|
|
--- |
|
|
language: my |
|
|
language_name: Burmese |
|
|
language_family: tibetoburman_burmese |
|
|
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-tibetoburman_burmese |
|
|
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: 5.618 |
|
|
- name: best_isotropy |
|
|
type: isotropy |
|
|
value: 0.6934 |
|
|
- name: vocabulary_size |
|
|
type: vocab |
|
|
value: 0 |
|
|
generated: 2026-01-10 |
|
|
--- |
|
|
|
|
|
# Burmese - Wikilangs Models |
|
|
## Comprehensive Research Report & Full Ablation Study |
|
|
|
|
|
This repository contains NLP models trained and evaluated by Wikilangs, specifically on **Burmese** Wikipedia data. |
|
|
We analyze tokenizers, n-gram models, Markov chains, vocabulary statistics, and word embeddings. |
|
|
|
|
|
## ๐ 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](#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 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
### Results |
|
|
|
|
|
| Vocab Size | Compression | Avg Token Len | UNK Rate | Total Tokens | |
|
|
|------------|-------------|---------------|----------|--------------| |
|
|
| **8k** | 4.094x | 4.09 | 0.0581% | 1,838,036 | |
|
|
| **16k** | 4.637x | 4.64 | 0.0658% | 1,622,639 | |
|
|
| **32k** | 5.147x | 5.15 | 0.0731% | 1,461,988 | |
|
|
| **64k** | 5.618x ๐ | 5.62 | 0.0797% | 1,339,281 | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Tokenization Examples |
|
|
|
|
|
Below are sample sentences tokenized with each vocabulary size: |
|
|
|
|
|
**Sample 1:** `แแแบแแแบแแฝแแบแธแแฝแฌแ แแแบแแแบแแฝแแบแธ แแญแฏแธแแฌแธ แแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ แแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ` |
|
|
|
|
|
| Vocab | Tokens | Count | |
|
|
|-------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 8k | `โแแแบแแแบ แแฝแแบแธแแฝแฌแ โแแแบแแแบ แแฝแแบแธ โแแญแฏแธแแฌแธ โแแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ โแแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ` | 7 | |
|
|
| 16k | `โแแแบแแแบ แแฝแแบแธแแฝแฌแ โแแแบแแแบ แแฝแแบแธ โแแญแฏแธแแฌแธ โแแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ โแแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ` | 7 | |
|
|
| 32k | `โแแแบแแแบ แแฝแแบแธแแฝแฌแ โแแแบแแแบ แแฝแแบแธ โแแญแฏแธแแฌแธ โแแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ โแแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ` | 7 | |
|
|
| 64k | `โแแแบแแแบ แแฝแแบแธแแฝแฌแ โแแแบแแแบ แแฝแแบแธ โแแญแฏแธแแฌแธ โแแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ โแแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ` | 7 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**Sample 2:** `แแฝแแบแธแแฌแธแแฏแแบแธแแฝแฌแ แแแผแฝแบแแแบแธแแฏแแบแธ แแญแฏแธแแฌแธ แแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ แแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ` |
|
|
|
|
|
| Vocab | Tokens | Count | |
|
|
