Narom - Wikilangs Models
Comprehensive Research Report & Full Ablation Study
This repository contains NLP models trained and evaluated by Wikilangs, specifically on Narom Wikipedia data. We analyze tokenizers, n-gram models, Markov chains, vocabulary statistics, and word embeddings.
📋 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 | 3.473x | 3.48 | 0.1334% | 248,823 |
| 16k | 3.710x | 3.71 | 0.1425% | 232,959 |
| 32k | 3.901x | 3.91 | 0.1499% | 221,528 |
| 64k | 4.079x 🏆 | 4.08 | 0.1567% | 211,880 |
Tokenization Examples
Below are sample sentences tokenized with each vocabulary size:
Sample 1: Vienna Allobrogum 'tait le nom de la ville de Vienne en Isère oû temps qu'alle é...
| Vocab | Tokens | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 8k | ▁vi en na ▁all ob ro g um ▁' tait ... (+19 more) |
29 |
| 16k | ▁vi enna ▁allobro g um ▁' tait ▁le ▁nom ▁de ... (+16 more) |
26 |
| 32k | ▁vienna ▁allobro g um ▁' tait ▁le ▁nom ▁de ▁la ... (+14 more) |
24 |
| 64k | ▁vienna ▁allobrogum ▁' tait ▁le ▁nom ▁de ▁la ▁ville ▁de ... (+12 more) |
22 |
Sample 2: Préfailles est eune ceutie de Fraunce, dain lé départament de Loire-Atlantique. ...
| Vocab | Tokens | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 8k | ▁pré f ailles ▁est ▁eune ▁ceutie ▁de ▁fraunce , ▁dain ... (+17 more) |
27 |
| 16k | ▁pré f ailles ▁est ▁eune ▁ceutie ▁de ▁fraunce , ▁dain ... (+17 more) |
27 |
| 32k | ▁préf ailles ▁est ▁eune ▁ceutie ▁de ▁fraunce , ▁dain ▁lé ... (+16 more) |
26 |
| 64k | ▁préfailles ▁est ▁eune ▁ceutie ▁de ▁fraunce , ▁dain ▁lé ▁départament ... (+15 more) |
25 |
Sample 3: Le câtel des Mesnières est un câtel-maneir du coumenchement du XVIe siècle qui s...
| Vocab | Tokens | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 8k | ▁le ▁câtel ▁des ▁mes ni ères ▁est ▁un ▁câtel - ... (+23 more) |
33 |
| 16k | ▁le ▁câtel ▁des ▁mes nières ▁est ▁un ▁câtel - maneir ... (+20 more) |
30 |
| 32k | ▁le ▁câtel ▁des ▁mesnières ▁est ▁un ▁câtel - maneir ▁du ... (+18 more) |
28 |
| 64k | ▁le ▁câtel ▁des ▁mesnières ▁est ▁un ▁câtel - maneir ▁du ... (+18 more) |
28 |
Key Findings
- Best Compression: 64k achieves 4.079x compression
- Lowest UNK Rate: 8k with 0.1334% 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 | 2,347 | 11.20 | 9,731 | 34.1% | 64.7% |
| 2-gram | Subword | 284 🏆 | 8.15 | 2,061 | 65.9% | 99.3% |
| 3-gram | Word | 1,892 | 10.89 | 11,749 | 41.6% | 68.1% |
| 3-gram | Subword | 1,967 | 10.94 | 15,580 | 29.3% | 74.2% |
| 4-gram | Word | 2,087 | 11.03 | 18,947 | 43.7% | 67.7% |
| 4-gram | Subword | 8,299 | 13.02 | 65,567 | 15.6% | 47.9% |
| 5-gram | Word | 1,247 | 10.28 | 13,026 | 49.6% | 75.7% |
| 5-gram | Subword | 20,942 | 14.35 | 136,123 | 11.0% | 35.6% |
Top 5 N-grams by Size
2-grams (Word):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | annaées annaées |
4,163 |
| 2 | l annaée |
2,810 |
| 3 | ch est |
2,005 |
| 4 | bailliage dé |
1,933 |
| 5 | à l |
1,828 |
3-grams (Word):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | annaées annaées annaées |
3,121 |
