Iloko - Wikilangs Models
Comprehensive Research Report & Full Ablation Study
This repository contains NLP models trained and evaluated by Wikilangs, specifically on Iloko 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, 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 | 3.747x | 3.75 | 0.1290% | 366,711 |
| 16k | 4.060x | 4.06 | 0.1397% | 338,491 |
| 32k | 4.334x | 4.34 | 0.1492% | 317,024 |
| 64k | 4.543x π | 4.55 | 0.1564% | 302,462 |
Tokenization Examples
Below are sample sentences tokenized with each vocabulary size:
Sample 1: Ti tawen idi ket kadawyan a tawen a nangrugi iti Martes (iparang ti silpo ti nap...
| Vocab | Tokens | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 8k | βti βtawen βidi βket βkadawyan βa βtawen βa βnangrugi βiti ... (+19 more) |
29 |
| 16k | βti βtawen βidi βket βkadawyan βa βtawen βa βnangrugi βiti ... (+19 more) |
29 |
| 32k | βti βtawen βidi βket βkadawyan βa βtawen βa βnangrugi βiti ... (+19 more) |
29 |
| 64k | βti βtawen βidi βket βkadawyan βa βtawen βa βnangrugi βiti ... (+19 more) |
29 |
Sample 2: Ti tawen idi ket kadawyan a tawen a nangrugi iti Domingo (iparang ti silpo ti na...
| Vocab | Tokens | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 8k | βti βtawen βidi βket βkadawyan βa βtawen βa βnangrugi βiti ... (+19 more) |
29 |
| 16k | βti βtawen βidi βket βkadawyan βa βtawen βa βnangrugi βiti ... (+19 more) |
29 |
| 32k | βti βtawen βidi βket βkadawyan βa βtawen βa βnangrugi βiti ... (+19 more) |
29 |
| 64k | βti βtawen βidi βket βkadawyan βa βtawen βa βnangrugi βiti ... (+19 more) |
29 |
Sample 3: Ti tawen idi ket kadawyan a tawen a nangrugi iti Domingo (iparang ti silpo ti na...
| Vocab | Tokens | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 8k | βti βtawen βidi βket βkadawyan βa βtawen βa βnangrugi βiti ... (+19 more) |
29 |
| 16k | βti βtawen βidi βket βkadawyan βa βtawen βa βnangrugi βiti ... (+19 more) |
29 |
| 32k | βti βtawen βidi βket βkadawyan βa βtawen βa βnangrugi βiti ... (+19 more) |
29 |
| 64k | βti βtawen βidi βket βkadawyan βa βtawen βa βnangrugi βiti ... (+19 more) |
29 |
Key Findings
- Best Compression: 64k achieves 4.543x compression
- Lowest UNK Rate: 8k with 0.1290% 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 | 9,671 | 13.24 | 49,471 | 18.3% | 45.5% |
| 2-gram | Subword | 205 π | 7.68 | 3,758 | 74.6% | 99.5% |
| 3-gram | Word | 23,415 | 14.52 | 90,863 | 12.7% | 32.8% |
| 3-gram | Subword | 1,534 | 10.58 | 27,777 | 35.7% | 77.2% |
| 4-gram | Word | 42,394 | 15.37 | 148,452 | 11.4% | 27.1% |
| 4-gram | Subword | 7,324 | 12.84 | 148,845 | 21.9% | 51.1% |
| 5-gram | Word | 29,789 | 14.86 | 103,807 | 12.6% | 30.6% |
| 5-gram | Subword | 21,347 | 14.38 | 384,749 | 15.0% | 38.4% |
Top 5 N-grams by Size
2-grams (Word):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | dagiti nagibasaran |
11,555 |
| 2 | maysa a |
10,904 |
| 3 | ket ti |
10,192 |
| 4 | a kas |
9,434 |
| 5 | daytoy ket |
8,282 |
3-grams (Word):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | akinruar a silpo |
7,499 |
| 2 | dagiti akinruar a |
7,494 |
| 3 | dagiti nagibasaran dagiti |
4,617 |
| 4 | nagibasaran dagiti akinruar |
4,453 |
| 5 | ket maysa a |
3,557 |
4-grams (Word):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | dagiti akinruar a silpo |