|-------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 8k | `โแแฝแแบแธ แแฌแธ แแฏแแบแธแแฝแฌแ โแ แแผ แฝ แบ แแแบแธ แแฏแแบแธ โแแญแฏแธแแฌแธ ... (+2 more)` | 12 | |
|
|
| 16k | `โแแฝแแบแธแแฌแธ แแฏแแบแธแแฝแฌแ โแ แแผ แฝ แบ แแแบแธแแฏแแบแธ โแแญแฏแธแแฌแธ โแแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ โแแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ` | 10 | |
|
|
| 32k | `โแแฝแแบแธแแฌแธ แแฏแแบแธแแฝแฌแ โแแแผแฝแบแแแบแธแแฏแแบแธ โแแญแฏแธแแฌแธ โแแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ โแแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ` | 6 | |
|
|
| 64k | `โแแฝแแบแธแแฌแธ แแฏแแบแธแแฝแฌแ โแแแผแฝแบแแแบแธแแฏแแบแธ โแแญแฏแธแแฌแธ โแแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ โแแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ` | 6 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**Sample 3:** `แแฎแแญแฏแแญแฏแกแแปแฌแธแแฝแฌแ แแฎแแญแฏแแญแฏ แแญแฏแธแแฌแธ แแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ แแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ` |
|
|
|
|
|
| Vocab | Tokens | Count | |
|
|
|-------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 8k | `โแ แฎแ แญแฏแแญแฏ แก แแปแฌแธ แแฝแฌแ โแ แฎแ แญแฏแแญแฏ โแแญแฏแธแแฌแธ ... (+2 more)` | 12 | |
|
|
| 16k | `โแ แฎแ แญแฏแแญแฏ แกแแปแฌแธ แแฝแฌแ โแ แฎแ แญแฏแแญแฏ โแแญแฏแธแแฌแธ โแแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ ... (+1 more)` | 11 | |
|
|
| 32k | `โแแฎแ แญแฏแแญแฏ แกแแปแฌแธ แแฝแฌแ โแแฎแ แญแฏแแญแฏ โแแญแฏแธแแฌแธ โแแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ โแแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ` | 9 | |
|
|
| 64k | `โแแฎแ แญแฏแแญแฏ แกแแปแฌแธ แแฝแฌแ โแแฎแ แญแฏแแญแฏ โแแญแฏแธแแฌแธ โแแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ โแแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ` | 9 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Key Findings |
|
|
|
|
|
- **Best Compression:** 64k achieves 5.618x compression |
|
|
- **Lowest UNK Rate:** 8k with 0.0581% 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 | 8,831 | 13.11 | 97,119 | 30.8% | 47.6% | |
|
|
| **2-gram** | Subword | 1,887 ๐ | 10.88 | 72,847 | 36.4% | 73.5% | |
|
|
| **3-gram** | Word | 9,813 | 13.26 | 126,512 | 31.4% | 48.2% | |
|
|
| **3-gram** | Subword | 17,172 | 14.07 | 481,303 | 16.6% | 40.4% | |
|
|
| **4-gram** | Word | 30,676 | 14.90 | 264,000 | 23.6% | 36.4% | |
|
|
| **4-gram** | Subword | 90,180 | 16.46 | 1,884,383 | 10.1% | 25.4% | |
|
|
| **5-gram** | Word | 39,876 | 15.28 | 238,225 | 20.9% | 31.1% | |
|
|
| **5-gram** | Subword | 269,959 | 18.04 | 3,576,330 | 8.2% | 18.7% | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Top 5 N-grams by Size |
|
|
|
|
|
**2-grams (Word):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `แแญแฏแธแแฌแธ แแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ` | 58,566 | |
|
|
| 2 | `แแฝแฌแแฑแแฌแแฏแแบแแพแฌ แแผแ
