Papiamento - Wikilangs Models
Comprehensive Research Report & Full Ablation Study
This repository contains NLP models trained and evaluated by Wikilangs, specifically on Papiamento Wikipedia data. We analyze tokenizers, n-gram models, Markov chains, vocabulary statistics, and word embeddings.
π Repository Contents
Models & Assets
- Tokenizers (8k, 16k, 32k, 64k)
- N-gram models (2, 3, 4, 5-gram)
- Markov chains (context of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5)
- Subword N-gram and Markov chains
- Embeddings in various sizes and dimensions (aligned and unaligned)
- Language Vocabulary
- Language Statistics
Analysis and Evaluation
- 1. Tokenizer Evaluation
- 2. N-gram Model Evaluation
- 3. Markov Chain Evaluation
- 4. Vocabulary Analysis
- 5. Word Embeddings Evaluation
- 6. Morphological Analysis (Experimental)
- 7. Summary & Recommendations
- Metrics Glossary
- Visualizations Index
1. Tokenizer Evaluation
Results
| Vocab Size | Compression | Avg Token Len | UNK Rate | Total Tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8k | 3.813x | 3.82 | 0.1442% | 409,271 |
| 16k | 4.143x | 4.15 | 0.1566% | 376,636 |
| 32k | 4.392x | 4.39 | 0.1661% | 355,292 |
| 64k | 4.536x π | 4.54 | 0.1715% | 343,992 |
Tokenization Examples
Below are sample sentences tokenized with each vocabulary size:
Sample 1: ta un munisipio spano den provinsia di Soria. (provinsia)
| Vocab | Tokens | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 8k | βta βun βmunisipio βsp ano βden βprovinsia βdi βsoria . ... (+3 more) |
13 |
| 16k | βta βun βmunisipio βsp ano βden βprovinsia βdi βsoria . ... (+3 more) |
13 |
| 32k | βta βun βmunisipio βspano βden βprovinsia βdi βsoria . β( ... (+2 more) |
12 |
| 64k | βta βun βmunisipio βspano βden βprovinsia βdi βsoria . β( ... (+2 more) |
12 |
Sample 2: AlmazΓ‘n ta un munisipio spaΓ±o den provinsia di Soria, region di Castilia i Leon....
| Vocab | Tokens | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 8k | βalma z Γ‘n βta βun βmunisipio βspaΓ±o βden βprovinsia βdi ... (+21 more) |
31 |
| 16k | βalma z Γ‘n βta βun βmunisipio βspaΓ±o βden βprovinsia βdi ... (+21 more) |
31 |
| 32k | βalmazΓ‘n βta βun βmunisipio βspaΓ±o βden βprovinsia βdi βsoria , ... (+19 more) |
29 |
| 64k | βalmazΓ‘n βta βun βmunisipio βspaΓ±o βden βprovinsia βdi βsoria , ... (+19 more) |
29 |
Sample 3: Tuvalu ta un pais oseatiko. E kapital di Tuvalu ta Vaiaku, Funafuti.
| Vocab | Tokens | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 8k | βtu val u βta βun βpais βos ea tiko . ... (+16 more) |
26 |
| 16k | βtu valu βta βun βpais βos ea tiko . βe ... (+14 more) |
24 |
| 32k | βtuvalu βta βun βpais βos ea tiko . βe βkapital ... (+11 more) |
21 |
| 64k | βtuvalu βta βun βpais βoseatiko . βe βkapital βdi βtuvalu ... (+5 more) |
15 |
Key Findings
- Best Compression: 64k achieves 4.536x compression
- Lowest UNK Rate: 8k with 0.1442% 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 | 9,717 | 13.25 | 33,678 | 18.1% | 41.2% |
| 2-gram | Subword | 238 π | 7.89 | 2,724 | 71.0% | 99.3% |
| 3-gram | Word | 25,247 | 14.62 | 49,901 | 8.0% | 24.5% |
| 3-gram | Subword | 1,930 | 10.91 | 21,952 | 28.9% | 74.2% |
| 4-gram | Word | 41,144 | 15.33 | 69,181 | 7.3% | 18.8% |
| 4-gram | Subword | 10,003 | 13.29 | 104,371 | 14.9% | 42.3% |
| 5-gram | Word | 22,273 | 14.44 | 38,166 | 11.0% | 24.1% |
| 5-gram | Subword | 32,598 | 14.99 | 248,543 | 8.8% | 27.5% |
Top 5 N-grams by Size
2-grams (Word):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | di e |
14,647 |
| 2 | el a |
5,053 |
| 3 | ta un |
4,783 |
| 4 | den e |
4,574 |
| 5 | e ta |
4,109 |
