|
|
--- |
|
|
language: nov |
|
|
language_name: Novial |
|
|
language_family: constructed_auxlang |
|
|
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-constructed_auxlang |
|
|
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: 4.293 |
|
|
- name: best_isotropy |
|
|
type: isotropy |
|
|
value: 0.1555 |
|
|
- name: vocabulary_size |
|
|
type: vocab |
|
|
value: 0 |
|
|
generated: 2026-01-10 |
|
|
--- |
|
|
|
|
|
# Novial - Wikilangs Models |
|
|
## Comprehensive Research Report & Full Ablation Study |
|
|
|
|
|
This repository contains NLP models trained and evaluated by Wikilangs, specifically on **Novial** 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** | 3.864x | 3.87 | 0.0651% | 156,765 | |
|
|
| **16k** | 4.098x | 4.11 | 0.0690% | 147,789 | |
|
|
| **32k** | 4.293x ๐ | 4.30 | 0.0723% | 141,092 | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Tokenization Examples |
|
|
|
|
|
Below are sample sentences tokenized with each vocabulary size: |
|
|
|
|
|
**Sample 1:** `Li Isles Malukus (Moluccas) Es un archipelag in li orientale parte de Indonesia....` |
|
|
|
|
|
| Vocab | Tokens | Count | |
|
|
|-------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 8k | `โli โisles โmal uk us โ( mol uc cas ) ... (+15 more)` | 25 | |
|
|
| 16k | `โli โisles โmal uk us โ( mol uc cas ) ... (+12 more)` | 22 | |
|
|
| 32k | `โli โisles โmalukus โ( moluccas ) โes โun โarchipelag โin ... (+7 more)` | 17 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**Sample 2:** `Little Rock es li maxim grandi urbe de Arkansas, Unionati States de Amerika.` |
|
|
|
|
|
| Vocab | Tokens | Count | |
|
|
|-------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 8k | `โlittle โrock โes โli โmaxim โgrandi โurbe โde โar k ... (+7 more)` | 17 | |
|
|
| 16k | `โlittle โrock โes โli โmaxim โgrandi โurbe โde โarkansas , ... (+5 more)` | 15 | |
|
|
| 32k | `โlittle โrock โes โli โmaxim โgrandi โurbe โde โarkansas , ... (+5 more)` | 15 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**Sample 3:** `Eventes Naskos - George Gamow, rusi-usani fisikisto e skribiste de populari sien...` |
|
|
|
|
|
| Vocab | Tokens | Count | |
|
|
|-------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 8k | `โeventes โnaskos โ- โgeorge โgamow , โrusi - usani โfisikisto ... (+7 more)` | 17 | |
|
|
| 16k | `โeventes โnaskos โ- โgeorge โgamow , โrusi - usani โfisikisto ... (+6 more)` | 16 | |
|
|
| 32k | `โeventes โnaskos โ- โgeorge โgamow , โrusi - usani โfisikisto ... (+6 more)` | 16 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Key Findings |
|
|
|
|
|
- **Best Compression:** 32k achieves 4.293x compression |
|
|
- **Lowest UNK Rate:** 8k with 0.0651% 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 | 1,178 | 10.20 | 3,283 | 41.9% | 75.7% | |
|
|
| **2-gram** | Subword | 244 ๐ | 7.93 | 1,418 | 69.7% | 99.7% | |
|
|
| **3-gram** | Word | 1,168 | 10.19 | 4,001 | 45.5% | 73.4% | |
|
|
| **3-gram** | Subword | 1,771 | 10.79 | 10,056 | 28.4% | 76.4% | |
|
|
| **4-gram** | Word | 2,024 | 10.98 | 7,221 | 38.8% | 61.9% | |
|
|
| **4-gram** | Subword | 7,394 | 12.85 | 40,232 | 15.6% | 48.7% | |
|
|
| **5-gram** | Word | 1,593 | 10.64 | 5,612 | 40.6% | 64.9% | |
|
|
| **5-gram** | Subword | 16,261 | 13.99 | 72,530 | 11.2% | 38.1% | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Top 5 N-grams by Size |
|
|
|
|
|
**2-grams (Word):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `in li` | 946 | |
|