| 2 | rapporte à l |
1,384 |
| 3 | du calendri grégorian |
1,384 |
| 4 | chute page sé |
1,383 |
| 5 | page sé rapporte |
1,383 |
4-grams (Word):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | annaées annaées annaées annaées |
2,089 |
| 2 | sé rapporte à l |
1,383 |
| 3 | page sé rapporte à |
1,383 |
| 4 | chute page sé rapporte |
1,383 |
| 5 | rapporte à l annaée |
1,382 |
5-grams (Word):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | chute page sé rapporte à |
1,383 |
| 2 | page sé rapporte à l |
1,383 |
| 3 | sé rapporte à l annaée |
1,382 |
| 4 | histouère dé l annaée mounde |
1,382 |
| 5 | calendri grégorian histouère dé l |
1,376 |
2-grams (Subword):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | e _ |
91,818 |
| 2 | s _ |
79,349 |
| 3 | e s |
59,284 |
| 4 | _ d |
57,856 |
| 5 | t _ |
48,802 |
3-grams (Subword):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | e s _ |
41,563 |
| 2 | `_ | _` |
| 3 | e _ d |
18,209 |
| 4 | _ d e |
16,600 |
| 5 | a n n |
13,717 |
4-grams (Subword):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | l e s _ |
10,545 |
| 2 | a n n a |
10,406 |
| 3 | n a é e |
10,398 |
| 4 | _ l a _ |
10,338 |
| 5 | n n a é |
10,314 |
5-grams (Subword):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | a n n a é |
10,298 |
| 2 | n n a é e |
10,297 |
| 3 | `_ | _ |
| 4 | a é e s _ |
8,489 |
| 5 | ` | _ |
Key Findings
- Best Perplexity: 2-gram (subword) with 284
- Entropy Trend: Decreases with larger n-grams (more predictable)
- Coverage: Top-1000 patterns cover ~36% 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 | 0.7190 | 1.646 | 4.14 | 47,048 | 28.1% |
| 1 | Subword | 1.1642 | 2.241 | 9.24 | 480 | 0.0% |
| 2 | Word | 0.2570 | 1.195 | 1.57 | 193,346 | 74.3% |
| 2 | Subword | 1.0306 | 2.043 | 6.31 | 4,431 | 0.0% |
| 3 | Word | 0.0875 | 1.063 | 1.14 | 300,997 | 91.3% |
| 3 | Subword | 0.8372 | 1.787 | 3.95 | 27,927 | 16.3% |
| 4 | Word | 0.0312 🏆 | 1.022 | 1.05 | 341,376 | 96.9% |
| 4 | Subword | 0.5961 | 1.512 | 2.50 | 110,055 | 40.4% |
Generated Text Samples (Word-based)
Below are text samples generated from each word-based Markov chain model:
Context Size 1:
la porte du hoummet au père ampraésm veuvyire sauns perde les fêtes les valeurs républlicannes parl équielle des calenges ès syins qùi s lon l jour d oui de l progrèsd la bouone cadenche le remerchier swinburne posseyeit chûte forme géométrique tch est eune campâne ...
Context Size 2:
annaées annaées chute page sé rapporte à l êvêque prenge compte dé la seine entre paris etl annaée du calendri grégorian histouère dé l églyise dé saint vi lé pont d sexe ich est quand ch t apport des normaunds en 911 le roué de neustrieroué des frauncs y
Context Size 3:
annaées annaées annaées chute page sé rapporte à l annaée 831 du calendri grégorian histouère dé l a...rapporte à l annaée du calendri grégorian histouère dé l annaée mounde ûrope normaundie duchie de no...du calendri grégorian histouère dé l annaée mounde ûrope pais de neûtrie biâos arts tchulteure scien...