7,484 |
| 2 | nagibasaran dagiti akinruar a |
4,453 |
| 3 | dagiti nagibasaran dagiti akinruar |
4,434 |
| 4 | mula iti pamilia ti |
2,523 |
| 5 | ket ti sebbangan ti |
2,099 |
5-grams (Word):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | nagibasaran dagiti akinruar a silpo |
4,449 |
| 2 | dagiti nagibasaran dagiti akinruar a |
4,434 |
| 3 | demograpia dagiti nagibasaran dagiti akinruar |
1,659 |
| 4 | ti mula iti pamilia ti |
1,601 |
| 5 | sebbangan ti mula iti pamilia |
1,520 |
2-grams (Subword):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | a _ |
526,058 |
| 2 | i _ |
499,068 |
| 3 | t i |
477,610 |
| 4 | _ a |
378,705 |
| 5 | a n |
376,214 |
3-grams (Subword):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | t i _ |
426,029 |
| 2 | _ a _ |
234,251 |
| 3 | _ t i |
225,448 |
| 4 | i t i |
197,634 |
| 5 | a n _ |
128,518 |
4-grams (Subword):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | _ t i _ |
218,539 |
| 2 | i t i _ |
190,580 |
| 3 | _ i t i |
103,474 |
| 4 | a g i t |
91,630 |
| 5 | d a g i |
91,219 |
5-grams (Subword):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | _ i t i _ |
102,341 |
| 2 | d a g i t |
90,946 |
| 3 | a g i t i |
87,738 |
| 4 | g i t i _ |
87,510 |
| 5 | _ k e t _ |
71,576 |
Key Findings
- Best Perplexity: 2-gram (subword) with 205
- Entropy Trend: Decreases with larger n-grams (more predictable)
- Coverage: Top-1000 patterns cover ~38% 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 | 0.7561 | 1.689 | 4.87 | 138,794 | 24.4% |
| 1 | Subword | 0.8199 | 1.765 | 5.06 | 2,636 | 18.0% |
| 2 | Word | 0.3125 | 1.242 | 1.94 | 673,934 | 68.7% |
| 2 | Subword | 0.7122 | 1.638 | 4.45 | 13,337 | 28.8% |
| 3 | Word | 0.1495 | 1.109 | 1.34 | 1,305,896 | 85.0% |
| 3 | Subword | 0.7826 | 1.720 | 4.17 | 59,341 | 21.7% |
| 4 | Word | 0.0702 π | 1.050 | 1.12 | 1,742,668 | 93.0% |
| 4 | Subword | 0.7028 | 1.628 | 3.04 | 247,602 | 29.7% |
Generated Text Samples (Word-based)
Below are text samples generated from each word-based Markov chain model:
Context Size 1:
a pagbeddengan ti madang ti gunglo ti limba romΓ’nΔroronrum ron langeveld ti sistema sistema ti puntoti pagsasao a mangiada ti turko nga antenada ken ti habitat dagiti nagibasaran triandra kadawyan itiiti bukel kalapsan ti populasionna maysa kadagiti bukodda nga idi pimmusay otto warburg e daytoy ket
Context Size 2:
dagiti nagibasaran dagiti akinruar a silpo opisial a pagurasan ti nagbanagan daytoy a panagusar iti ...maysa a maika 3 a klase nga ili iti probinsia ti cebu ket isu idi idiay estadosket ti siudad ti tsina bagi ti ioc ti rambakan nga aldaw a kalendario iti kalendario a
Context Size 3:
dagiti akinruar a silpo ili ti quirino ti maddela nagtipunan cabarroguis aglipay ken diffun kaaduan ...akinruar a silpo naenara opisial a portal ti gobierno opisial a sitio ti turismo ti karabakh siudad ...dagiti nagibasaran dagiti akinruar a silpo siudad ti mehiko ciudad de mΓ©xico ken ti maika 7 a meridi...
Context Size 4:
dagiti akinruar a silpo directory of current japanese city leaders and outline of system japans evol...nagibasaran dagiti akinruar a silpo website ti siudad ti san pablo siudad ti san pedro population 57...dagiti nagibasaran dagiti akinruar a silpo opisial a website ti andaman ken nicobar grupo ti etniko ...
