kk / README.md
omarkamali's picture
Upload all models and assets for kk (latest)
f2caced verified
---
language: kk
language_name: Kazakh
language_family: turkic_kipchak
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-turkic_kipchak
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: 4.977
- name: best_isotropy
type: isotropy
value: 0.7010
- name: vocabulary_size
type: vocab
value: 0
generated: 2026-01-10
---
# Kazakh - Wikilangs Models
## Comprehensive Research Report & Full Ablation Study
This repository contains NLP models trained and evaluated by Wikilangs, specifically on **Kazakh** Wikipedia data.
We analyze tokenizers, n-gram models, Markov chains, vocabulary statistics, and word embeddings.
## ๐Ÿ“‹ 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** | 3.772x | 3.77 | 0.3045% | 1,829,937 |
| **16k** | 4.241x | 4.24 | 0.3424% | 1,627,264 |
| **32k** | 4.650x | 4.65 | 0.3754% | 1,484,160 |
| **64k** | 4.977x ๐Ÿ† | 4.98 | 0.4018% | 1,386,763 |
### Tokenization Examples
Below are sample sentences tokenized with each vocabulary size:
**Sample 1:** `ะžา›ะธา“ะฐะปะฐั€ ะขัƒา“ะฐะฝะดะฐั€ ะขะฐา“ั‹ า›ะฐั€ะฐ: : ะถั‹ะปั‹ ั‚ัƒา“ะฐะฝะดะฐั€ าšะฐะนั‚ั‹ั ะฑะพะปา“ะฐะฝะดะฐั€ ะขะฐา“ั‹ า›ะฐั€ะฐ: : ะถั‹ะปั‹ ...`
| Vocab | Tokens | Count |
|-------|--------|-------|
| 8k | `โ–ะพา›ะธา“ะฐะปะฐั€ โ–ั‚ัƒา“ะฐะฝะดะฐั€ โ–ั‚ะฐา“ั‹ โ–า›ะฐั€ะฐ : โ–: โ–ะถั‹ะปั‹ โ–ั‚ัƒา“ะฐะฝะดะฐั€ โ–า›ะฐะนั‚ั‹ั โ–ะฑะพะปา“ะฐะฝะดะฐั€ ... (+11 more)` | 21 |
| 16k | `โ–ะพา›ะธา“ะฐะปะฐั€ โ–ั‚ัƒา“ะฐะฝะดะฐั€ โ–ั‚ะฐา“ั‹ โ–า›ะฐั€ะฐ : โ–: โ–ะถั‹ะปั‹ โ–ั‚ัƒา“ะฐะฝะดะฐั€ โ–า›ะฐะนั‚ั‹ั โ–ะฑะพะปา“ะฐะฝะดะฐั€ ... (+11 more)` | 21 |
| 32k | `โ–ะพา›ะธา“ะฐะปะฐั€ โ–ั‚ัƒา“ะฐะฝะดะฐั€ โ–ั‚ะฐา“ั‹ โ–า›ะฐั€ะฐ : โ–: โ–ะถั‹ะปั‹ โ–ั‚ัƒา“ะฐะฝะดะฐั€ โ–า›ะฐะนั‚ั‹ั โ–ะฑะพะปา“ะฐะฝะดะฐั€ ... (+11 more)` | 21 |
| 64k | `โ–ะพา›ะธา“ะฐะปะฐั€ โ–ั‚ัƒา“ะฐะฝะดะฐั€ โ–ั‚ะฐา“ั‹ โ–า›ะฐั€ะฐ : โ–: โ–ะถั‹ะปั‹ โ–ั‚ัƒา“ะฐะฝะดะฐั€ โ–า›ะฐะนั‚ั‹ั โ–ะฑะพะปา“ะฐะฝะดะฐั€ ... (+11 more)` | 21 |
**Sample 2:** `ะžา›ะธา“ะฐะปะฐั€ ะขัƒา“ะฐะฝะดะฐั€ ะขะฐา“ั‹ า›ะฐั€ะฐ: : ะท. ะด. 849 ะถั‹ะปั‹ ั‚ัƒา“ะฐะฝะดะฐั€ าšะฐะนั‚ั‹ั ะฑะพะปา“ะฐะฝะดะฐั€ ะขะฐา“ั‹ า›ะฐั€...`
| Vocab | Tokens | Count |
|-------|--------|-------|
| 8k | `โ–ะพา›ะธา“ะฐะปะฐั€ โ–ั‚ัƒา“ะฐะฝะดะฐั€ โ–ั‚ะฐา“ั‹ โ–า›ะฐั€ะฐ : โ–: โ–ะท . โ–ะด . ... (+27 more)` | 37 |