แบแแแบ` | 51,588 | |
|
|
| 3 | `แแแบแแพแญแแแบ แแฝแฌแแฑแแฌแแฏแแบแแพแฌ` | 51,568 | |
|
|
| 4 | `แแผแ
แบแแแบ แแแบแธแแฑแซแแบแ
แฌแแแบแธแกแ` | 37,043 | |
|
|
| 5 | `แฆแธ แ` | 36,542 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**3-grams (Word):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `แแแบแแพแญแแแบ แแฝแฌแแฑแแฌแแฏแแบแแพแฌ แแผแ
แบแแแบ` | 51,563 | |
|
|
| 2 | `แแฝแฌแแฑแแฌแแฏแแบแแพแฌ แแผแ
แบแแแบ แแแบแธแแฑแซแแบแ
แฌแแแบแธแกแ` | 36,945 | |
|
|
| 3 | `แฆแธ แแฐแฆแธแแฑ แ
แฏแ
แฏแแฑแซแแบแธ` | 34,572 | |
|
|
| 4 | `แแฐแฆแธแแฑ แ
แฏแ
แฏแแฑแซแแบแธ แฆแธแแฑแแญแฏแแบแแแบ` | 28,628 | |
|
|
| 5 | `แฆแธแแฑแแญแฏแแบแแแบ แแญแฏแธแแฌแธ แแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ` | 27,771 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**4-grams (Word):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `แแแบแแพแญแแแบ แแฝแฌแแฑแแฌแแฏแแบแแพแฌ แแผแ
แบแแแบ แแแบแธแแฑแซแแบแ
แฌแแแบแธแกแ` | 36,927 | |
|
|
| 2 | `แฆแธ แแฐแฆแธแแฑ แ
แฏแ
แฏแแฑแซแแบแธ แฆแธแแฑแแญแฏแแบแแแบ` | 28,628 | |
|
|
| 3 | `แแฐแฆแธแแฑ แ
แฏแ
แฏแแฑแซแแบแธ แฆแธแแฑแแญแฏแแบแแแบ แแญแฏแธแแฌแธ` | 25,411 | |
|
|
| 4 | `แ
แฏแ
แฏแแฑแซแแบแธ แฆแธแแฑแแญแฏแแบแแแบ แแญแฏแธแแฌแธ แแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ` | 25,261 | |
|
|
| 5 | `แ แฆแธ แแฐแฆแธแแฑ แ
แฏแ
แฏแแฑแซแแบแธ` | 22,994 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**5-grams (Word):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `แฆแธ แแฐแฆแธแแฑ แ
แฏแ
แฏแแฑแซแแบแธ แฆแธแแฑแแญแฏแแบแแแบ แแญแฏแธแแฌแธ` | 25,411 | |
|
|
| 2 | `แแฐแฆแธแแฑ แ
แฏแ
แฏแแฑแซแแบแธ แฆแธแแฑแแญแฏแแบแแแบ แแญแฏแธแแฌแธ แแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ` | 25,261 | |
|
|
| 3 | `แฆแธ แ แฆแธ แแฐแฆแธแแฑ แ
แฏแ
แฏแแฑแซแแบแธ` | 22,994 | |
|
|
| 4 | `แ แฆแธ แแฐแฆแธแแฑ แ
แฏแ
แฏแแฑแซแแบแธ แฆแธแแฑแแญแฏแแบแแแบ` | 21,852 | |
|
|
| 5 | `แแปแฌแธ แฆแธ แ แฆแธ แแฐแฆแธแแฑ` | 21,303 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**2-grams (Subword):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `แฌ แธ` | 1,540,592 | |
|
|
| 2 | `แแบ แธ` | 1,127,081 | |
|
|
| 3 | `แ แแบ` | 1,053,771 | |
|
|
| 4 | `แธ _` | 1,020,236 | |
|
|
| 5 | `แ _` | 832,045 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**3-grams (Subword):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `แ แแบ แ` | 647,008 | |
|
|
| 2 | `แแบ แ _` | 635,498 | |
|
|
| 3 | `แแป แฌ แธ` | 557,792 | |
|
|
| 4 | `แฌ แธ _` | 379,277 | |
|
|
| 5 | `แ แแบ _` | 308,511 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**4-grams (Subword):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `แ แแบ แ _` | 626,895 | |
|
|
| 2 | `แแผ แ
แบ แ แแบ` | 152,777 | |
|
|
| 3 | `แ
แบ แ แแบ แ` | 146,842 | |
|
|
| 4 | `แธ แแป แฌ แธ` | 134,710 | |
|
|
| 5 | `แแป แฌ แธ _` | 123,549 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**5-grams (Subword):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `แแผ แ
แบ แ แแบ แ` | 146,362 | |