Generated Text Samples (Subword-based)
Below are text samples generated from each subword-based Markov chain model:
Context Size 1:
a;_mangima_saket_ril,_ng_ka-a_naikaba_kerapipa_m
Context Size 2:
a_aca_a_mΕ«rΔ«shimbi_ngpo_ket_da_kamti_a_demics._mawe
Context Size 3:
ti_kaman_zimbahnam_a_heogress:_annak_ti_dagiti_filia_h
Context Size 4:
_ti_dua_nga_englingiti_agarup_a_karaka_iti_karl_edisiesto
Key Findings
- Best Predictability: Context-4 (word) with 93.0% predictability
- Branching Factor: Decreases with context size (more deterministic)
- Memory Trade-off: Larger contexts require more storage (247,602 contexts)
- Recommendation: Context-3 or Context-4 for text generation
4. Vocabulary Analysis
Statistics
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Vocabulary Size | 60,623 |
| Total Tokens | 2,400,884 |
| Mean Frequency | 39.60 |
| Median Frequency | 4 |
| Frequency Std Dev | 1521.44 |
Most Common Words
| Rank | Word | Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | a | 237,485 |
| 2 | ti | 233,421 |
| 3 | iti | 103,626 |
| 4 | ket | 71,830 |
| 5 | dagiti | 62,492 |
| 6 | nga | 53,917 |
| 7 | ken | 48,636 |
| 8 | kadagiti | 24,755 |
| 9 | idi | 21,971 |
| 10 | maysa | 16,740 |
Least Common Words (from vocabulary)
| Rank | Word | Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | mainom | 2 |
| 2 | epektoda | 2 |
| 3 | medulla | 2 |
| 4 | nainom | 2 |
| 5 | pannakarimon | 2 |
| 6 | kannabinoide | 2 |
| 7 | agsarsarua | 2 |
| 8 | alingget | 2 |
| 9 | emetopilia | 2 |
| 10 | emetopobia | 2 |
Zipf's Law Analysis
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Zipf Coefficient | 1.0920 |
| RΒ² (Goodness of Fit) | 0.998298 |
| Adherence Quality | excellent |
Coverage Analysis
| Top N Words | Coverage |
|---|---|
| Top 100 | 53.3% |
| Top 1,000 | 74.1% |
| Top 5,000 | 86.4% |
| Top 10,000 | 91.0% |
Key Findings
- Zipf Compliance: RΒ²=0.9983 indicates excellent adherence to Zipf's law
- High Frequency Dominance: Top 100 words cover 53.3% of corpus
- Long Tail: 50,623 words needed for remaining 9.0% 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 | 0.8576 π | 0.3336 | N/A | N/A |
| mono_64d | 64 | 0.8049 | 0.2671 | N/A | N/A |
| mono_128d | 128 | 0.6566 | 0.2245 | N/A | N/A |
| aligned_32d | 32 | 0.8576 | 0.3327 | 0.1020 | 0.4140 |
| aligned_64d | 64 | 0.8049 | 0.2687 | 0.1940 | 0.5560 |
| aligned_128d | 128 | 0.6566 | 0.2322 | 0.2440 | 0.6020 |
Key Findings
- Best Isotropy: mono_32d with 0.8576 (more uniform distribution)
- Semantic Density: Average pairwise similarity of 0.2765. Lower values indicate better semantic separation.
- Alignment Quality: Aligned models achieve up to 24.4% R@1 in cross-lingual retrieval.
- Recommendation: 128d aligned for best cross-lingual performance
6. Morphological Analysis (Experimental)
This section presents an automated morphological analysis derived from the statistical divergence between word-level and subword-level models. By analyzing where subword predictability spikes and where word-level coverage fails, we can infer linguistic structures without supervised data.