|
| 2 | `es li` | 745 | |
|
|
| 3 | `ek li` | 622 | |
|
|
| 4 | `de sud` | 594 | |
|
|
| 5 | `sud afrika` | 563 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**3-grams (Word):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `de sud afrika` | 551 | |
|
|
| 2 | `kristiani demokrati partise` | 505 | |
|
|
| 3 | `un ek li` | 313 | |
|
|
| 4 | `es un ek` | 300 | |
|
|
| 5 | `provinse de sud` | 289 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**4-grams (Word):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `es un ek li` | 296 | |
|
|
| 2 | `provinse de sud afrika` | 289 | |
|
|
| 3 | `es ek li nombro` | 278 | |
|
|
| 4 | `demarcation board stats sa` | 278 | |
|
|
| 5 | `li majoritate de lun` | 278 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**5-grams (Word):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `statistikes es ek li nombro` | 278 | |
|
|
| 2 | `stats sa census page independent` | 278 | |
|
|
| 3 | `independent electoral commission election results` | 278 | |
|
|
| 4 | `page independent electoral commission election` | 278 | |
|
|
| 5 | `census page independent electoral commission` | 278 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**2-grams (Subword):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `e _` | 34,143 | |
|
|
| 2 | `i _` | 21,509 | |
|
|
| 3 | `e s` | 19,756 | |
|
|
| 4 | `_ d` | 17,368 | |
|
|
| 5 | `d e` | 16,656 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**3-grams (Subword):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `_ d e` | 12,988 | |
|
|
| 2 | `_ l i` | 10,620 | |
|
|
| 3 | `e s _` | 10,569 | |
|
|
| 4 | `l i _` | 9,707 | |
|
|
| 5 | `d e _` | 8,712 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**4-grams (Subword):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `_ l i _` | 8,332 | |
|
|
| 2 | `_ d e _` | 7,798 | |
|
|
| 3 | `e _ d e` | 4,960 | |
|
|
| 4 | `t i o n` | 4,248 | |
|
|
| 5 | `_ e s _` | 4,034 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**5-grams (Subword):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `e _ d e _` | 3,513 | |
|
|
| 2 | `a t i o n` | 2,270 | |
|
|
| 3 | `t i o n e` | 1,911 | |
|
|
| 4 | `_ d e l _` | 1,822 | |
|
|
| 5 | `_ p a r t` | 1,691 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Key Findings |
|
|
|
|
|
- **Best Perplexity:** 2-gram (subword) with 244 |
|
|
- **Entropy Trend:** Decreases with larger n-grams (more predictable) |
|
|
- **Coverage:** Top-1000 patterns cover ~38% of corpus |
|
|
- **Recommendation:** 4-gram or 5-gram for best predictive performance |
|
|
|
|
|
--- |
|
|
## 3. Markov Chain Evaluation |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
### Results |
|
|
|
|
|
| Context | Variant | Avg Entropy | Perplexity | Branching Factor | Unique Contexts | Predictability | |
|
|
|---------|---------|-------------|------------|------------------|-----------------|----------------| |
|
|
| **1** | Word | 0.7087 | 1.634 | 3.73 | 23,001 | 29.1% | |
|
|
| **1** | Subword | 0.9408 | 1.920 | 6.71 | 573 | 5.9% | |
|
|
| **2** | Word | 0.2002 | 1.149 | 1.39 | 85,181 | 80.0% | |
|
|
| **2** | Subword | 0.9000 | 1.866 | 5.14 | 3,839 | 10.0% | |
|
|
| **3** | Word | 0.0646 | 1.046 | 1.10 | 117,051 | 93.5% | |
|
|
| **3** | Subword | 0.8231 | 1.769 | 3.63 | 19,730 | 17.7% | |
|
|
| **4** | Word | 0.0276 ๐ | 1.019 | 1.05 | 128,096 | 97.2% | |
|
|