3-grams (Word):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | un di e |
1,033 |
| 2 | di antias hulandes |
757 |
| 3 | for di e |
740 |
| 4 | na el a |
652 |
| 5 | ta e di |
633 |
4-grams (Word):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | riba e kalènder gregoriano |
548 |
| 2 | ta un di e |
408 |
| 3 | yüni yüli ougùstùs sèptèmber |
390 |
| 4 | mei yΓΌni yΓΌli ougΓΉstΓΉs |
385 |
| 5 | aprel mei yΓΌni yΓΌli |
384 |
5-grams (Word):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | riba e kalènder gregoriano ta |
364 |
| 2 | e kalènder gregoriano ta resta |
364 |
| 3 | mei yüni yüli ougùstùs sèptèmber |
354 |
| 4 | mart aprel mei yΓΌni yΓΌli |
350 |
| 5 | febrΓΌari mart aprel mei yΓΌni |
345 |
2-grams (Subword):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | a _ |
273,635 |
| 2 | _ d |
174,552 |
| 3 | i _ |
167,427 |
| 4 | e _ |
140,158 |
| 5 | n _ |
138,441 |
3-grams (Subword):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | _ d i |
117,044 |
| 2 | d i _ |
106,629 |
| 3 | _ e _ |
73,343 |
| 4 | t a _ |
63,461 |
| 5 | _ t a |
56,841 |
4-grams (Subword):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | _ d i _ |
103,952 |
| 2 | _ t a _ |
38,893 |
| 3 | n a n _ |
30,467 |
| 4 | _ n a _ |
28,936 |
| 5 | _ u n _ |
27,411 |
5-grams (Subword):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | _ d e n _ |
20,331 |
| 2 | o _ d i _ |
17,822 |
| 3 | a _ d i _ |
17,622 |
| 4 | _ d i _ e |
17,588 |
| 5 | n _ d i _ |
16,089 |
Key Findings
- Best Perplexity: 2-gram (subword) with 238
- Entropy Trend: Decreases with larger n-grams (more predictable)
- Coverage: Top-1000 patterns cover ~28% of corpus
- Recommendation: 4-gram or 5-gram for best predictive performance
3. Markov Chain Evaluation
Results
| Context | Variant | Avg Entropy | Perplexity | Branching Factor | Unique Contexts | Predictability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Word | 1.0093 | 2.013 | 6.87 | 68,317 | 0.0% |
| 1 | Subword | 1.0745 | 2.106 | 8.28 | 829 | 0.0% |
| 2 | Word | 0.3505 | 1.275 | 1.93 | 468,008 | 65.0% |
| 2 | Subword | 0.9710 | 1.960 | 6.02 | 6,860 | 2.9% |
| 3 | Word | 0.1399 | 1.102 | 1.26 | 899,213 | 86.0% |
| 3 | Subword | 0.8488 | 1.801 | 4.26 | 41,291 | 15.1% |
| 4 | Word | 0.0522 π | 1.037 | 1.08 | 1,126,785 | 94.8% |
| 4 | Subword | 0.6463 | 1.565 | 2.80 | 175,612 | 35.4% |
Generated Text Samples (Word-based)
Below are text samples generated from each word-based Markov chain model:
Context Size 1:
di artista boneriano e estadonan uni cu ta wordo proponi tin tambe ta pidiΓ© van houte estudio di prins claus den e lama durante e siguiente munisipionan monti olbia telti eta positive evaluation of invacion di e lista di promotor di tera di antia hulandes na
Context Size 2:
di e kontinente ta konta ku mas o mΓ©nos 3 km ku ta responsabel pa facilita eel a keda publica pa prome biaha na pa martin lavallΓ©e ku tambe ta konosΓ komo pedrota un kolekshon di e peninsula di paraguanΓ‘ situΓ‘ den osΓ©ano pasΓfiko i na e klima specialmente
Context Size 3:
un di e sinkuenta 50 estado di merka aprel mei yüni yüli ougùstùs sèptèmber òktober novèmber desèmbe...for di e costa submarino cu ta core for di hadicurari fishermens huts awendia sarah quita beach nadi antias hulandes un gran mayoria di estado practicamente tur estado ta parti di e cordon di serona...
Context Size 4:
riba e kalènder gregoriano ta resta 107 dia pa e aña terminÑ a sosodé mareshal deodoro da fonseca tata un di e islanan sunda grandi na indonesia e ta e di tres industria di criminalidad mas grandiyüni yüli ougùstùs sèptèmber òktober novèmber desèmber a nase yanüari febrüari 8 edgar palm músiko i...
