README.md

metadata

language: guw
language_name: Gun
language_family: atlantic_kwa
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-atlantic_kwa
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: 4.344
  - name: best_isotropy
    type: isotropy
    value: 0.6893
  - name: vocabulary_size
    type: vocab
    value: 0
generated: 2026-01-10T00:00:00.000Z

Gun - Wikilangs Models

Comprehensive Research Report & Full Ablation Study

This repository contains NLP models trained and evaluated by Wikilangs, specifically on Gun Wikipedia data. We analyze tokenizers, n-gram models, Markov chains, vocabulary statistics, and word embeddings.

📋 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
• 2. N-gram Model Evaluation
• 3. Markov Chain Evaluation
• 4. Vocabulary Analysis
• 5. Word Embeddings Evaluation
• 6. Morphological Analysis (Experimental)
• 7. Summary & Recommendations
• Metrics Glossary
• Visualizations Index

---

1. Tokenizer Evaluation

Results

Vocab Size	Compression	Avg Token Len	UNK Rate	Total Tokens
8k	3.777x	3.78	0.8806%	316,930
16k	4.030x	4.03	0.9396%	297,045
32k	4.225x	4.23	0.9851%	283,312
64k	4.344x 🏆	4.35	1.0127%	275,607

Tokenization Examples

Below are sample sentences tokenized with each vocabulary size:

Sample 1: Aliko Dangote GCON (he yin jiji to azán 10tọ Lidosun yin ajọwatọ daho dé wẹ eyin...

Vocab	Tokens	Count
8k	▁ali ko ▁dan go te ▁g con ▁( he ▁yin ... (+26 more)	36
16k	▁ali ko ▁dan go te ▁g con ▁( he ▁yin ... (+26 more)	36
32k	▁aliko ▁dangote ▁gcon ▁( he ▁yin ▁jiji ▁to ▁azán ▁ ... (+22 more)	32
64k	▁aliko ▁dangote ▁gcon ▁( he ▁yin ▁jiji ▁to ▁azán ▁ ... (+22 more)	32

Sample 2: Fausat Adebola Ibikunle yin Gandutọ na Lizọnyizọn tito na Ayimatẹn Kaduna Tọn (M...

Vocab	Tokens	Count
8k	▁fa us at ▁ade bola ▁ibi kunle ▁yin ▁gandutọ ▁na ... (+20 more)	30
16k	▁fausat ▁ade bola ▁ibikunle ▁yin ▁gandutọ ▁na ▁lizọnyizọn ▁tito ▁na ... (+14 more)	24
32k	▁fausat ▁adebola ▁ibikunle ▁yin ▁gandutọ ▁na ▁lizọnyizọn ▁tito ▁na ▁ayimatẹn ... (+13 more)	23
64k	▁fausat ▁adebola ▁ibikunle ▁yin ▁gandutọ ▁na ▁lizọnyizọn ▁tito ▁na ▁ayimatẹn ... (+12 more)	22

Sample 3: Mexico yin otò de to whèzẹtẹnwaji America tọn.he má do ayimatẹn voovo 32 ji

Vocab	Tokens	Count
8k	▁mexico ▁yin ▁otò ▁de ▁to ▁whèzẹtẹn waji ▁america ▁tọn . ... (+9 more)	19
16k	▁mexico ▁yin ▁otò ▁de ▁to ▁whèzẹtẹnwaji ▁america ▁tọn . he ... (+8 more)	18
32k	▁mexico ▁yin ▁otò ▁de ▁to ▁whèzẹtẹnwaji ▁america ▁tọn . he ... (+8 more)	18
64k	▁mexico ▁yin ▁otò ▁de ▁to ▁whèzẹtẹnwaji ▁america ▁tọn . he ... (+8 more)	18

Key Findings

• Best Compression: 64k achieves 4.344x compression
• Lowest UNK Rate: 8k with 0.8806% 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	3,238	11.66	9,467	26.6%	57.5%
2-gram	Subword	287 🏆	8.17	2,304	65.6%	98.7%
3-gram	Word	6,817	12.73	13,761	16.3%	41.1%
3-gram	Subword	2,147	11.07	16,102	29.3%	71.3%
4-gram	Word	13,775	13.75	22,441	11.1%	27.8%
4-gram	Subword	9,790	13.26	67,472	15.9%	44.3%
5-gram	Word	8,850	13.11	13,471	12.7%	30.6%
5-gram	Subword	25,712	14.65	135,866	10.9%	31.6%

Top 5 N-grams by Size

2-grams (Word):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	tọn mẹ	2,333
2	tọn to	1,877
3	to owhe	1,528
4	tọn lẹ	1,460
5	he yin	1,165

3-grams (Word):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	yin jiji to	883
2	lẹ gbẹzan tọn	635
3	tọn mẹ to	527
4	alọdlẹndonu lẹ gbẹzan	518
5	he nọ yin	482

4-grams (Word):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	alọdlẹndonu lẹ gbẹzan tọn	518
2	he ye ji to	328
3	ji to owhe lẹ	325
4	ye ji to owhe	325
5	tọn he ye ji	268