|
|
| 2 | `แ
แบ แ แแบ แ _` | 143,004 | |
|
|
| 3 | `_ แแผ แ
แบ แ แแบ` | 102,596 | |
|
|
| 4 | `แแฒแท แ แแบ แ _` | 101,218 | |
|
|
| 5 | `แธ แแฝ แฌ แกแฏ แแบ` | 99,853 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Key Findings |
|
|
|
|
|
- **Best Perplexity:** 2-gram (subword) with 1,887 |
|
|
- **Entropy Trend:** Decreases with larger n-grams (more predictable) |
|
|
- **Coverage:** Top-1000 patterns cover ~19% 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 | 0.3898 | 1.310 | 2.70 | 2,269,123 | 61.0% | |
|
|
| **1** | Subword | 1.1880 | 2.278 | 16.40 | 12,091 | 0.0% | |
|
|
| **2** | Word | 0.0846 | 1.060 | 1.16 | 6,111,017 | 91.5% | |
|
|
| **2** | Subword | 0.7455 | 1.677 | 6.00 | 198,292 | 25.5% | |
|
|
| **3** | Word | 0.0245 | 1.017 | 1.04 | 7,076,304 | 97.5% | |
|
|
| **3** | Subword | 0.5456 | 1.460 | 3.39 | 1,190,344 | 45.4% | |
|
|
| **4** | Word | 0.0104 ๐ | 1.007 | 1.02 | 7,324,998 | 99.0% | |
|
|
| **4** | Subword | 0.4066 | 1.326 | 2.29 | 4,039,178 | 59.3% | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Generated Text Samples (Word-based) |
|
|
|
|
|
Below are text samples generated from each word-based Markov chain model: |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 1:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `แแผแ
แบแแแบ แแซแแแบแแผแญแฏแทแแผแฎแธแแฑแแแแบ แแฑแฌแแบแกแฌแแแญแแแฝแแบ แแแบแแบแแแบแแแบแแฒแแฌแธแแพแแทแบ แแฝแฑแทแแฏแถแแฒแทแแผแฎแธ แแฑแฌแแบแธแแแบแแแแบแแปแฌแธแ...` |
|
|
2. `แแแบ แแแฝแฑแธแแญแฏแแบแธแแฑแแแผแฎแธ แแแบแธแแฐแธแแแญแฏแแบ แแฏแแบแแฐแธแแแบแธแแฑแฌแแบแธแแแบแแฑแธแกแแฝแแบ แกแแฑแธแแซแแฑแฌแแญแแบแแแบแธแแผแญแฏแทแแผแ
แบแแฑแแแบ แแ...` |
|
|
3. `แฆแธ แแฐแฆแธแแฑ แ
แฏแ
แฏแแฑแซแแบแธ แฆแธแแฑแแญแฏแแบแแแบ แแญแฏแธแแฌแธ แแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ แแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ แแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ แแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ แแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ แแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ แแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ แแฝ...` |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 2:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `แแฝแฌแแฑแแฌแแฏแแบแแพแฌ แแผแ
แบแแแบ แแ แแญแฏแธ mohammad al sahlawi แแแบแแฑแแปแฌ juan antonio gk 1 igor akinfeev c rb 2` |
|
|
2. `แแแบแแพแญแแแบ แแฝแฌแแฑแแฌแแฏแแบแแพแฌ แแผแ
แบแแแบ แแญแฏแธแแฌแธ แแฐแแฌแแฏแถแแปแฌแธ แแฐแแฌแแฏแถแแปแฌแธ` |
|
|
3. `แแผแ
แบแแแบ แแแบแธแแฑแซแแบแ
แฌแแแบแธแกแ แแญแแบแแฑแฌแแปแฑแธแแฝแฌแกแฏแแบแ
แฏแแฝแแบ แแปแฌแธ แฆแธ แ แ
แแ แฆแธ แแฐแฆแธแแฑ แ
แฏแ
แฏแแฑแซแแบแธ แฆแธแแฑแแญแฏแแบแแแบ แ...` |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 3:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `แแแบแแพแญแแแบ แแฝแฌแแฑแแฌแแฏแแบแแพแฌ แแผแ