6.1 Productivity & Complexity
| Metric | Value | Interpretation | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Productivity Index | 5.000 | High morphological productivity | Reliable analysis |
| Idiomaticity Gap | -0.203 | 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 |
|---|---|
-ma |
magnificent, matapos, mackinven |
-a |
abc, annonaceae, agtengtenggel |
-s |
saklawen, segregate, sinaugoro |
-na |
naipagpagarup, naipabaro, na2o |
-pa |
pagsasaoe, pait, pannakamatmati |
-b |
basle, bisitaen, begawan |
-ka |
katres, kalidasa, kababa |
-p |
pisinniflora, pagsasaoe, puesto |
Productive Suffixes
| Suffix | Examples |
|---|---|
-a |
curia, pisinniflora, daremdemda |
-n |
saklawen, positron, tatalan |
-o |
kodigo, naipabaro, puesto |
-s |
katres, matapos, oxus |
-an |
tatalan, begawan, tinwtawagan |
-na |
lehitimadona, pinarmekna, arrubayanna |
-e |
me, rourke, pagsasaoe |
-g |
temburong, dulong, aliping |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
angi |
1.91x | 71 contexts | angin, mangi, sangi |
dayt |
2.60x | 17 contexts | dayty, dayta, dayto |
sion |
1.93x | 43 contexts | pasion, bision, sesion |
asao |
2.34x | 20 contexts | masao, sasao, wasao |
adag |
2.23x | 21 contexts | nadag, adaga, kadagit |
ngga |
1.78x | 42 contexts | ingga, anggal, rongga |
agsa |
1.61x | 53 contexts | agsao, agsapa, bagsak |
aipa |
1.65x | 41 contexts | naipa, maipa, taipa |
aika |
1.76x | 29 contexts | maika, baikal, taikat |
abag |
1.76x | 27 contexts | tabag, abaga, kabag |
abae |
1.92x | 20 contexts | babae, babaen, ababaen |
silp |
2.05x | 16 contexts | silpo, isilpo, insilpo |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
-na |
-n |
142 words | naminduan, nailawlawagan |
-pa |
-n |
123 words | pasuruan, patubuan |
-pa |
-a |
122 words | pannakakita, pagsinaenna |
-a |
-a |
117 words | agrepresenta, agdumaduma |
-na |
-a |
108 words | naipatulodda, nailata |
-na |
-an |
105 words | naminduan, nailawlawagan |
-s |
-a |
98 words | sinasina, sanana |
-pa |
-an |
97 words | pasuruan, patubuan |
-b |
-a |
85 words | biskleta, bella |
-ma |
-a |
83 words | malabarica, maipanunotanda |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| kalatakanna | kalatak-an-na |
7.5 | an |
| manggandat | manggan-da-t |
7.5 | da |
| matarigagay | matariga-g-ay |
7.5 | g |
| cavacoana | cavaco-an-a |
7.5 | an |
| nagunggunaan | nagunggu-na-an |
7.5 | na |
| gungunana | gungun-an-a |
7.5 | an |
| khoonmengiana | khoonmengi-an-a |
7.5 | an |
| kutubuano | kutubu-an-o |
7.5 | an |
| resultana | result-an-a |
7.5 | an |
| pransiskano | pransisk-an-o |
7.5 | an |
| stephanus | steph-an-us |
7.5 | an |
| tanghalan | tangh-al-an |
7.5 | al |
| mabaeoides | mabaeoi-d-es |
7.5 | d |
| kabasalan | kabas-al-an |
7.5 | al |
| binukbukodanna | binukbukod-an-na |
7.5 | an |
6.6 Linguistic Interpretation
Automated Insight: The language Iloko 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 (4.54x) |
| N-gram | 2-gram | Lowest perplexity (205) |
| Markov | Context-4 | Highest predictability (93.0%) |
| 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
- Compare within model families: Metrics are most meaningful when comparing models of the same type (e.g., 8k vs 64k tokenizer).
- Consider trade-offs: Better performance on one metric often comes at the cost of another (e.g., compression vs. OOV rate).
- Context matters: Optimal values depend on downstream tasks. Text generation may prioritize different metrics than classification.
- Corpus influence: All metrics are influenced by corpus characteristics. Wikipedia text differs from social media or literature.
- 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
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
- π Website: wikilangs.org
- π€ Models: huggingface.co/wikilangs
- π Data: wikipedia-monthly
- π€ Author: Omar Kamali
- π€ Sponsor: Featherless AI
Generated by Wikilangs Models Pipeline
Report Date: 2026-01-10 04:17:29



