5-grams (Word):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	he ye ji to owhe	325
2	ye ji to owhe lẹ	325
3	gbẹzan tọn he ye ji	268
4	tọn he ye ji to	268
5	lẹ gbẹzan tọn he ye	193

2-grams (Subword):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	n _	74,173
2	_ t	57,983
3	o _	53,938
4	e _	47,550
5	ọ n	34,910

3-grams (Subword):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	ọ n _	24,580
2	_ t o	24,003
3	t ọ n	22,974
4	t o _	22,793
5	_ t ọ	18,136

4-grams (Subword):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	_ t o _	21,322
2	t ọ n _	19,056
3	_ t ọ n	17,899
4	_ y i n	10,442
5	y i n _	10,150

5-grams (Subword):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	_ t ọ n _	14,591
2	_ y i n _	9,182
3	n _ t o _	5,040
4	_ t o _ a	4,718
5	e t ọ n _	4,023

Key Findings

• Best Perplexity: 2-gram (subword) with 287
• 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	Variant	Avg Entropy	Perplexity	Branching Factor	Unique Contexts	Predictability
1	Word	0.8470	1.799	5.09	31,940	15.3%
1	Subword	1.3188	2.495	11.91	349	0.0%
2	Word	0.2988	1.230	1.72	162,357	70.1%
2	Subword	1.1476	2.215	6.83	4,157	0.0%
3	Word	0.1238	1.090	1.22	279,288	87.6%
3	Subword	0.8350	1.784	3.86	28,401	16.5%
4	Word	0.0494 🏆	1.035	1.07	339,321	95.1%
4	Subword	0.5898	1.505	2.45	109,522	41.0%

Generated Text Samples (Word-based)

Below are text samples generated from each word-based Markov chain model:

Context Size 1:

1. to otogbo naijilia tọn ga ògán ná leke po akwashiki to abẹokuta to otannugbo kano e
2. tọn mẹ zọ̀nlinzinzin lọ bọ e hẹn azọn whẹdida tọn mẹ wa jogbe ɖɔ silent cal
3. yin didọ gándego e sọ pọn todohukanji kọnugbe hogbe po diọ yinkọ he e kú to

Context Size 2:

1. tọn mẹ to owhe kandewiatọ̀n yinyin mẹ alọdlẹndonu lẹ gbẹzan tọn he ko sọawuhia to aihundida cantata
2. tọn to abeokuta dopolọ finẹ wẹ zẹ́ndótọzọ́nwatẹn ladi kwali tọn ladi kwali tọn ladi kwali mẹhe sin
3. to owhe lẹ kú to whenẹnu freedom park lopo awọnlin tọn sọta dahomey first franco dahomean war

Context Size 3:

1. yin jiji to oto kutaisi nọvisunnu etọn we revaz gamkrelidze ewọ lọsu yin kanlinmọ de he yin hinhẹn
2. tọn mẹ to ayimatẹn kano tọn podọ to nu taidi owhe enẹlẹ e zindonukọn nado wazọn taidi ayinamẹtọ
3. alọdlẹndonu lẹ gbẹzan tọn lẹ he ye ji to owhe lẹ kú to owhe lẹ lẹ lẹ to

Context Size 4:

1. alọdlẹndonu lẹ gbẹzan tọn he ye ji to owhe lẹ kú to owhe lẹ lẹ lẹ to naijilia lẹ
2. he ye ji to owhe lẹ benẹnu gbẹzan tọn
3. ye ji to owhe lẹ lẹ lẹ to naijilia he ye ji to owhe lẹ kú to owhe lẹ

Generated Text Samples (Subword-based)

Below are text samples generated from each subword-based Markov chain model:

Context Size 1:

1. _e_ay_topl_e_aba
2. ntọntohe_maovi_a
3. an_whunkalazunto

Context Size 2:

1. n_awe_yionu,_gbọn
2. _to_ogbàn_lẹzane_
3. o_wharcy_sia_yinu

Context Size 3:

1. ọn_mussive_sọn_alọ
2. _to_gbankan_e_nọ_m
3. to_arau_zogbe_kuku

Context Size 4:

1. _to_ogbe_de_avọ̀ta_l
2. tọn_azan_kpóɖɔ_to_n
3. _tọn_mẹ_e_jẹ_yọnnu_

Key Findings

• Best Predictability: Context-4 (word) with 95.1% predictability
• Branching Factor: Decreases with context size (more deterministic)
• Memory Trade-off: Larger contexts require more storage (109,522 contexts)
• Recommendation: Context-3 or Context-4 for text generation

---

4. Vocabulary Analysis

Statistics

Metric	Value
Vocabulary Size	15,734
Total Tokens	380,906
Mean Frequency	24.21
Median Frequency	4
Frequency Std Dev	294.06

Most Common Words

Rank	Word	Frequency
1	to	21,455
2	tọn	17,851
3	lẹ	9,999
4	yin	9,460
5	e	7,419
6	he	7,045
7	po	6,884
8	mẹ	6,420
9	na	4,037
10	nọ	3,975

