Mirandese - Wikilangs Models
Comprehensive Research Report & Full Ablation Study
This repository contains NLP models trained and evaluated by Wikilangs, specifically on Mirandese 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 | 3.793x | 3.79 | 0.0216% | 2,683,483 |
| 16k | 4.139x | 4.14 | 0.0236% | 2,459,597 |
| 32k | 4.421x | 4.42 | 0.0252% | 2,302,588 |
| 64k | 4.578x π | 4.58 | 0.0261% | 2,223,729 |
Tokenization Examples
Below are sample sentences tokenized with each vocabulary size:
Sample 1: Propebela miona ye ua spece de gastrΓ³pode de l gΓ©nero Propebela, pertencente la ...
| Vocab | Tokens | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 8k | βpro pe bela βmi ona βye βua βspece βde βgas ... (+16 more) |
26 |
| 16k | βpro pe bela βmi ona βye βua βspece βde βgastrΓ³pode ... (+13 more) |
23 |
| 32k | βpro pe bela βmi ona βye βua βspece βde βgastrΓ³pode ... (+12 more) |
22 |
| 64k | βpropebela βmi ona βye βua βspece βde βgastrΓ³pode βde βl ... (+8 more) |
18 |
Sample 2: Pingnan ye un cundado de la porbinΓ§a Fujian ne la China. Ten ua sobrefiΓ§ de kmΒ² ...
| Vocab | Tokens | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 8k | βping nan βye βun βcundado βde βla βporbinΓ§a βfujian βne ... (+21 more) |
31 |
| 16k | βping nan βye βun βcundado βde βla βporbinΓ§a βfujian βne ... (+21 more) |
31 |
| 32k | βping nan βye βun βcundado βde βla βporbinΓ§a βfujian βne ... (+21 more) |
31 |
| 64k | βping nan βye βun βcundado βde βla βporbinΓ§a βfujian βne ... (+21 more) |
31 |
Sample 3: PaΓzes Baixos ye un paΓΓ§ localizado na Ouropa. A sua capital ye Amsterdam de la ...
| Vocab | Tokens | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 8k | βpaΓzes βbaixos βye βun βpaΓΓ§ βlocalizado βna βouropa . βa ... (+10 more) |
20 |
| 16k | βpaΓzes βbaixos βye βun βpaΓΓ§ βlocalizado βna βouropa . βa ... (+10 more) |
20 |
| 32k | βpaΓzes βbaixos βye βun βpaΓΓ§ βlocalizado βna βouropa . βa ... (+10 more) |
20 |
| 64k | βpaΓzes βbaixos βye βun βpaΓΓ§ βlocalizado βna βouropa . βa ... (+7 more) |
17 |
Key Findings
- Best Compression: 64k achieves 4.578x compression
- Lowest UNK Rate: 8k with 0.0216% 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 | 15,343 | 13.91 | 73,697 | 17.8% | 35.6% |
| 2-gram | Subword | 225 π | 7.81 | 4,011 | 72.6% | 99.4% |
| 3-gram | Word | 43,244 | 15.40 | 99,993 | 7.1% | 21.5% |
| 3-gram | Subword | 1,730 | 10.76 | 30,226 | 30.5% | 76.9% |
| 4-gram | Word | 83,756 | 16.35 | 139,745 | 4.6% | 13.5% |
| 4-gram | Subword | 9,145 | 13.16 | 149,701 | 15.4% | 43.2% |
| 5-gram | Word | 53,205 | 15.70 | 77,395 | 5.4% | 14.4% |
| 5-gram | Subword | 33,248 | 15.02 | 377,533 | 9.3% | 26.1% |
Top 5 N-grams by Size
2-grams (Word):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | de l |
58,173 |
| 2 | de la |
48,036 |
| 3 | ne l |
20,582 |
| 4 | de ls |
12,372 |
| 5 | de las |
10,382 |
3-grams (Word):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | de l seclo |
1,892 |
| 2 | ls stados ounidos |
1,436 |
| 3 | a partir de |
1,328 |
| 4 | i de l |
1,327 |
| 5 | i de la |
1,270 |
4-grams (Word):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | de ls stados ounidos |
710 |
| 2 | i ua poblaΓ§on de |
453 |
| 3 | km i ua poblaΓ§on |
453 |
| 4 | la china ten ua |
447 |
| 5 | china ten ua sobrefiΓ§ |
445 |
5-grams (Word):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | km i ua poblaΓ§on de |
453 |
| 2 | china ten ua sobrefiΓ§ de |
445 |
| 3 | la china ten ua sobrefiΓ§ |
445 |
| 4 | ne la china ten ua |
342 |
| 5 | stados ounidos de la amΓ©rica |
309 |
2-grams (Subword):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | e _ |
591,904 |
| 2 | a _ |
499,400 |
| 3 | s _ |
411,342 |
| 4 | _ l |
403,980 |
| 5 | d e |
400,252 |
3-grams (Subword):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | _ d e |
310,441 |
| 2 | d e _ |
308,352 |
| 3 | e _ l |
194,993 |
| 4 | _ l a |
160,851 |
| 5 | l a _ |
145,857 |
4-grams (Subword):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | _ d e _ |
270,574 |
| 2 | d e _ l |
136,607 |
| 3 | _ l a _ |
127,081 |
| 4 | e _ l _ |
83,501 |
| 5 | e _ l a |
74,074 |
5-grams (Subword):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | _ d e _ l |
133,195 |
| 2 | e _ l a _ |
60,089 |
| 3 | d e _ l a |
59,980 |
| 4 | o _ d e _ |
56,259 |
| 5 | d e _ l _ |
54,129 |
Key Findings
- Best Perplexity: 2-gram (subword) with 225
- 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