| 16k | `โ–ะพา›ะธา“ะฐะปะฐั€ โ–ั‚ัƒา“ะฐะฝะดะฐั€ โ–ั‚ะฐา“ั‹ โ–า›ะฐั€ะฐ : โ–: โ–ะท . โ–ะด . ... (+27 more)` | 37 |
| 32k | `โ–ะพา›ะธา“ะฐะปะฐั€ โ–ั‚ัƒา“ะฐะฝะดะฐั€ โ–ั‚ะฐา“ั‹ โ–า›ะฐั€ะฐ : โ–: โ–ะท . โ–ะด . ... (+27 more)` | 37 |
| 64k | `โ–ะพา›ะธา“ะฐะปะฐั€ โ–ั‚ัƒา“ะฐะฝะดะฐั€ โ–ั‚ะฐา“ั‹ โ–า›ะฐั€ะฐ : โ–: โ–ะท . โ–ะด . ... (+27 more)` | 37 |
**Sample 3:** `ะ”ะตะฝะฒะตั€ () โ€” ะšะพะปะพั€ะฐะดะพ ัˆั‚ะฐั‚ั‹ะฝั‹าฃ ะ”ะตะฝะฒะตั€ ะพะบั€ัƒะณั–ะฝะต ะถะฐั‚ะฐั‚ั‹ะฝ ะาšะจ า›ะฐะปะฐัั‹.`
| Vocab | Tokens | Count |
|-------|--------|-------|
| 8k | `โ–ะดะตะฝ ะฒะตั€ โ–() โ–โ€” โ–ะบะพะป ะพั€ ะฐะดะพ โ–ัˆั‚ะฐั‚ั‹ะฝั‹าฃ โ–ะดะตะฝ ะฒะตั€ ... (+5 more)` | 15 |
| 16k | `โ–ะดะตะฝ ะฒะตั€ โ–() โ–โ€” โ–ะบะพะปะพั€ะฐะดะพ โ–ัˆั‚ะฐั‚ั‹ะฝั‹าฃ โ–ะดะตะฝ ะฒะตั€ โ–ะพะบั€ัƒะณั–ะฝะต โ–ะถะฐั‚ะฐั‚ั‹ะฝ ... (+3 more)` | 13 |
| 32k | `โ–ะดะตะฝ ะฒะตั€ โ–() โ–โ€” โ–ะบะพะปะพั€ะฐะดะพ โ–ัˆั‚ะฐั‚ั‹ะฝั‹าฃ โ–ะดะตะฝ ะฒะตั€ โ–ะพะบั€ัƒะณั–ะฝะต โ–ะถะฐั‚ะฐั‚ั‹ะฝ ... (+3 more)` | 13 |
| 64k | `โ–ะดะตะฝ ะฒะตั€ โ–() โ–โ€” โ–ะบะพะปะพั€ะฐะดะพ โ–ัˆั‚ะฐั‚ั‹ะฝั‹าฃ โ–ะดะตะฝ ะฒะตั€ โ–ะพะบั€ัƒะณั–ะฝะต โ–ะถะฐั‚ะฐั‚ั‹ะฝ ... (+3 more)` | 13 |
### Key Findings
- **Best Compression:** 64k achieves 4.977x compression
- **Lowest UNK Rate:** 8k with 0.3045% 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 | 50,781 | 15.63 | 635,206 | 13.5% | 36.3% |
| **2-gram** | Subword | 408 ๐Ÿ† | 8.67 | 14,531 | 58.9% | 97.3% |
| **3-gram** | Word | 31,735 | 14.95 | 735,424 | 16.7% | 45.1% |
| **3-gram** | Subword | 3,241 | 11.66 | 127,100 | 21.8% | 66.2% |
| **4-gram** | Word | 42,856 | 15.39 | 1,354,792 | 17.2% | 44.2% |
| **4-gram** | Subword | 16,071 | 13.97 | 781,025 | 10.8% | 38.2% |
| **5-gram** | Word | 32,278 | 14.98 | 1,073,181 | 18.4% | 45.9% |
| **5-gram** | Subword | 53,942 | 15.72 | 2,515,495 | 6.8% | 25.7% |
### Top 5 N-grams by Size
**2-grams (Word):**
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|------|--------|-------|
| 1 | `ัั‹ั€ั‚า›ั‹ ัั–ะปั‚ะตะผะตะปะตั€` | 94,884 |
| 2 | `ั‚าฑั€า“ั‹ะฝะดะฐั€ั‹ะฝั‹าฃ ัะฐะฝั‹` | 63,172 |
| 3 | `ะถะตั€ ะฐัƒะผะฐา“ั‹` | 60,266 |
| 4 | `ะดะตั€ะตะบะบำฉะทะดะตั€ ัั‹ั€ั‚า›ั‹` | 59,467 |
| 5 | `ะฐะปั‹ะฟ ะถะฐั‚า›ะฐะฝ` | 58,019 |
**3-grams (Word):**
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|------|--------|-------|
| 1 | `ะฐะปั‹ะฟ ะถะฐั‚า›ะฐะฝ ะถะตั€` | 57,518 |