Least Common Words (from vocabulary)

Rank	Word	Frequency
1	zimbabwe	2
2	zambezi	2
3	okavango	2
4	nyagbé	2
5	malgache	2
6	enseignement	2
7	supérieur	2
8	labo	2
9	gadomè	2
10	linguistique	2

Zipf's Law Analysis

Metric	Value
Zipf Coefficient	1.1244
R² (Goodness of Fit)	0.995927
Adherence Quality	excellent

Coverage Analysis

Top N Words	Coverage
Top 100	51.3%
Top 1,000	76.5%
Top 5,000	91.6%
Top 10,000	96.9%

Key Findings

• Zipf Compliance: R²=0.9959 indicates excellent adherence to Zipf's law
• High Frequency Dominance: Top 100 words cover 51.3% of corpus
• Long Tail: 5,734 words needed for remaining 3.1% 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	0.6893	0.3774	N/A	N/A
mono_64d	64	0.2689	0.3713	N/A	N/A
mono_128d	128	0.0512	0.3704	N/A	N/A
aligned_32d	32	0.6893 🏆	0.3922	0.0440	0.1880
aligned_64d	64	0.2689	0.3680	0.0480	0.2180
aligned_128d	128	0.0512	0.3656	0.0560	0.2900

Key Findings

• Best Isotropy: aligned_32d with 0.6893 (more uniform distribution)
• Semantic Density: Average pairwise similarity of 0.3742. Lower values indicate better semantic separation.
• Alignment Quality: Aligned models achieve up to 5.6% 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	-0.030	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
-tọ	wehiatọ, wàtọ, banọhotọ
-an	gban, avɔsinsan, pan

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
tion	1.71x	16 contexts	action, nation, auction
ọnnu	1.63x	15 contexts	fọnnu, yọnnu, dọnnu
nukọ	1.62x	15 contexts	nukọn, nukọ̀n, jẹnukọn
ukun	1.59x	14 contexts	wukun, nukun, kukuna
nuku	1.63x	13 contexts	anuku, nukun, jinukun
ukọn	1.60x	13 contexts	nukọn, jẹnukọn, nukọnna
yọnẹ	1.69x	11 contexts	yọnẹn, oyọnẹn, nuyọnẹn
hund	1.52x	14 contexts	aihunda, hundote, ahundopo
ọnẹn	1.78x	9 contexts	yọnẹn, oyọnẹn, nuyọnẹn
nlin	1.47x	15 contexts	online, kanlin, linlin
henu	1.79x	8 contexts	whenu, whenue, vuwhenu
gand	1.47x	12 contexts	gando, gandó, gandọ

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
lẹdogbedevomẹtọ	lẹdogbedevomẹ-tọ	4.5	lẹdogbedevomẹ
dahomeyan	dahomey-an	4.5	dahomey
ṣiantọ̀ntọ	ṣiantọ̀n-tọ	4.5	ṣiantọ̀n
nuplọnmẹtọ	nuplọnmẹ-tọ	4.5	nuplọnmẹ
gbanewheawetọ	gbanewheawe-tọ	4.5	gbanewheawe
azọ́nwatọ	azọ́nwa-tọ	4.5	azọ́nwa
nukunpedonugotọ	nukunpedonugo-tọ	4.5	nukunpedonugo
weplọnmẹtọ	weplọnmẹ-tọ	4.5	weplọnmẹ
alọgọnamẹtọ	alọgọnamẹ-tọ	4.5	alọgọnamẹ
togbogantọ	togbog-an-tọ	3.0	togbog
linlinwekantọ	linlinwek-an-tọ	3.0	linlinwek
whenuhokàntọ	whenuhokàn-tọ	1.5	whenuhokàn
avọ́sinsan	avọ́sins-an	1.5	avọ́sins
koewhèdopotọ	koewhèdopo-tọ	1.5	koewhèdopo
walɔyizan	walɔyiz-an	1.5	walɔyiz

6.6 Linguistic Interpretation

Automated Insight: The language Gun 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 (4.34x)
N-gram	2-gram	Lowest perplexity (287)
Markov	Context-4	Highest predictability (95.1%)
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) × 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.

R² (Coefficient of Determination)

Definition: Measures how well the linear fit explains the frequency-rank relationship. Ranges from 0 to 1.

Intuition: R² near 1.0 means the data closely follows Zipf's law; lower values indicate deviation from expected word frequency patterns.

What to seek: R² > 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 - a monthly snapshot of Wikipedia articles across 300+ languages.

Project

A project by Wikilangs - Open-source NLP models for every Wikipedia language.

Maintainer

Omar Kamali - Omneity Labs

Citation

If you use these models in your research, please cite:

@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

• 🌐 Website: wikilangs.org
• 🤗 Models: huggingface.co/wikilangs
• 📊 Data: wikipedia-monthly
• 👤 Author: Omar Kamali
• 🤝 Sponsor: Featherless AI

---

Generated by Wikilangs Models Pipeline

Report Date: 2026-01-10 00:40:48