| **4** | Subword | 0.5739 | 1.488 | 2.29 | 71,462 | 42.6% | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Generated Text Samples (Word-based) |
|
|
|
|
|
Below are text samples generated from each word-based Markov chain model: |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 1:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `li ekonomia de vietnam binh vietnam kum y z z li traktate de sinema kino bioskop` |
|
|
2. `de kwazulu natal provinse de basal supositione provisorim akseptat kel bli jeta plu tardim plu natur...` |
|
|
3. `es li nombro demografie li rego de bbc news last kingdom de lingues sexu etnikiso politike` |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 2:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `in li sud afrikal general elektione total votes 4 803 31 de total populatione partisevotes inkatha l...` |
|
|
2. `es li chef urbe es durban li majoritate de lun 193 766 homes parla zulum nombro geografia` |
|
|
3. `ek li komunies de karu distrikte de nord amerika li nederlandani antilles konsista ek tri asertiones...` |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 3:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `kristiani demokrati partise unionati demokrati movemente 1 demokrati alianse pac libereso fronte afr...` |
|
|
2. `un ek li komunies de metsweding distrikte de gauteng provinse de sud afrika li majoritate de lun 92` |
|
|
3. `de sud afrika fro 14 de june in unionati regia es lande de sud amerika de chile` |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 4:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `es un ek li distriktes de kwazulu natal provinse de sud afrika li majoritate de lun 32 279 homes` |
|
|
2. `provinse de sud afrika li chef urbe es li urbe de saitama referos de japan` |
|
|
3. `sa census page independent electoral commission election results de sud afrika` |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Generated Text Samples (Subword-based) |
|
|
|
|
|
Below are text samples generated from each subword-based Markov chain model: |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 1:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `_(ri_nkis_1"_]_7` |
|
|
2. `ese_kan_u_le_enu` |
|
|
3. `iari_fomesmbete_` |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 2:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `e_sop_79,09li_nom` |
|
|
2. `i_go_prolemokre_o` |
|
|
3. `es_etteoli_pronal` |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 3:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `_de_esentarabatal_` |
|
|
2. `_li_yares_de_es_ek` |
|
|
3. `es_un_spani_isaje_` |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 4:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `_li_nur:_ove_you._l` |
|
|
2. `_de_plu_tardim_tenn` |
|
|
3. `e_de_sami_demokrati` |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### 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 (71,462 contexts) |
|
|
- **Recommendation:** Context-3 or Context-4 for text generation |
|
|
|
|
|
--- |
|
|
## 4. Vocabulary Analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
### Statistics |
|
|
|
|
|
| Metric | Value | |
|
|
|--------|-------| |
|
|
| Vocabulary Size | 9,838 | |
|
|
| Total Tokens | 152,199 | |
|
|
| Mean Frequency | 15.47 | |
|
|
| Median Frequency | 3 | |
|
|
| Frequency Std Dev | 140.97 | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Most Common Words |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Word | Frequency | |