| 2 | `ะถะฐั‚า›ะฐะฝ ะถะตั€ ะฐัƒะผะฐา“ั‹` | 57,501 |
| 3 | `ะดะตั€ะตะบะบำฉะทะดะตั€ ัั‹ั€ั‚า›ั‹ ัั–ะปั‚ะตะผะตะปะตั€` | 53,338 |
| 4 | `ะถั‹ะปา“ั‹ ะผำ™ะปั–ะผะตั‚ั‚ะตั€ ะฑะพะนั‹ะฝัˆะฐ` | 37,228 |
| 5 | `ะฑะพะนั‹ะฝัˆะฐ ั‚าฑั€า“ั‹ะฝะดะฐั€ั‹ะฝั‹าฃ ัะฐะฝั‹` | 37,149 |
**4-grams (Word):**
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|------|--------|-------|
| 1 | `ะฐะปั‹ะฟ ะถะฐั‚า›ะฐะฝ ะถะตั€ ะฐัƒะผะฐา“ั‹` | 57,501 |
| 2 | `ะผำ™ะปั–ะผะตั‚ั‚ะตั€ ะฑะพะนั‹ะฝัˆะฐ ั‚าฑั€า“ั‹ะฝะดะฐั€ั‹ะฝั‹าฃ ัะฐะฝั‹` | 37,144 |
| 3 | `ะถั‹ะปา“ั‹ ะผำ™ะปั–ะผะตั‚ั‚ะตั€ ะฑะพะนั‹ะฝัˆะฐ ั‚าฑั€า“ั‹ะฝะดะฐั€ั‹ะฝั‹าฃ` | 37,139 |
| 4 | `ะถะตั€ ะฐัƒะผะฐา›ั‚ะฐั€ั‹ะฝะฐะฝ ะฐา“ั‹ะฟ ำฉั‚ะตะดั–` | 22,912 |
| 5 | `ััƒ ะฐะปะฐะฑั‹ ำฉาฃั–ั€ั–ะฝะต ะถะฐั‚ะฐะดั‹` | 22,794 |
**5-grams (Word):**
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|------|--------|-------|
| 1 | `ะถั‹ะปา“ั‹ ะผำ™ะปั–ะผะตั‚ั‚ะตั€ ะฑะพะนั‹ะฝัˆะฐ ั‚าฑั€า“ั‹ะฝะดะฐั€ั‹ะฝั‹าฃ ัะฐะฝั‹` | 37,139 |
| 2 | `ััƒ ะฐะปะฐะฑั‹ ำฉาฃั–ั€ั–ะฝะต ะถะฐั‚ะฐะดั‹ ำฉะทะตะฝะฝั–าฃ` | 22,791 |
| 3 | `ั„ะตะดะตั€ะฐั†ะธััั‹ ั‚ะฐะฑะธา“ะธ ั€ะตััƒั€ัั‚ะฐั€ ะถำ™ะฝะต ัะบะพะปะพะณะธั` | 22,789 |
| 4 | `ัั‹ั€ั‚า›ั‹ ัั–ะปั‚ะตะผะตะปะตั€ ั€ะตัะตะน ั„ะตะดะตั€ะฐั†ะธััั‹ ั‚ะฐะฑะธา“ะธ` | 22,789 |
| 5 | `ัั–ะปั‚ะตะผะตะปะตั€ ั€ะตัะตะน ั„ะตะดะตั€ะฐั†ะธััั‹ ั‚ะฐะฑะธา“ะธ ั€ะตััƒั€ัั‚ะฐั€` | 22,789 |
**2-grams (Subword):**
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|------|--------|-------|
| 1 | `ั‹ _` | 4,184,362 |
| 2 | `ะฐ ั€` | 3,959,987 |
| 3 | `ะฝ _` | 3,570,515 |
| 4 | `ะฐ ะฝ` | 3,529,083 |
| 5 | `ะฐ ะป` | 3,338,151 |
**3-grams (Subword):**
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|------|--------|-------|
| 1 | `ั‹ าฃ _` | 1,429,377 |
| 2 | `_ า› ะฐ` | 1,294,982 |
| 3 | `ะฝ ะด ะฐ` | 1,265,853 |
| 4 | `ะฐ ะฝ _` | 1,237,704 |
| 5 | `ะต ะฝ _` | 1,131,817 |
**4-grams (Subword):**
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|------|--------|-------|
| 1 | `ะฝ ั‹ าฃ _` | 994,945 |
| 2 | `ั‹ ะฝ ะด ะฐ` | 897,950 |
| 3 | `ั‹ ะฝ ั‹ าฃ` | 649,967 |
| 4 | `ะด ั‹ . _` | 602,358 |
| 5 | `ะป ั‹ า› _` | 590,402 |
**5-grams (Subword):**
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|------|--------|-------|
| 1 | `ั‹ ะฝ ั‹ าฃ _` | 640,895 |
| 2 | `ะถ ำ™ ะฝ ะต _` | 461,132 |
| 3 | `_ ะถ ำ™ ะฝ ะต` | 461,108 |
| 4 | `ั– ะฝ ั– าฃ _` | 415,949 |