Results
| Context | Variant | Avg Entropy | Perplexity | Branching Factor | Unique Contexts | Predictability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Word | 1.0545 | 2.077 | 7.75 | 149,145 | 0.0% |
| 1 | Subword | 0.8887 | 1.852 | 6.01 | 2,125 | 11.1% |
| 2 | Word | 0.3376 | 1.264 | 1.92 | 1,155,292 | 66.2% |
| 2 | Subword | 0.8016 | 1.743 | 4.96 | 12,756 | 19.8% |
| 3 | Word | 0.1237 | 1.090 | 1.24 | 2,212,454 | 87.6% |
| 3 | Subword | 0.7949 | 1.735 | 4.10 | 63,188 | 20.5% |
| 4 | Word | 0.0452 π | 1.032 | 1.07 | 2,748,862 | 95.5% |
| 4 | Subword | 0.6515 | 1.571 | 2.89 | 258,945 | 34.8% |
Generated Text Samples (Word-based)
Below are text samples generated from each word-based Markov chain model:
Context Size 1:
de participaΓ§on de l prΓncepe tutmΓ©s morriu na mesma famΓlia turbenidae apersentan porte las cuostas...l liezi recebΓrun mais de la stΓ³ria bai siempre porjetan este al gerar todas las ciΓ©nciasla proposiΓ§on cumpuosta por misson apollo fazΓrun ancursones de la region de trabalhadores renobΓ‘ban...
Context Size 2:
de l testo de l japon residentes strangeiros eilegales besitado an 28 de dezembre de l catΓ³licosde la tierra ye to berde cun un sistema polΓtico i houmanitΓ‘rio dreitos de ls nomes dene l sou purmeiro trabalho na astronomie geofΓsica angenharie eiquenomie etc einicialmente la rebolu...
Context Size 3:
de l seclo xiv i xv antre las percipales obras de la eigreija i sin antermediΓ‘rios repersentantes Γ³ls stados ounidos an stephen r cobey outor de l yoga eilhes son ls mais amportantes silicatos custit...a partir de anton la reboluΓ§on stendiu se al campo adonde Γ§parou un tiro de canhon i l
Context Size 4:
de ls stados ounidos ne l bietname promobida por lyndon johnson debediu ls amaricanos an campos oupo...km i ua poblaΓ§on de 116 mil ingros ani ua poblaΓ§on de 431 mil ingros an
Generated Text Samples (Subword-based)
Below are text samples generated from each subword-based Markov chain model:
Context Size 1:
_xor_gri_bes,_caa_",_ye_"birrterebefrmel_las_gog
Context Size 2:
e_lha_pe,_bΓ³licara_ambregeiriencias_oute_l_ra_eisei
Context Size 3:
_de_subre_formas._de_31_de_mera_qu'ee_l_ciclΓ³nia_de_l_
Context Size 4:
_de_l_de_an_cente_sde_l_telscΓ³pio_lhio_la_sue_tenente,_d.
Key Findings
- Best Predictability: Context-4 (word) with 95.5% predictability
- Branching Factor: Decreases with context size (more deterministic)
- Memory Trade-off: Larger contexts require more storage (258,945 contexts)
- Recommendation: Context-3 or Context-4 for text generation
4. Vocabulary Analysis
Statistics
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Vocabulary Size | 74,297 |
| Total Tokens | 3,042,544 |
| Mean Frequency | 40.95 |
| Median Frequency | 4 |
| Frequency Std Dev | 1358.50 |
Most Common Words
| Rank | Word | Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | de | 272,017 |
| 2 | l | 154,267 |
| 3 | la | 129,771 |
| 4 | i | 87,959 |
| 5 | an | 48,574 |
| 6 | que | 42,608 |
| 7 | ls | 41,935 |
| 8 | a | 31,842 |
| 9 | las | 29,271 |
| 10 | se | 25,391 |
Least Common Words (from vocabulary)
| Rank | Word | Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | quedΓ³ | 2 |
| 2 | debut | 2 |
| 3 | haldane | 2 |
| 4 | xenopus | 2 |
| 5 | werskey | 2 |
| 6 | loom | 2 |
| 7 | bodmer | 2 |
| 8 | birminghan | 2 |
| 9 | maureen | 2 |
| 10 | correspondΓͺncia | 2 |
Zipf's Law Analysis
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Zipf Coefficient | 1.0129 |
| RΒ² (Goodness of Fit) | 0.994529 |
| Adherence Quality | excellent |
Coverage Analysis
| Top N Words | Coverage |
|---|---|
| Top 100 | 45.6% |
| Top 1,000 | 65.5% |
| Top 5,000 | 81.7% |
| Top 10,000 | 87.9% |
Key Findings
- Zipf Compliance: RΒ²=0.9945 indicates excellent adherence to Zipf's law
- High Frequency Dominance: Top 100 words cover 45.6% of corpus
- Long Tail: 64,297 words needed for remaining 12.1% 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 | 0.8157 | 0.3421 | N/A | N/A |
| mono_64d | 64 | 0.8323 π | 0.2544 | N/A | N/A |
| mono_128d | 128 | 0.8007 | 0.1810 | N/A | N/A |
| aligned_32d | 32 | 0.8157 | 0.3370 | 0.0960 | 0.3740 |
| aligned_64d | 64 | 0.8323 | 0.2524 | 0.1680 | 0.5300 |
| aligned_128d | 128 | 0.8007 | 0.1744 | 0.2420 | 0.5960 |
Key Findings
- Best Isotropy: mono_64d with 0.8323 (more uniform distribution)
- Semantic Density: Average pairwise similarity of 0.2569. Lower values indicate better semantic separation.