|
|
|------|------|-----------| |
|
|
| 1 | li | 8,569 | |
|
|
| 2 | de | 7,823 | |
|
|
| 3 | es | 4,132 | |
|
|
| 4 | e | 3,243 | |
|
|
| 5 | in | 2,500 | |
|
|
| 6 | del | 1,826 | |
|
|
| 7 | partise | 1,098 | |
|
|
| 8 | sud | 1,043 | |
|
|
| 9 | demokrati | 1,042 | |
|
|
| 10 | en | 921 | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Least Common Words (from vocabulary) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Word | Frequency | |
|
|
|------|------|-----------| |
|
|
| 1 | markant | 2 | |
|
|
| 2 | hosta | 2 | |
|
|
| 3 | pompidou | 2 | |
|
|
| 4 | jรกnos | 2 | |
|
|
| 5 | monet | 2 | |
|
|
| 6 | impresionisme | 2 | |
|
|
| 7 | orkestres | 2 | |
|
|
| 8 | brahms | 2 | |
|
|
| 9 | operas | 2 | |
|
|
| 10 | match | 2 | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Zipf's Law Analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
| Metric | Value | |
|
|
|--------|-------| |
|
|
| Zipf Coefficient | 1.0314 | |
|
|
| Rยฒ (Goodness of Fit) | 0.989703 | |
|
|
| Adherence Quality | **excellent** | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Coverage Analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
| Top N Words | Coverage | |
|
|
|-------------|----------| |
|
|
| Top 100 | 45.2% | |
|
|
| Top 1,000 | 75.4% | |
|
|
| Top 5,000 | 92.8% | |
|
|
| Top 10,000 | 0.0% | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Key Findings |
|
|
|
|
|
- **Zipf Compliance:** Rยฒ=0.9897 indicates excellent adherence to Zipf's law |
|
|
- **High Frequency Dominance:** Top 100 words cover 45.2% of corpus |
|
|
- **Long Tail:** -162 words needed for remaining 100.0% coverage |
|
|
|
|
|
--- |
|
|
## 5. Word Embeddings Evaluation |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### 5.1 Cross-Lingual Alignment |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### 5.2 Model Comparison |
|
|
|
|
|
| Model | Dimension | Isotropy | Semantic Density | Alignment R@1 | Alignment R@10 | |
|
|
|-------|-----------|----------|------------------|---------------|----------------| |
|
|
| **mono_32d** | 32 | 0.1555 ๐ | 0.4672 | N/A | N/A | |
|
|
| **mono_64d** | 64 | 0.0258 | 0.4629 | N/A | N/A | |
|
|
| **mono_128d** | 128 | 0.0036 | 0.4758 | N/A | N/A | |
|
|
| **aligned_32d** | 32 | 0.1555 | 0.4481 | 0.0160 | 0.1600 | |
|
|
| **aligned_64d** | 64 | 0.0258 | 0.4683 | 0.0300 | 0.1780 | |
|
|
| **aligned_128d** | 128 | 0.0036 | 0.4627 | 0.0280 | 0.1860 | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Key Findings |
|
|
|
|
|
- **Best Isotropy:** mono_32d with 0.1555 (more uniform distribution) |
|
|
- **Semantic Density:** Average pairwise similarity of 0.4642. Lower values indicate better semantic separation. |
|
|
- **Alignment Quality:** Aligned models achieve up to 3.0% 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 | **0.702** | 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 | |
|
|
|--------|----------| |
|
|
| `-s` | sidney, states, strukture | |
|
|
| `-a` | arrhenius, alpes, autonoma | |
|
|
| `-m` | minutes, multes, morocco | |
|
|
| `-p` | paleontologia, prendit, plural | |
|
|
| `-k` | kolpa, kampionate, kolpes | |
|
|
| `-b` | bulbizarre, biofisike, bloemfontein | |
|
|
| `-d` | damajes, delon, dรดme | |
|
|
| `-t` | tipes, tekte, taiwan | |
|
|
|
|
|
#### Productive Suffixes |
|
|
| Suffix | Examples | |
|
|
|--------|----------| |
|
|
| `-e` | bulbizarre, biofisike, kampionate | |
|
|
| `-s` | racontas, damajes, arrhenius | |