| 5 | `ั‹ ะฝ ะด ะฐ _` | 372,714 |
### Key Findings
- **Best Perplexity:** 2-gram (subword) with 408
- **Entropy Trend:** Decreases with larger n-grams (more predictable)
- **Coverage:** Top-1000 patterns cover ~26% 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 | 0.9389 | 1.917 | 10.11 | 1,229,299 | 6.1% |
| **1** | Subword | 1.0239 | 2.033 | 7.20 | 7,217 | 0.0% |
| **2** | Word | 0.2789 | 1.213 | 1.72 | 12,407,759 | 72.1% |
| **2** | Subword | 0.7626 | 1.697 | 5.39 | 51,715 | 23.7% |
| **3** | Word | 0.0788 | 1.056 | 1.14 | 21,365,193 | 92.1% |
| **3** | Subword | 0.8061 | 1.748 | 4.76 | 278,483 | 19.4% |
| **4** | Word | 0.0283 ๐Ÿ† | 1.020 | 1.05 | 24,363,984 | 97.2% |
| **4** | Subword | 0.7342 | 1.664 | 3.54 | 1,325,004 | 26.6% |
### Generated Text Samples (Word-based)
Below are text samples generated from each word-based Markov chain model:
**Context Size 1:**
1. `ะถำ™ะฝะต ะธะดะตัะปะฐั ั‚าฑั€า“ะฐะฝั‹ะฝ ะตัั‚ะธะผั–ะท า›ะฐะปั‹ะฟั‚ั‹ ะถะฐา“ะดะฐะนะดะฐ า“ะฐะฝะฐ ัˆั‹า“ะฐั‚ั‹ะฝ ะบะตะทะดะตะฝ ะฑะฐัั‚ะฐะฟ ะฑะตัั–ะฝัˆั– ะฐะนะปะฐ ะฑะฐััˆั‹ัั‹ะฝ ะฐัƒั‹ั...`
2. `ะฑะพะนั‹ะฝัˆะฐ ั‚าฑั€า“ั‹ะฝะดะฐั€ั‹ะฝั‹าฃ ัะฐะฝั‹ 4 ะฒะธะปัŒะฝัŽั ะฑะฐะบัƒ ะฐัƒะดะฐะฝั‹ะฝะดะฐ ะบะพะผะฐั€ะบะฐ ะพั€ะฝะฐะปะฐัา›ะฐะฝ ัˆะฐาฃะดั‹ ะดะฐัƒั‹ะปะดะฐั€า“ะฐ ะฑะฐะนะปะฐะฝั‹ัั‚ั‹ ะฑ...`
3. `ััƒ ั‚ะพั€ะฐะฑั‹ะฝะฐ ะดะตะนั–ะฝ ำฉะทะตะฝ ัะฐา“ะฐัั‹ ั‚ะธะบัะฝะฐ ำฉะทะตะฝั–ะฝั–าฃ า›าฑะนั‹ะปั‹ัั‹ะฝะฐ ะดะตะนั–ะฝะณั– ะฐั€ะฐะปั‹า›ั‚ะฐ ะดำ™ัั‚าฏั€ะณาฏะปะดะตั€ ะฐัˆั‹า› ั…ะพะบะบะตะน ั...`
**Context Size 2:**
1. `ัั‹ั€ั‚า›ั‹ ัั–ะปั‚ะตะผะตะปะตั€ ั€ะตัะผะธ ัะฐะนั‚ั‹ ัะฐะบัะพะฝะธั ะตะปะดั– ะผะตะบะตะฝะดะตั€ั– ะฐัƒั‹ะป ะฐั‚ั‹ ะบะธั–ะท าฏะน ั‚ำ™ั€ั–ะทะดั– ั‚าฏั€า“ั‹ะฝ าฏะนั– ะบั–ั€ะตะดั– ะถะฐา›...`
2. `ั‚าฑั€า“ั‹ะฝะดะฐั€ั‹ะฝั‹าฃ ัะฐะฝั‹ 174 ะฐะดะฐะผะดั‹ า›าฑั€ะฐะนะดั‹ ะฐะปั‹ะฟ ะถะฐั‚า›ะฐะฝ ะถะตั€ ะฐัƒะผะฐา“ั‹ 20 ะบะผ ะถะตั€ะดะต ั‚ะฐัƒะปั‹ ั‚ะตาฃั–ะท ะดะตาฃะณะตะนั–ะฝะตะฝ 176 ...`
3. `ะถะตั€ ะฐัƒะผะฐา“ั‹ 17 6 54 55 1 24 25 ะบะผ ะดะตะน ะถะตั€ะดะต าฏะปะบะตะฝ ัะฐั€ั‹ัˆั‹า“ะฐะฝะฐา› า›ะพะปั‚ั‹า“ั‹ะฝะดะฐ ัˆำฉะป ะฑะตะปะดะตะผั–ะฝะดะต`
**Context Size 3:**
1. `ะฐะปั‹ะฟ ะถะฐั‚า›ะฐะฝ ะถะตั€ ะฐัƒะผะฐา“ั‹ 3 5 ะบะผ ัˆะฐะผะฐัั‹ะฝะดะฐ fips ะบะพะดั‹ ัั‹ั€ั‚า›ั‹ ะฐา›ัˆ ั‚ั‹าฃ ะฑะฐั€ะปั‹า› า›ะฐะปะฐะปะฐั€ั‹ ะถะฐะนั‹ะฝะดะฐ ัั‚ะฐั‚ะธัั‚ะธะบะฐะป...`