Generated Text Samples (Subword-based)
Below are text samples generated from each subword-based Markov chain model:
Context Size 1:
_dita_anuliu_vara_enamubestrona_elon,_upas_baΓ±a_
Context Size 2:
a_aki,_lishonana._di_ta_guyty_arubi_di_nal_di_su_ko
Context Size 3:
_di_un_un_henden_edi_junichmonionnan_e_makerkantorno_i
Context Size 4:
_di_59,45%_di_e_isl_ta_wΓ²rdu_i_eks-pronan_culturante_univ
Key Findings
- Best Predictability: Context-4 (word) with 94.8% predictability
- Branching Factor: Decreases with context size (more deterministic)
- Memory Trade-off: Larger contexts require more storage (175,612 contexts)
- Recommendation: Context-3 or Context-4 for text generation
4. Vocabulary Analysis
Statistics
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Vocabulary Size | 34,175 |
| Total Tokens | 1,282,363 |
| Mean Frequency | 37.52 |
| Median Frequency | 4 |
| Frequency Std Dev | 827.80 |
Most Common Words
| Rank | Word | Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | di | 104,167 |
| 2 | e | 74,754 |
| 3 | ta | 39,477 |
| 4 | a | 31,746 |
| 5 | na | 29,351 |
| 6 | un | 27,802 |
| 7 | i | 24,418 |
| 8 | den | 20,552 |
| 9 | pa | 20,049 |
| 10 | ku | 16,379 |
Least Common Words (from vocabulary)
| Rank | Word | Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | maghalie | 2 |
| 2 | fei | 2 |
| 3 | kodirektor | 2 |
| 4 | influente | 2 |
| 5 | arubagrandis | 2 |
| 6 | struikelblok | 2 |
| 7 | recordnan | 2 |
| 8 | nacra | 2 |
| 9 | klep | 2 |
| 10 | guangdong | 2 |
Zipf's Law Analysis
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Zipf Coefficient | 1.0656 |
| RΒ² (Goodness of Fit) | 0.993886 |
| Adherence Quality | excellent |
Coverage Analysis
| Top N Words | Coverage |
|---|---|
| Top 100 | 48.4% |
| Top 1,000 | 70.8% |
| Top 5,000 | 87.1% |
| Top 10,000 | 92.9% |
Key Findings
- Zipf Compliance: RΒ²=0.9939 indicates excellent adherence to Zipf's law
- High Frequency Dominance: Top 100 words cover 48.4% of corpus
- Long Tail: 24,175 words needed for remaining 7.1% coverage
5. Word Embeddings Evaluation
5.1 Cross-Lingual Alignment
5.2 Model Comparison
| Model | Dimension | Isotropy | Semantic Density | Alignment R@1 | Alignment R@10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| mono_32d | 32 | 0.8452 | 0.3149 | N/A | N/A |
| mono_64d | 64 | 0.7555 | 0.2502 | N/A | N/A |
| mono_128d | 128 | 0.4621 | 0.2227 | N/A | N/A |
| aligned_32d | 32 | 0.8452 π | 0.3064 | 0.0600 | 0.3160 |
| aligned_64d | 64 | 0.7555 | 0.2542 | 0.1520 | 0.4100 |
| aligned_128d | 128 | 0.4621 | 0.2259 | 0.1940 | 0.4780 |
Key Findings
- Best Isotropy: aligned_32d with 0.8452 (more uniform distribution)
- Semantic Density: Average pairwise similarity of 0.2624. Lower values indicate better semantic separation.
- Alignment Quality: Aligned models achieve up to 19.4% 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 | -0.125 | Low formulaic content | - |
6.2 Affix Inventory (Productive Units)
These are the most productive prefixes and suffixes identified by sampling the vocabulary for global substitutability patterns. A unit is considered an affix if stripping it leaves a valid stem that appears in other contexts.