|
|
| `-es` | damajes, alpes, minutes | |
|
|
| `-a` | paleontologia, kolpa, resista | |
|
|
| `-i` | ri, landunionati, religiosi | |
|
|
| `-ne` | anione, natione, opinione | |
|
|
| `-o` | cargo, morocco, romejko | |
|
|
| `-n` | roman, omnen, an | |
|
|
|
|
|
### 6.3 Bound Stems (Lexical Roots) |
|
|
|
|
|
Bound stems are high-frequency subword units that are semantically cohesive but rarely appear as standalone words. These often correspond to the 'core' of a word that requires inflection or derivation to be valid. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Stem | Cohesion | Substitutability | Examples | |
|
|
|------|----------|------------------|----------| |
|
|
| `tion` | 1.51x | 31 contexts | nation, lation, action | |
|
|
| `arti` | 1.59x | 22 contexts | partie, martin, partim | |
|
|
| `lekt` | 1.56x | 20 contexts | lekte, elekte, elekta | |
|
|
| `atio` | 1.48x | 22 contexts | nation, lation, natione | |
|
|
| `ekti` | 1.75x | 13 contexts | korekti, direkti, efektivi | |
|
|
| `ktio` | 1.74x | 12 contexts | aktione, fiktione, funktione | |
|
|
| `ling` | 1.67x | 12 contexts | lingo, lingua, lingue | |
|
|
| `ente` | 1.33x | 23 contexts | enter, mente, vente | |
|
|
| `onte` | 1.58x | 13 contexts | monte, fonte, ponte | |
|
|
| `nter` | 1.35x | 17 contexts | inter, enter, konter | |
|
|
| `iona` | 1.49x | 12 contexts | fiona, optional, rational | |
|
|
| `ntes` | 1.38x | 14 contexts | entes, fontes, dentes | |
|
|
|
|
|
### 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 | |
|
|
|--------|--------|-----------|----------| |
|
|
| `-s` | `-e` | 114 words | strukture, suksese | |
|
|
| `-p` | `-e` | 105 words | politike, pasaje | |
|
|
| `-k` | `-e` | 97 words | kampionate, kable | |
|
|
| `-a` | `-e` | 81 words | anione, amerikaante | |
|
|
| `-m` | `-e` | 79 words | mute, mamifere | |
|
|
| `-d` | `-e` | 78 words | dรดme, desisione | |
|
|
| `-p` | `-s` | 76 words | paketes, probos | |
|
|
| `-s` | `-s` | 70 words | states, studies | |
|
|
| `-p` | `-es` | 59 words | paketes, partisevotes | |
|
|
| `-p` | `-a` | 57 words | paleontologia, poza | |
|
|
|
|
|
### 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 | |
|
|
|------|-----------------|------------|------| |
|
|
| praktisad | **`prakti-s-ad`** | 7.5 | `s` | |
|
|
| kompletisat | **`kompleti-s-at`** | 7.5 | `s` | |
|
|
| transfera | **`transf-e-ra`** | 7.5 | `e` | |
|
|
| diferensa | **`diferen-s-a`** | 7.5 | `s` | |
|
|
| medievali | **`mediev-al-i`** | 7.5 | `al` | |
|
|
| religiosi | **`religio-s-i`** | 7.5 | `s` | |
|
|
| skriptero | **`skript-e-ro`** | 7.5 | `e` | |
|
|
| interretal | **`interre-t-al`** | 7.5 | `t` | |
|
|
| development | **`develop-me-nt`** | 7.5 | `me` | |
|
|
| skripteti | **`skript-e-ti`** | 7.5 | `e` | |
|
|
| politikalim | **`politik-al-im`** | 7.5 | `al` | |
|
|
| fisikalim | **`fisik-al-im`** | 7.5 | `al` | |
|
|
| afrikansum | **`afrikan-s-um`** | 7.5 | `s` | |
|
|
| kontenanti | **`konten-an-ti`** | 7.5 | `an` | |
|
|
| periodale | **`period-al-e`** | 7.5 | `al` | |
|
|
|
|
|
### 6.6 Linguistic Interpretation |
|
|
|
|
|
> **Automated Insight:** |
|
|
The language Novial 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 | **32k BPE** | Best compression (4.29x) | |
|
|
| N-gram | **2-gram** | Lowest perplexity (244) | |
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
- 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 15:52:59* |
|
|
|