2. `ะถะฐั‚า›ะฐะฝ ะถะตั€ ะฐัƒะผะฐา“ั‹ 9 23 ะบะผ ัˆะฐะผะฐัั‹ะฝะดะฐ ะบะพะผะผัƒะฝะฐะฝั‹าฃ insee ะบะพะดั‹ ะฟะพัˆั‚ะฐ ะธะฝะดะตะบัั– ะดะตะผะพะณั€ะฐั„ะธััั‹ ะถั‹ะปา“ั‹ ะผำ™ะปั–ะผะตั‚ั‚ะต...`
3. `ะดะตั€ะตะบะบำฉะทะดะตั€ ัั‹ั€ั‚า›ั‹ ัั–ะปั‚ะตะผะตะปะตั€ ั€ะตัะผะธ ัะฐะนั‚ั‹ ั„ั€ะฐะฝั†ะธัะฝั‹าฃ าฑะปั‚ั‚ั‹า› ัั‚ะฐั‚ะธัั‚ะธะบะฐ ะถำ™ะฝะต ัะบะพะฝะพะผะธะบะฐะปั‹า› ะทะตั€ั‚ั‚ะตัƒะปะตั€ ...`
**Context Size 4:**
1. `ะฐะปั‹ะฟ ะถะฐั‚า›ะฐะฝ ะถะตั€ ะฐัƒะผะฐา“ั‹ 33 56 ะบะผ ัˆะฐะผะฐัั‹ะฝะดะฐ ะตะปะดั– ะผะตะบะตะฝะฝั–าฃ ะฐะฒั‚ะพะผะพะฑะธะปัŒ ะบะพะดั‹ fb ั€ะตัะผะธ ะธะดะตะฝั‚ะธั„ะธะบะฐั†ะธัะปั‹า› ะบะพ...`
2. `ะผำ™ะปั–ะผะตั‚ั‚ะตั€ ะฑะพะนั‹ะฝัˆะฐ ั‚าฑั€า“ั‹ะฝะดะฐั€ั‹ะฝั‹าฃ ัะฐะฝั‹ 41 ะฐะดะฐะผะดั‹ า›าฑั€ะฐะนะดั‹ ะฐะปั‹ะฟ ะถะฐั‚า›ะฐะฝ ะถะตั€ ะฐัƒะผะฐา“ั‹ 711 649 ะบะผ ัˆะฐะผะฐัั‹ะฝะดะฐ ...`
3. `ะถั‹ะปา“ั‹ ะผำ™ะปั–ะผะตั‚ั‚ะตั€ ะฑะพะนั‹ะฝัˆะฐ ั‚าฑั€า“ั‹ะฝะดะฐั€ั‹ะฝั‹าฃ ัะฐะฝั‹ 650 ะฐะดะฐะผะดั‹ า›าฑั€ะฐะนะดั‹ 31 ะถะตะปั‚ะพา›ัะฐะฝ ะถั‹ะป ะฐะปั‹ะฟ ะถะฐั‚า›ะฐะฝ ะถะตั€ ะฐัƒะผะฐ...`
### Generated Text Samples (Subword-based)
Below are text samples generated from each subword-based Markov chain model:
**Context Size 1:**
1. `_ะฑั–._ะฟะฐั‚ั‹า›,_ะผั‚ั–ะป`
2. `ะฐะฟะตาฃ_ะฑะตั€ั–_า›_า›_ะถะฐ`
3. `ั‹ะปะต_าฑะทะฐะผะดะฐั€ะดั‹ะฝะดั‹`
**Context Size 2:**
1. `ั‹_า›ะฐั€ั‹_ะตัƒั–_ะถะฐาฃะฐ_-`
2. `ะฐั€ะฐั‚ะฐั€ะฐะปะดั–าฃ_ัะต_ะพั‚`
3. `ะฝ_ะบำฉะฟ_ะฑ.)._ะถั‹ะปะดั‹าฃ`
**Context Size 3:**
1. `ั‹าฃ_า›าฑะผะดะฐั€ั‹_ะฑาฑะถั‹ะผะดะฐ`
2. `_า›ะฐะปั‹_ั‚ะตะณั–ัˆ_ัะพาฃ_ะถะฐ`
3. `ะฝะดะฐา“ั‹_1_17_59_ะบะตั€ะต`
**Context Size 4:**
1. `ะฝั‹าฃ_ะฐา›ั‹ัั‹ะผะตะฝ_า›ัƒะฐั‚ั‹ะฝ`
2. `ั‹ะฝะดะฐั€ั‹_ั‚ะตาฃั–ะทะดะตั€_ะถะฐา›`
3. `ั‹ะฝั‹าฃ_า›าฑั€ั‹ะปา“ะฐะฝั‹ะฝะดะฐา“ั‹`
### Key Findings
- **Best Predictability:** Context-4 (word) with 97.2% predictability
- **Branching Factor:** Decreases with context size (more deterministic)
- **Memory Trade-off:** Larger contexts require more storage (1,325,004 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 | 538,078 |
| Total Tokens | 35,515,416 |
| Mean Frequency | 66.00 |
| Median Frequency | 4 |
| Frequency Std Dev | 1426.50 |
### Most Common Words
| Rank | Word | Frequency |
|------|------|-----------|
| 1 | ะถำ™ะฝะต | 461,374 |
| 2 | ะฑะพะนั‹ะฝัˆะฐ | 214,790 |
| 3 | ััƒ | 213,722 |
| 4 | ะถั‹ะปั‹ | 206,615 |
| 5 | ะผะตะฝ | 203,657 |
| 6 | ะบะผ | 180,670 |
| 7 | ะดะตั€ะตะบะบำฉะทะดะตั€ | 166,770 |
| 8 | 1 | 129,114 |
| 9 | ำฉะทะตะฝ | 122,193 |