Context Size 4:
annaées annaées annaées annaées chute page sé rapporte à l annaée 943 du calendri grégorian histouèr...page sé rapporte à l annaée du calendri grégorian histouère dé l annaée mounde chrêtchiannetaé pais ...sé rapporte à l annaée 938 du calendri grégorian histouère dé l annaée mounde ûrope pais de neûtrie ...
Generated Text Samples (Subword-based)
Below are text samples generated from each subword-based Markov chain model:
Context Size 1:
_l_altischnderbieanerouniz_cimécni)_cona_jonds_e
Context Size 2:
e_pre_?_31les_vies_vuû_d'té._les_&es_bêtch'es_page_
Context Size 3:
es_;_il_espéciale__|_|_|_|_|_|_|_anne_dé_de_ceut,_poti
Context Size 4:
les_goût_–_22_23_24annaées_|_annaées_|naées_|_annaées_bêt
Key Findings
- Best Predictability: Context-4 (word) with 96.9% predictability
- Branching Factor: Decreases with context size (more deterministic)
- Memory Trade-off: Larger contexts require more storage (110,055 contexts)
- Recommendation: Context-3 or Context-4 for text generation
4. Vocabulary Analysis
Statistics
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Vocabulary Size | 20,102 |
| Total Tokens | 457,971 |
| Mean Frequency | 22.78 |
| Median Frequency | 3 |
| Frequency Std Dev | 254.98 |
Most Common Words
| Rank | Word | Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | la | 12,492 |
| 2 | l | 12,475 |
| 3 | d | 12,289 |
| 4 | de | 9,606 |
| 5 | dé | 9,602 |
| 6 | et | 9,132 |
| 7 | les | 8,078 |
| 8 | est | 7,697 |
| 9 | annaées | 7,446 |
| 10 | en | 7,063 |
Least Common Words (from vocabulary)
| Rank | Word | Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | domfront | 2 |
| 2 | jarcieu | 2 |
| 3 | schientifike | 2 |
| 4 | mélisse | 2 |
| 5 | italiàn | 2 |
| 6 | présidant | 2 |
| 7 | tribunal | 2 |
| 8 | pénal | 2 |
| 9 | cassation | 2 |
| 10 | feltrinelli | 2 |
Zipf's Law Analysis
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Zipf Coefficient | 1.1086 |
| R² (Goodness of Fit) | 0.996123 |
| Adherence Quality | excellent |
Coverage Analysis
| Top N Words | Coverage |
|---|---|
| Top 100 | 51.0% |
| Top 1,000 | 76.4% |
| Top 5,000 | 89.8% |
| Top 10,000 | 95.0% |
Key Findings
- Zipf Compliance: R²=0.9961 indicates excellent adherence to Zipf's law
- High Frequency Dominance: Top 100 words cover 51.0% of corpus
- Long Tail: 10,102 words needed for remaining 5.0% 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 | 0.5294 🏆 | 0.3720 | N/A | N/A |
| mono_64d | 64 | 0.1646 | 0.3967 | N/A | N/A |
| mono_128d | 128 | 0.0234 | 0.3639 | N/A | N/A |
| aligned_32d | 32 | 0.5294 | 0.3660 | 0.0280 | 0.1720 |
| aligned_64d | 64 | 0.1646 | 0.3815 | 0.0400 | 0.1980 |
| aligned_128d | 128 | 0.0234 | 0.3681 | 0.0500 | 0.2520 |
Key Findings
- Best Isotropy: mono_32d with 0.5294 (more uniform distribution)
- Semantic Density: Average pairwise similarity of 0.3747. Lower values indicate better semantic separation.