แบแแแบ แแญแฏแธแแฌแธ แแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ แแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ แแผแญแฏแแบแธแแปแฑแฌแแบแธแแฝแฌ แแญแฏแธแแฌแธ แแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ แแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ แ
...` |
|
|
2. `แแฝแฌแแฑแแฌแแฏแแบแแพแฌ แแผแ
แบแแแบ แแแบแธแแฑแซแแบแ
แฌแแแบแธแกแ แแฑแฌแทแแพแญแฏแแบแแปแฑแธแแฝแฌแกแฏแแบแ
แฏแแฝแแบ แแปแฌแธ แฆแธ แ แฆแธ แแฐแฆแธแแฑ แ
แฏแ
แฏแแฑแซแแบแธ ...` |
|
|
3. `แฆแธ แแฐแฆแธแแฑ แ
แฏแ
แฏแแฑแซแแบแธ แฆแธแแฑแแญแฏแแบแแแบ แแญแฏแธแแฌแธ แแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ แแปแฌแธแแฌแธแแฑแธแแปแฌแธ แแฑแแญแฏแแบแแฌ แกแกแญแฏแแฑแธ แกแแปแญแฏแแฑแธ แแพแญ` |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 4:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `แแแบแแพแญแแแบ แแฝแฌแแฑแแฌแแฏแแบแแพแฌ แแผแ
แบแแแบ แแแบแธแแฑแซแแบแ
แฌแแแบแธแกแ แแแซแธแแแบแธแแปแฑแธแแฝแฌแกแฏแแบแ
แฏแแฝแแบ แแปแฌแธ แแ แฆแธ แ แ
แ แฆแธ แแฐแฆแธ...` |
|
|
2. `แฆแธ แแฐแฆแธแแฑ แ
แฏแ
แฏแแฑแซแแบแธ แฆแธแแฑแแญแฏแแบแแแบ แแญแฏแธแแฌแธ แแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ แแปแฌแธแแฌแธแแฑแธแแปแฌแธ แแฑแแญแฏแแบแแฌ แกแกแญแฏแแฑแธ แกแแปแญแฏแแฑแธ แแพแญ` |
|
|
3. `แแฐแฆแธแแฑ แ
แฏแ
แฏแแฑแซแแบแธ แฆแธแแฑแแญแฏแแบแแแบ แแญแฏแธแแฌแธ แแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ แแปแฌแธแแฌแธแแฑแธแแปแฌแธ แแฑแแญแฏแแบแแฌ แกแกแญแฏแแฑแธ แกแแปแญแฏแแฑแธ แแพแญ` |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Generated Text Samples (Subword-based) |
|
|
|
|
|
Below are text samples generated from each subword-based Markov chain model: |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 1:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `_แแฌแแฒแทแแแผแ
แบแแแฌแกแฏแแบแแแบแธแแปแฝ` |
|
|
2. `แธแ_แแแบแธ_แแแฌแแฌ_แแพแแทแบ_` |
|
|
3. `แฌแแบแธแ)แแแบแแพแญแแฒแทแแผแฎ_แแฌแแบ_แ` |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 2:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `แฌแธ_แแฐแฆแธแแฑ_แกแแฑแแญแแแบแแฑแฌแแบแแฏ` |
|
|
2. `แแบแธแแซแแฑแฌแแบแแฝแฌแกแฏแแบแ
แฏแ_แกแแญแฏแแบ` |
|
|
3. `แแแบ_แกแแแบแแฏแแบแแญแฏแแบ_แแฌแแแบแ_` |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 3:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `แแแบแ_แแญแฏแธแแฌแธ_แแญแฏแแบแแญแฏแแบแแฎแแปแแบแธ` |
|
|
2. `แแบแ_แแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ_แแฌแธแแพแฌแแฝแฑแแฝแฑแทแแพแญแแญแฏ` |
|
|
3. `แแปแฌแธ)_แกแแแบแแแบแธแแปแฑแธแแฐแธแแผแฑแฌแแบ` |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 4:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `แแแบแ_6|39|_แ
แแบแ
แ
แบ_แแผแ
แบแแผแฎแธ` |
|
|
2. `แแผแ
แบแแแบแ_แแฝแแนแแแฑแซแแบแแแบแธแแผแฎแธแแปแฑแธแแฝ` |
|
|
3. `แ
แบแแแบแ_แแแฑแทแแฑแแบแ_แกแญแแบแแฌแแแบแธแแผแฎ` |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Key Findings |
|
|
|
|
|
- **Best Predictability:** Context-4 (word) with 99.0% predictability |
|
|
- **Branching Factor:** Decreases with context size (more deterministic) |
|
|
- **Memory Trade-off:** Larger contexts require more storage (4,039,178 contexts) |