- Alignment Quality: Aligned models achieve up to 24.2% 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 | -0.446 | 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 |
|---|---|
-a |
ambencΓbel, altas, atacante |
-s |
surprende, spaΓ§onabes, seguiren |
-c |
certificaciΓ³n, cruzou, cungestionamientos |
-b |
balioso, bissau, birginia |
-p |
pioneiros, paredones, prague |
-m |
mΓ‘rteres, menimamente, munshiganj |
-ma |
malaquias, matricula, mayas |
-t |
telΓ©grafo, tΓ³xicas, templo |
Productive Suffixes
| Suffix | Examples |
|---|---|
-s |
pioneiros, mΓ‘rteres, flabonΓ³ides |
-o |
etiolΓ³gico, telΓ©grafo, eisilado |
-a |
gmina, jΓΊnia, ria |
-os |
pioneiros, cungestionamientos, canΓdeos |
-e |
menimamente, Γ§cubre, surprende |
-as |
tΓ³xicas, altas, Γ‘guas |
-es |
mΓ‘rteres, flabonΓ³ides, paredones |
-n |
Γ§poren, certificaciΓ³n, seguiren |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
ones |
2.27x | 105 contexts | mones, cones, pones |
ados |
2.37x | 66 contexts | lados, fados, dados |
idad |
2.30x | 59 contexts | idade, lidado, unidad |
ento |
2.05x | 80 contexts | cento, mento, lento |
Γ§one |
2.62x | 29 contexts | aΓ§ones, maΓ§ones, raΓ§ones |
ista |
1.91x | 102 contexts | pista, bista, mista |
ient |
1.97x | 77 contexts | niente, ciento, biento |
tado |
1.80x | 102 contexts | atado, stado, betado |
amie |
2.49x | 26 contexts | jamie, tamien, amiens |
dade |
2.18x | 42 contexts | idade, edades, cidade |
mien |
2.27x | 35 contexts | miente, tamien, amiens |
ment |
1.82x | 84 contexts | mento, mente, menta |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
-a |
-s |
247 words | ancenadas, anterspecΓficas |
-c |
-s |
203 words | cunsequentes, caseiras |
-a |
-a |
194 words | angloba, alicia |
-a |
-o |
182 words | atΓpico, assimilado |
-p |
-s |
177 words | porgramados, perjuΓzos |
-s |
-s |
167 words | saturadas, surinamΓ©s |
-c |
-o |
140 words | cometimiento, caindo |
-c |
-a |
139 words | cΓ‘ntabra, cunceituada |
-p |
-a |
126 words | plaka, pesquisa |
-m |
-s |
124 words | mostradas, mosteiros |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| campanapse | campanap-s-e |
7.5 | s |
| corumbaenses | corumbaen-s-es |
7.5 | s |
| machucado | machu-ca-do |
7.5 | ca |
| cuncluΓsse | cuncluΓs-s-e |
7.5 | s |
| antressando | antress-an-do |
7.5 | an |
| eilegΓaco | eilegΓ-a-co |
7.5 | a |
| albergaba | alberg-a-ba |
7.5 | a |
| alcanΓ§asse | alcanΓ§as-s-e |
7.5 | s |
| portucalenses | portucalen-s-es |
7.5 | s |
| ancluΓrun | ancluΓ-r-un |
7.5 | r |
| ampatando | ampat-an-do |
7.5 | an |
| neubauten | neubau-te-n |
7.5 | te |
| asturiense | asturien-s-e |
7.5 | s |
| banguardista | banguardi-s-ta |
7.5 | s |
| cumpostelana | cumpostel-an-a |
7.5 | an |
6.6 Linguistic Interpretation
Automated Insight: The language Mirandese 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 (4.58x) |
| N-gram | 2-gram | Lowest perplexity (225) |
| Markov | Context-4 | Highest predictability (95.5%) |
| 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 13:50:43



















