрд┐рдирдХреЛ | **`рд╣рд╛рд░реНрдмрд┐рди-рдХреЛ`** | 4.5 | `рд╣рд╛рд░реНрдмрд┐рди` | | рдиреНрдпрд╛рдпрд╛рдзреАрд╢рдХреЛ | **`рдиреНрдпрд╛рдпрд╛рдзреАрд╢-рдХреЛ`** | 4.5 | `рдиреНрдпрд╛рдпрд╛рдзреАрд╢` | | рдЕрдзреНрдпрдХреНрд╖рдХрд╛ | **`рдЕрдзреНрдпрдХреНрд╖-рдХрд╛`** | 4.5 | `рдЕрдзреНрдпрдХреНрд╖` | | рд╕реЗрдорд┐рдлрд╛рдЗрдирд▓рдореА | **`рд╕реЗрдорд┐рдлрд╛рдЗрдирд▓-рдореА`** | 4.5 | `рд╕реЗрдорд┐рдлрд╛рдЗрдирд▓` | | рд╕рдВрд╕реНрдХреГрддрд┐рдХрд╛ | **`рд╕рдВрд╕реНрдХреГрддрд┐-рдХрд╛`** | 4.5 | `рд╕рдВрд╕реНрдХреГрддрд┐` | | рд╕реИрдирд┐рдХрд╣рд░реВрдХреЛ | **`рд╕реИрдирд┐рдХрд╣рд░реВ-рдХреЛ`** | 4.5 | `рд╕реИрдирд┐рдХрд╣рд░реВ` | ### 6.6 Linguistic Interpretation > **Automated Insight:** The language Dotyali shows high morphological productivity. The subword models are significantly more efficient than word models, suggesting a rich system of affixation or compounding. > **Note on Idiomaticity:** The high Idiomaticity Gap suggests a large number of frequent multi-word expressions or formulaic sequences that are statistically distinct from their component parts. --- ## 7. Summary & Recommendations ![Performance Dashboard](visualizations/performance_dashboard.png) ### Production Recommendations | Component | Recommended | Rationale | |-----------|-------------|-----------| | Tokenizer | **64k BPE** | Best compression (4.54x) | | N-gram | **2-gram** | Lowest perplexity (2,395) | | Markov | **Context-4** | Highest predictability (98.6%) | | 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) ├Ч 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. **R┬▓ (Coefficient of Determination)** > *Definition:* Measures how well the linear fit explains the frequency-rank relationship. Ranges from 0 to 1. > > *Intuition:* R┬▓ near 1.0 means the data closely follows Zipf's law; lower values indicate deviation from expected word frequency patterns. > > *What to seek:* R┬▓ > 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 - ЁЯМР Website: [wikilangs.org](https://wikilangs.org) - ЁЯдЧ Models: [huggingface.co/wikilangs](https://huggingface.co/wikilangs) - ЁЯУК Data: [wikipedia-monthly](https://huggingface.co/datasets/omarkamali/wikipedia-monthly) - ЁЯСд Author: [Omar Kamali](https://huggingface.co/omarkamali) - ЁЯдЭ Sponsor: [Featherless AI](https://featherless.ai) --- *Generated by Wikilangs Models Pipeline* *Report Date: 2026-01-04 02:49:05*