|
|
- **Recommendation:** Context-3 or Context-4 for text generation |
|
|
|
|
|
--- |
|
|
## 4. Vocabulary Analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
### Statistics |
|
|
|
|
|
| Metric | Value | |
|
|
|--------|-------| |
|
|
| Vocabulary Size | 535,794 | |
|
|
| Total Tokens | 7,184,049 | |
|
|
| Mean Frequency | 13.41 | |
|
|
| Median Frequency | 3 | |
|
|
| Frequency Std Dev | 366.75 | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Most Common Words |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Word | Frequency | |
|
|
|------|------|-----------| |
|
|
| 1 | แแผแ
แบแแแบ | 101,666 | |
|
|
| 2 | แแแบ | 96,325 | |
|
|
| 3 | แแญแฏแธแแฌแธ | 92,437 | |
|
|
| 4 | แฆแธ | 83,872 | |
|
|
| 5 | แแฝแฌแแปแฌแธ | 67,205 | |
|
|
| 6 | แแแบ | 60,957 | |
|
|
| 7 | แแแบแแพแญแแแบ | 57,556 | |
|
|
| 8 | แแฝแฌแแฑแแฌแแฏแแบแแพแฌ | 51,593 | |
|
|
| 9 | แแพแแทแบ | 40,151 | |
|
|
| 10 | แ | 38,196 | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Least Common Words (from vocabulary) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Word | Frequency | |
|
|
|------|------|-----------| |
|
|
| 1 | แแปแฑแฌแแบแแผแฎแธแแผแญแฏแทแแแบแกแแฝแแบแธแแพแญ | 2 | |
|
|
| 2 | แแแแญแฏแแแฝแแบแแแญแแฑแฌแแบ | 2 | |
|
|
| 3 | แแกแญแแแฑแฌแแบ | 2 | |
|
|
| 4 | แแแญแฏแแฑแฌแแบ | 2 | |
|
|
| 5 | แแแบแธแแพแแบแธแแฑแฌแแบ | 2 | |
|
|
| 6 | แแพแญแแญแฏแแแฑแฌแแบแแญแแบ | 2 | |
|
|
| 7 | แแฑแฌแแฝแแบแแแญแฏ | 2 | |
|
|
| 8 | แแฑแฌแแฝแแบแ | 2 | |
|
|
| 9 | 1xbet | 2 | |
|
|
| 10 | seppiko | 2 | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Zipf's Law Analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
| Metric | Value | |
|
|
|--------|-------| |
|
|
| Zipf Coefficient | 0.8889 | |
|
|
| Rยฒ (Goodness of Fit) | 0.998993 | |
|
|
| Adherence Quality | **excellent** | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Coverage Analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
| Top N Words | Coverage | |
|
|
|-------------|----------| |
|
|
| Top 100 | 22.8% | |
|
|
| Top 1,000 | 38.0% | |
|
|
| Top 5,000 | 52.0% | |
|
|
| Top 10,000 | 58.7% | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Key Findings |
|
|
|
|
|
- **Zipf Compliance:** Rยฒ=0.9990 indicates excellent adherence to Zipf's law |
|
|
- **High Frequency Dominance:** Top 100 words cover 22.8% of corpus |
|
|
- **Long Tail:** 525,794 words needed for remaining 41.3% 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 | 0.6749 | 0.3233 | N/A | N/A | |
|
|
| **mono_64d** | 64 | 0.6458 | 0.2438 | N/A | N/A | |
|
|
| **mono_128d** | 128 | 0.6934 | 0.1709 | N/A | N/A | |
|
|
| **aligned_32d** | 32 | 0.6749 | 0.3433 | 0.0640 | 0.3360 | |
|
|
| **aligned_64d** | 64 | 0.6458 | 0.2465 | 0.1420 | 0.4260 | |
|
|
| **aligned_128d** | 128 | 0.6934 ๐ | 0.1662 | 0.2060 | 0.5080 | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Key Findings |