- Alignment Quality: Aligned models achieve up to 5.0% 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 | 1.128 | 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 |
|---|---|
-c |
couochon, carraée, cardinâos |
-a |
alicante, atôme, aicme |
-p |
protégie, poussit, pleuvent |
-s |
sitôt, sainte, seyaz |
-m |
mînt, man, méthe |
-b |
bouorguingnoun, barbade, bernadotte |
-d |
des, dépendance, dinners |
-co |
couochon, couorse, continnentale |
Productive Suffixes
| Suffix | Examples |
|---|---|
-e |
révolutionnaithe, dépendance, alicante |
-s |
des, longtemps, veireis |
-es |
des, êtatcharles, libres |
-t |
mînt, poussit, pleuvent |
-nt |
mînt, pleuvent, remplléchement |
-n |
couochon, bouorguingnoun, man |
-r |
touor, doumer, quar |
-le |
continnentale, avuule, îndustrielle |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
ouor |
1.74x | 56 contexts | touor, jouor, fouor |
tent |
1.77x | 37 contexts | datent, dîtent, fûtent |
oune |
1.70x | 33 contexts | boune, doune, toune |
ique |
1.63x | 38 contexts | wique, sique, pique |
raun |
1.72x | 27 contexts | raung, fraun, iraun |
aund |
1.69x | 27 contexts | quaund, graund, aundré |
tion |
1.67x | 24 contexts | notion, nation, action |
maun |
1.71x | 22 contexts | maunde, romaun, mauntes |
orma |
1.70x | 21 contexts | norma, norman, normal |
unde |
1.74x | 19 contexts | ounde, rounde, mounde |
ques |
1.57x | 25 contexts | vaques, pâques, luques |
itaé |
2.00x | 9 contexts | citaé, naitaé, naitaée |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
-c |
-e |
211 words | cite, cyrille |
-c |
-s |
193 words | costeunmes, cousioums |
-p |
-s |
155 words | peis, patrons |
-a |
-e |
153 words | accounaître, aĥoque |
-p |
-e |
153 words | préchaine, présidenciêle |
-m |
-e |
123 words | muée, ministe |
-a |
-s |
122 words | ais, associatiouns |
-m |
-s |
100 words | métriques, martchis |
-d |
-e |
98 words | doctrène, dualême |
-s |
-s |
89 words | sèrcquiais, scots |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| soulaient | soulai-e-nt |
7.5 | e |
| demeuraient | demeurai-e-nt |
7.5 | e |
| précieuse | précieu-s-e |
7.5 | s |
| cosséquent | cosséqu-e-nt |
7.5 | e |
| religieuse | religieu-s-e |
7.5 | s |
| assiègement | assiègem-e-nt |
7.5 | e |
| décheûtrent | décheûtr-e-nt |
7.5 | e |
| devintent | devint-e-nt |
7.5 | e |
| rétablîment | rétablîm-e-nt |
7.5 | e |
| acatîtrent | acatîtr-e-nt |
7.5 | e |
| independent | independ-e-nt |
7.5 | e |
| assembliaient | assembliai-e-nt |
7.5 | e |
| développement | développem-e-nt |
7.5 | e |
| firmament | firmam-e-nt |
7.5 | e |
| mèrveilleux | mèrveill-e-ux |
7.5 | e |
6.6 Linguistic Interpretation
Automated Insight: The language Narom 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 (4.08x) |
| N-gram | 2-gram | Lowest perplexity (284) |
| Markov | Context-4 | Highest predictability (96.9%) |
| 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) × 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.
R² (Coefficient of Determination)
Definition: Measures how well the linear fit explains the frequency-rank relationship. Ranges from 0 to 1.
Intuition: R² near 1.0 means the data closely follows Zipf's law; lower values indicate deviation from expected word frequency patterns.
What to seek: R² > 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
- 🌐 Website: wikilangs.org
- 🤗 Models: huggingface.co/wikilangs
- 📊 Data: wikipedia-monthly
- 👤 Author: Omar Kamali
- 🤝 Sponsor: Featherless AI
Generated by Wikilangs Models Pipeline
Report Date: 2026-01-10 16:08:44



