| 10 | ะบะพะดั‹ | 120,681 |
### Least Common Words (from vocabulary)
| Rank | Word | Frequency |
|------|------|-----------|
| 1 | ะธะทะพะผะตั€ะธะทะฐั†ะธััั‹ | 2 |
| 2 | ัˆะพะปา›ะฐั€ะฐ | 2 |
| 3 | uruperbat | 2 |
| 4 | ััƒะฝะถ | 2 |
| 5 | ั‚ะฐะนะดัƒะปะฐะฝั‹าฃ | 2 |
| 6 | ะณะธะดั€ะฐะทะธะฝะดั– | 2 |
| 7 | ะผะพะฝะพะฟั€ะพะฟะตะปะปะตะฝั‚ | 2 |
| 8 | ะพะบัะฐะทะธั€ะธะดะธะฝ | 2 |
| 9 | ะณะธะดั€ะฐะทะพะฝ | 2 |
| 10 | ั€ะฐััˆะธะณ | 2 |
### Zipf's Law Analysis
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Zipf Coefficient | 1.0557 |
| Rยฒ (Goodness of Fit) | 0.990942 |
| Adherence Quality | **excellent** |
### Coverage Analysis
| Top N Words | Coverage |
|-------------|----------|
| Top 100 | 21.8% |
| Top 1,000 | 51.8% |
| Top 5,000 | 71.0% |
| Top 10,000 | 78.1% |
### Key Findings
- **Zipf Compliance:** Rยฒ=0.9909 indicates excellent adherence to Zipf's law
- **High Frequency Dominance:** Top 100 words cover 21.8% of corpus
- **Long Tail:** 528,078 words needed for remaining 21.9% 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 | 0.7010 ๐Ÿ† | 0.3649 | N/A | N/A |
| **mono_64d** | 64 | 0.6917 | 0.2922 | N/A | N/A |
| **mono_128d** | 128 | 0.6268 | 0.2367 | N/A | N/A |
| **aligned_32d** | 32 | 0.7010 | 0.3419 | 0.0560 | 0.2380 |
| **aligned_64d** | 64 | 0.6917 | 0.3003 | 0.0880 | 0.3400 |
| **aligned_128d** | 128 | 0.6268 | 0.2449 | 0.1360 | 0.4220 |
### Key Findings
- **Best Isotropy:** mono_32d with 0.7010 (more uniform distribution)
- **Semantic Density:** Average pairwise similarity of 0.2968. Lower values indicate better semantic separation.
- **Alignment Quality:** Aligned models achieve up to 13.6% 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 | **0.788** | 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 |
|--------|----------|
| `-ะบ` | ะบะฐะฟะธั‚ะพะปะธะนะณะต, ะบาฏะฝะดะตะปะตะบั‚ั–, ะบะตั€ะดะตั€ |
| `-ะฐ` | ะฐะฝะถะตั€ะฒะธะปัŒ, ะฐะนะปะฐะทะฐะฝ, ะฐะนะฒะฐะทะพะฒัะบะธะนะดั–าฃ |
| `-ั` | ัะฐั‚ั‚ะฐั€าฑะปั‹, ัั‹ะนะปะฐั€า“ะฐ, ััƒะฐัั‚ั‹ |
| `-ั‚` | ั‚าฑะฝัˆั‹า›ั‚ั‹ั€า“ั‹ัˆ, ั‚ะพา“ั‹ัั‹ะฟ, ั‚าฏะนะตา›ัƒั |
| `-ะฑ` | ะฑะฐะฟะฐะฝา“ะฐ, ะฑำ™ัะตะบะตะดะต, ะฑาฏั€ะบั–ั‚ะฑะฐะนา›ั‹ะทั‹ |
| `-ะผะฐ` | ะผะฐาฃั‹ะทะดั‹ะปั‹า“ั‹ะฝั‹าฃ, ะผะฐััะตะน, ะผะฐะบะธัะถ |
| `-ะผ` | ะผัƒัั‚ะฐั„ะธ, ะผะฐาฃั‹ะทะดั‹ะปั‹า“ั‹ะฝั‹าฃ, ะผะธะบะปะพัˆะธั‡ |