|
|
|
|
|
- **Best Isotropy:** aligned_128d with 0.6934 (more uniform distribution) |
|
|
- **Semantic Density:** Average pairwise similarity of 0.2490. Lower values indicate better semantic separation. |
|
|
- **Alignment Quality:** Aligned models achieve up to 20.6% 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 | **0.664** | 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 | |
|
|
|--------|----------| |
|
|
| `-แก` | แกแแฌแธแแฐแแแทแบแแบแแปแฌแธ, แกแแแบแ
แแฌแธแแผแแบแแแบ, แกแแนแแฌแแบ | |
|
|
| `-แ` | แแฑแธแแผแแบแธแแปแแบ, แแแฌแแฏแแแฑแฌแแแฌแแบแกแแฏแถแธ, แแแญแ
แฑแแแบ | |
|
|
| `-แ` | แแแบแ
แแฎแธแแผแแบแแแบแแญแฏ, แแถแแ
แบแแปแฑแธแแฝแฌแกแฏแแบแ
แฏ, แแญแแฑแแฌแแแบ | |
|
|
| `-แ` | แแฏแถแธแแแบแแผแฑแฌแแบแแฑแทแแฝแแบ, แแถแแฌแทแแฑแธแแฏแถ, แแแบแแแบแแฏแถแแผแแบแแพแฏ | |
|
|
| `-แ` | แแฏแแถแแฑแแผแแบแแฑแฌแบแแญแฏแท, แแผแ
แบแแพแฏแกแแปแญแฏแธแกแ
แฌแธแแฑแซแบแแฐแแแบ, แแ
แนแ
แแบแธแแปแฌแธแ
แฝแฌ | |
|
|
| `-แ` | แแแบแธแแ
แบแแพแแทแบ, แแ
แบแแฑแฌแแบแแฒแท, แแแบแแฌแแแบ | |
|
|
| `-แ` | แแฐแแฌแแญแฏแทแแบแ, แแฝแฑแธแแฑแฌแแบแแฝแฒแแปแแบแธแแแฒแทแแแบ, แแญแฏแธแแฌแแแบ | |
|
|
| `-แ` | แแฑแทแแพแญแแฑแแแบ, แแพแฏแแบแแซแแพแฏแแญแฏ, แแญแฏแแปแแบแแแทแบ | |
|
|
|
|
|
#### Productive Suffixes |
|
|
| Suffix | Examples | |
|
|
|--------|----------| |
|
|
| `-แ` | แแฐแแฌแแญแฏแทแแบแ, แกแแ, แแญแแ | |
|
|
| `-s` | investments, watsons, hispidissimus | |
|
|
| `-e` | capacitance, stรฉphane, awardsfavorite | |
|
|
| `-n` | balujun, maccabean, แแญแฏแแญแฏแแบแธvpn | |
|
|
| `-แ` | แแญแแนแแฌแแบแ, แแแนแแแนแแแฌแแญแฟแ, แฌแแบแ | |
|
|
| `-a` | ghulja, kinema, ida | |
|
|
| `-ng` | retracing, chantanayingyong, luang | |
|
|
| `-on` | relation, washinton, baryon | |
|
|
|
|
|
### 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 | |
|
|
|------|----------|------------------|----------| |
|
|
| `ment` | 3.58x | 41 contexts | ament, ement, mental | |
|
|
| `tion` | 3.31x | 50 contexts | tiong, notion, option | |
|
|
| `nter` | 3.41x | 44 contexts | inter, enter, center | |
|
|
| `atio` | 3.41x | 39 contexts | ratio, nation, cations | |
|
|
| `inte` | 3.45x | 34 contexts | inter, intel, intent | |
|
|
| `vers` | 3.09x | 50 contexts | versa, verse, versed | |
|
|
| `iona` | 3.50x | 15 contexts | fiona, dionaea, nasional | |
|
|
| `onal` | 3.46x | 9 contexts | tonal, donald, ronald | |
|
|
|
|
|
### 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 | |
|
|
|--------|--------|-----------|----------| |
|
|
| `-แก` | `-แ` | 26 words | แกแแปแญแฏแทแแแแบแธแ, แกแแบแกแฌแธแแผแฎแธแแฐแแปแฌแธแ | |
|
|
| `-แ` | `-แ` | 18 words | แแฑแซแแฏแแนแแแญแ, แแแฑแแแฌแแบแแฑแแบแ | |
|
|
| `-แ` | `-แ` | 17 words | แแแนแแฌแแฏแ, แแผแแบแแฌแแแฑแธแแปแฌแธแ | |
|
|
| `-แ` | `-แ` | 17 words | แแพแฐแแญแแซแ, แแฑแแถแแฏแแนแแแฎแแปแฌแธแ | |
|
|
| `-แก` | `-แ` | 9 words | แกแแนแแแบแนแแญแแแซแ, แกแแญแแแนแแฌแแแฌแ | |
|
|