| `-ะฑะฐ` | ะฑะฐะฟะฐะฝา“ะฐ, ะฑะฐะนา›ะฐะฟะฐะดั‹, ะฑะฐา“ะฐะผะดะฐัƒา“ะฐ |
#### Productive Suffixes
| Suffix | Examples |
|--------|----------|
| `-ะฝ` | ะดะตัะฒะตั€ะฝ, ะปะฐะฝะดัˆะฐั„ั‚ะฐั€ะดะฐะฝ, ะถะฐัะฐา›ะฟะตะฝ |
| `-าฃ` | ั„ะฐั€ะฐะพะฝะฝั‹าฃ, ะผะฐาฃั‹ะทะดั‹ะปั‹า“ั‹ะฝั‹าฃ, ั€ะตั†ะตะฟั‚ะพั€ะปะฐั€ะดั‹าฃ |
| `-ั‹าฃ` | ั„ะฐั€ะฐะพะฝะฝั‹าฃ, ะผะฐาฃั‹ะทะดั‹ะปั‹า“ั‹ะฝั‹าฃ, ั€ะตั†ะตะฟั‚ะพั€ะปะฐั€ะดั‹าฃ |
| `-ะฐ` | ะฑะฐะฟะฐะฝา“ะฐ, ะดะธะฐะดะตะผะฐ, ัั‹ะนะปะฐั€า“ะฐ |
| `-ั‹` | ะฑาฏั€ะบั–ั‚ะฑะฐะนา›ั‹ะทั‹, ัะฐั‚ั‚ะฐั€าฑะปั‹, ะฑะฐะนา›ะฐะฟะฐะดั‹ |
| `-ะตะฝ` | ะถะฐัะฐา›ะฟะตะฝ, ั†ะธะปะธะฝะดั€ะปะตั€ะผะตะฝ, ะฒะธะฝะฝะธะฝะณะตะฝ |
| `-ั–าฃ` | ะบะตะทะตั–าฃะฝั–าฃ, ัำฉะทะดะตั€ะฝั–าฃ, ะฐะนะฒะฐะทะพะฒัะบะธะนะดั–าฃ |
| `-ั€` | ะบะตั€ะดะตั€, ัะตะปะพะปะฐั€, ะฑัƒะฝะดัˆั‹ะปะฐั€ |
### 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 |
|------|----------|------------------|----------|
| `ั‹า›ั‚ะฐ` | 1.51x | 733 contexts | ะธั‹า›ั‚ะฐ, ั‚ั‹า›ั‚ะฐ, ะปั‹า›ั‚ะฐ |
| `ั€ั‹ะฝั‹` | 2.01x | 96 contexts | ะฐั€ั‹ะฝั‹, ะพั€ั‹ะฝั‹, ั€ั‹ะฝั‹าฃ |
| `ะฝะดะตั€` | 1.52x | 395 contexts | าฏะฝะดะตั€, ำฉะฝะดะตั€, ำ™ะฝะดะตั€ |
| `ั–ะผะตั‚` | 2.09x | 59 contexts | ะพะบั–ะผะตั‚, าฑะบั–ะผะตั‚, าฏะบั–ะผะตั‚ |
| `ัั‹ะฝะด` | 1.64x | 169 contexts | ัั‹ะฝะดะฐ, ัั‹ะฝะดั‹, าฑัั‹ะฝะดะฐ |
| `ะทะดะตั€` | 1.57x | 168 contexts | ั–ะทะดะตั€, ำฉะทะดะตั€, ะตะทะดะตั€ |
| `ะฝะดะฐา“` | 1.71x | 110 contexts | ะฝะดะฐา“ั‹, ะฐะฝะดะฐา“ั‹, ั‹ะฝะดะฐา“ั‹ |
| `ะผะตั‚ั‚` | 1.65x | 109 contexts | ะผะตั‚ั‚ะต, ะฐะผะตั‚ั‚, ัˆะพะผะตั‚ั‚ |
| `ะนั‹ะฝัˆ` | 2.32x | 25 contexts | ะนั‹ะฝัˆะฐ, ะพะนั‹ะฝัˆั‹, ะพะนั‹ะฝัˆะฐ |
| `ั€ะฝะฐะป` | 1.66x | 88 contexts | ะฐั€ะฝะฐะป, ะฐั€ะฝะฐะปั‹, ะถัƒั€ะฝะฐะป |
| `าฑั€า“ั‹` | 1.83x | 56 contexts | าฑั€า“ั‹ั€, ั‚าฑั€า“ั‹, ะฑาฑั€า“ั‹ |
| `ั€ะตะบะบ` | 2.39x | 21 contexts | ั€ะตะบะบะพ, ั€ะตะบะบะธ, ั‚ั€ะตะบะบะต |
### 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 |
|--------|--------|-----------|----------|
| `-ั‚` | `-ะฝ` | 114 words | ั‚ะตะผะฟะตั€ะฐั‚ัƒั€ะฐะดะฐะฝ, ั‚ะฐะฑัƒะผะตะฝ |
| `-ั` | `-ะฝ` | 106 words | ัั‚ะฐะฝั†ะธััั‹ะผะตะฝ, ััƒั‚ะตะบั‚ะตั€ะผะตะฝ |
| `-ะฐ` | `-ั‹` | 97 words | ะฐะนั‚า›ะฐะปะธาฑะปั‹, ะฐะฒั‚ะพะผะพะฑะธะปะดั‹ |
| `-ะบ` | `-ะฝ` | 96 words | ะบำฉะผั–ั€ั‚ะตะบั‚ะตะฝ, ะบะธั–ะผั–ะฝะตะฐั€ะฝะฐะปา“ะฐะฝ |
| `-ะฑ` | `-ะฝ` | 92 words | ะฑะธะปะตั€ะดะตะฝ, ะฑะพะบััˆั‹ัั‹ะผะตะฝ |
| `-ะฐ` | `-ะฝ` | 89 words | ะฐะปัƒะฐะฝะดั‹า“ั‹ะผะตะฝ, ะฐะปะฑะธะฝ |
| `-ะฐ` | `-ะฐ` | 82 words | ะฐะฝะณะบะพั€า“ะฐ, ะฐั‚ะตั€ะพะผะฐ |
| `-ั` | `-ะฐ` | 81 words | ัะฝะตะถะฐะฝะฐ, ัะฐะฝะณะธะฝะฐ |
| `-ั‚` | `-ะฐ` | 78 words | ั‚ั€ะฐะฝัะบั€ะธะฟั†ะธััั‹ะฝะฐ, ั‚ะฐะบั‚ะธะบะฐา“ะฐ |
| `-ะบ` | `-ะฐ` | 75 words | ะบะฐะฝะฐะนะผะฐ, ะบะพะปั…ะพะทัˆั‹ะปะฐั€ะดะฐ |
### 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 |
|------|-----------------|------------|------|
| ะดะฐัั‚ะฐะฝะฝะฐะฝ | **`ะดะฐัั‚ะฐะฝ-ะฝ-ะฐะฝ`** | 7.5 | `ะฝ` |
| ะผะธะปะปะธะฐั€ะดะฐ | **`ะผะธะปะปะธ-ะฐั€-ะดะฐ`** | 7.5 | `ะฐั€` |
| ั…ะฐะนะฟัƒะดั‹ั€ัะบะฐั | **`ั…ะฐะนะฟัƒะดั‹ั€ัะบ-ะฐ-ั`** | 7.5 | `ะฐ` |
| ัะฐา“ั‹ะฝั‚ะฐะตะฒ | **`ัะฐา“ั‹ะฝั‚ะฐ-ะต-ะฒ`** | 7.5 | `ะต` |
| ะฐา›ัาฏาฃา›ะฐั€า“ะฐ | **`ะฐา›ัาฏาฃา›-ะฐั€-า“ะฐ`** | 7.5 | `ะฐั€` |
| ะถะฐะฝั€ะปะฐั€ั‹ะฝ | **`ะถะฐะฝั€ะป-ะฐั€-ั‹ะฝ`** | 7.5 | `ะฐั€` |
| ั‚ัƒั€ะฐะปะฐะฝะฐะดั‹ | **`ั‚ัƒั€ะฐะปะฐ-ะฝะฐ-ะดั‹`** | 7.5 | `ะฝะฐ` |
| ัะฐั€ั‹ะถะพะผะฐั€ั‚ | **`ัะฐั€ั‹ะถะพะผ-ะฐั€-ั‚`** | 7.5 | `ะฐั€` |
| ะบะพะดะตะบัั–ะฝะดะต | **`ะบะพะดะตะบัั–-ะฝ-ะดะต`** | 7.5 | `ะฝ` |
| ัะบะพะฝะพะผะธะบะฐะผะตะฝ | **`ัะบะพะฝะพะผะธะบะฐ-ะผ-ะตะฝ`** | 7.5 | `ะผ` |
| ะฒัƒะปะฒะตั€ั…ัะผะฟั‚ะพะฝา“ะฐ | **`ะฒัƒะปะฒะตั€ั…ัะผะฟั‚ะพ-ะฝ-า“ะฐ`** | 7.5 | `ะฝ` |
| ะธะผะฟะตั€ะธัƒะผะฐ | **`ะธะผะฟะตั€ะธัƒ-ะผ-ะฐ`** | 7.5 | `ะผ` |
| ะณะธะดั€ะพั‚ะตั…ะฝะธะบะฐะฝั‹าฃ | **`ะณะธะดั€ะพั‚ะตั…ะฝะธะบ-ะฐะฝ-ั‹าฃ`** | 6.0 | `ะณะธะดั€ะพั‚ะตั…ะฝะธะบ` |
| ะบะฐะฟะธั‚ะฐะฝา“ะฐ | **`ะบะฐะฟะธั‚-ะฐะฝ-า“ะฐ`** | 6.0 | `ะบะฐะฟะธั‚` |
| ะฐะปะผะฐั‚ั‹ะดะฐะฝ | **`ะฐะปะผะฐั‚ั‹-ะดะฐ-ะฝ`** | 6.0 | `ะฐะปะผะฐั‚ั‹` |
### 6.6 Linguistic Interpretation
> **Automated Insight:**
The language Kazakh 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 (4.98x) |
| N-gram | **2-gram** | Lowest perplexity (408) |
| Markov | **Context-4** | Highest predictability (97.2%) |
| 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
- ๐ŸŒ Website: [wikilangs.org](https://wikilangs.org)
- ๐Ÿค— Models: [huggingface.co/wikilangs](https://huggingface.co/wikilangs)
- ๐Ÿ“Š Data: [wikipedia-monthly](https://huggingface.co/datasets/omarkamali/wikipedia-monthly)
- ๐Ÿ‘ค Author: [Omar Kamali](https://huggingface.co/omarkamali)
- ๐Ÿค Sponsor: [Featherless AI](https://featherless.ai)
---
*Generated by Wikilangs Models Pipeline*
*Report Date: 2026-01-10 11:23:46*