| `-แ` | `-แ` | 8 words | แแแญแแบแแแบแธแ, แแญแฏแแแญแแบแธแ | |
|
|
| `-แ
` | `-แ` | 8 words | แ
แแผแฌแแแบแธแแผแ
แบแ
แแบแ, แ
แฌแแฑแธแแฐแแปแฌแธแ | |
|
|
| `-แ` | `-แ` | 8 words | แแแญแแแซแแฌแแญแ, แแแนแแแญแฏแแบแแแฌแแ
แบแฆแธแ | |
|
|
| `-แ` | `-แ` | 7 words | แแแนแแแบแนแแฏแแนแแ, แแแนแแแนแแ | |
|
|
| `-แ` | `-แ` | 7 words | แแแบแแถแแญแฏแแบแแซแ, แแแบแแฒแแฑแฌแบแแแฌแกแแแบแ | |
|
|
|
|
|
### 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 | |
|
|
|------|-----------------|------------|------| |
|
|
| แแแพแ
แบแแแบแแผแแแผแแทแบ | **`แ-แแพแ
แบแแแบแแผแแแผแแทแบ`** | 4.5 | `แแพแ
แบแแแบแแผแแแผแแทแบ` | |
|
|
| แกแแฑแฌแแบแกแแผแ
แบ | **`แก-แแฑแฌแแบแกแแผแ
แบ`** | 4.5 | `แแฑแฌแแบแกแแผแ
แบ` | |
|
|
| แแแนแแฏแแญแฏแแฏแแพแแทแบ | **`แ-แ-แนแแฏแแญแฏแแฏแแพแแทแบ`** | 4.5 | `แนแแฏแแญแฏแแฏแแพแแทแบ` | |
|
|
| แแแฝแแบแแแบแธแแฑแฌแแบแธ | **`แ-แแฝแแบแแแบแธแแฑแฌแแบแธ`** | 4.5 | `แแฝแแบแแแบแธแแฑแฌแแบแธ` | |
|
|
| แแญแฏแแบแธแแฌแแพแฏแกแ | **`แแญแฏแแบแธแแฌแแพแฏ-แกแ`** | 4.5 | `แแญแฏแแบแธแแฌแแพแฏ` | |
|
|
| แแ
แบแแฌแแแแบ | **`แ-แ
-แบแแฌแแแแบ`** | 4.5 | `แบแแฌแแแแบ` | |
|
|
| แแกแฑแฌแแบแแผแแบแแฒแท | **`แ-แกแฑแฌแแบแแผแแบแแฒแท`** | 4.5 | `แกแฑแฌแแบแแผแแบแแฒแท` | |
|
|
| cardinals | **`cardinal-s`** | 4.5 | `cardinal` | |
|
|
| แแแซแธแแฑแฌแแบ | **`แ-แ-แซแธแแฑแฌแแบ`** | 4.5 | `แซแธแแฑแฌแแบ` | |
|
|
| แแแบแแพแฑแทแแแฌ | **`แ-แ-แบแแพแฑแทแแแฌ`** | 4.5 | `แบแแพแฑแทแแแฌ` | |
|
|
| แแปแญแฏแแบแแแบแแผแญแฏแทแ | **`แแปแญแฏแแบแแแบแแผแญแฏแท-แ`** | 4.5 | `แแปแญแฏแแบแแแบแแผแญแฏแท` | |
|
|
| แกแ
แฌแแญแฏแทแแฝแแบ | **`แก-แ
แฌแแญแฏแทแแฝแแบ`** | 4.5 | `แ
แฌแแญแฏแทแแฝแแบ` | |
|
|
| แ
แแฌแธแแฑแฌแบแแปแฌแธแแญแฏ | **`แ
-แ-แฌแธแแฑแฌแบแแปแฌแธแแญแฏ`** | 4.5 | `แฌแธแแฑแฌแบแแปแฌแธแแญแฏ` | |
|
|
| แแแบแแฎแแแบแ
แบแ | **`แแแบแแฎแแแบแ
แบ-แ`** | 4.5 | `แแแบแแฎแแแบแ
แบ` | |
|
|
| แแแบแแฐแแผแฎแธ | **`แ-แ-แบแแฐแแผแฎแธ`** | 4.5 | `แบแแฐแแผแฎแธ` | |
|
|
|
|
|
### 6.6 Linguistic Interpretation |
|
|
|
|
|
> **Automated Insight:** |
|
|
The language Burmese 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
### Production Recommendations |
|
|
|
|
|
| Component | Recommended | Rationale | |
|
|
|-----------|-------------|-----------| |
|
|
| Tokenizer | **64k BPE** | Best compression (5.62x) | |
|
|
| N-gram | **2-gram** | Lowest perplexity (1,887) | |
|
|
| Markov | **Context-4** | Highest predictability (99.0%) | |
|
|
| 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) 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
- ๐ Website: [wikilangs.org](https://wikilangs.org) |
|
|
- ๐ค Models: [huggingface.co/wikilangs](https://huggingface.co/wikilangs) |
|
|
- ๐ Data: [wikipedia-monthly](https://huggingface.co/datasets/omarkamali/wikipedia-monthly) |
|
|
- ๐ค Author: [Omar Kamali](https://huggingface.co/omarkamali) |
|
|
- ๐ค Sponsor: [Featherless AI](https://featherless.ai) |
|
|
--- |
|
|
*Generated by Wikilangs Models Pipeline* |
|
|
|
|
|
*Report Date: 2026-01-10 15:48:31* |
|
|
|