Productive Prefixes
| Prefix | Examples |
|---|---|
-s |
suak, seccionnan, suleiman |
-a |
au, aradippou, anan |
-b |
bankario, be, biramento |
-p |
partituranan, ploaghe, placa |
-m |
mobilisΓ‘, missouri, magnesium |
-c |
citaat, cynanchum, circuito |
-k |
kritikΓ‘, kongregashonnan, konstruyendo |
-d |
depresion, dimensional, diskutΓ |
Productive Suffixes
| Suffix | Examples |
|---|---|
-n |
partituranan, kongregashonnan, seccionnan |
-o |
ratio, inkompleto, lazio |
-an |
partituranan, kongregashonnan, seccionnan |
-a |
uma, veterinaria, generalisa |
-e |
regime, be, ploaghe |
-on |
depresion, macron, wilson |
-s |
kisas, seychelles, libraries |
-te |
trieste, completamente, krΓtikamente |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
acio |
2.55x | 30 contexts | nacion, ignacio, ocacion |
asho |
2.05x | 38 contexts | basho, nashon, pashon |
onan |
1.88x | 53 contexts | conan, usonan, omonan |
ente |
1.77x | 58 contexts | mente, lente, djente |
ento |
1.96x | 36 contexts | lento, mento, sento |
amen |
1.61x | 74 contexts | namen, samen, examen |
ista |
1.81x | 44 contexts | vista, bista, lista |
enta |
1.64x | 53 contexts | benta, kenta, menta |
ario |
1.80x | 33 contexts | vario, mario, arion |
ster |
1.61x | 49 contexts | stern, sterna, sister |
nter |
1.67x | 41 contexts | inter, panter, hinter |
pres |
1.54x | 56 contexts | presu, press, presa |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
-p |
-n |
119 words | partidonan, patriarkanan |
-s |
-n |
108 words | sostenedΓ³nan, satisfaccion |
-p |
-o |
108 words | produsiendo, pensamento |
-k |
-n |
95 words | koalishon, koeiman |
-s |
-o |
93 words | spanjo, sosteniendo |
-a |
-n |
92 words | abdikashon, action |
-p |
-a |
92 words | predica, pornada |
-a |
-o |
91 words | anglicano, ansiano |
-d |
-n |
89 words | demostracion, desasternan |
-c |
-a |
88 words | cumbia, cuenca |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| analistanan | analist-an-an |
7.5 | an |
| silabanan | silab-an-an |
7.5 | an |
| proceduranan | procedur-an-an |
7.5 | an |
| interesnan | interes-n-an |
7.5 | n |
| valdeavellano | valdeavell-an-o |
7.5 | an |
| caracassana | caracass-an-a |
7.5 | an |
| canchanan | canch-an-an |
7.5 | an |
| kabbendans | kabbend-an-s |
7.5 | an |
| enkabesando | enkabes-an-do |
7.5 | an |
| critchley | critchl-e-y |
7.5 | e |
| musikante | musik-an-te |
7.5 | an |
| historiadornan | historiador-n-an |
7.5 | n |
| akshonistanan | akshonist-an-an |
7.5 | an |
| suramerikano | suramerik-an-o |
7.5 | an |
| peliculanan | pelicul-an-an |
7.5 | an |
6.6 Linguistic Interpretation
Automated Insight: The language Papiamento shows high morphological productivity. The subword models are significantly more efficient than word models, suggesting a rich system of affixation or compounding.
7. Summary & Recommendations
Production Recommendations
| Component | Recommended | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Tokenizer | 64k BPE | Best compression (4.54x) |
| N-gram | 2-gram | Lowest perplexity (238) |
| Markov | Context-4 | Highest predictability (94.8%) |
| Embeddings | 100d | Balanced semantic capture and isotropy |
Appendix: Metrics Glossary & Interpretation Guide
This section provides definitions, intuitions, and guidance for interpreting the metrics used throughout this report.
Tokenizer Metrics
Compression Ratio
Definition: The ratio of characters to tokens (chars/token). Measures how efficiently the tokenizer represents text.
Intuition: Higher compression means fewer tokens needed to represent the same text, reducing sequence lengths for downstream models. A 3x compression means ~3 characters per token on average.
What to seek: Higher is generally better for efficiency, but extremely high compression may indicate overly aggressive merging that loses morphological information.
Average Token Length (Fertility)
Definition: Mean number of characters per token produced by the tokenizer.
Intuition: Reflects the granularity of tokenization. Longer tokens capture more context but may struggle with rare words; shorter tokens are more flexible but increase sequence length.
What to seek: Balance between 2-5 characters for most languages. Arabic/morphologically-rich languages may benefit from slightly longer tokens.
Unknown Token Rate (OOV Rate)
Definition: Percentage of tokens that map to the unknown/UNK token, indicating words the tokenizer cannot represent.
Intuition: Lower OOV means better vocabulary coverage. High OOV indicates the tokenizer encounters many unseen character sequences.
What to seek: Below 1% is excellent; below 5% is acceptable. BPE tokenizers typically achieve very low OOV due to subword fallback.
N-gram Model Metrics
Perplexity
Definition: Measures how "surprised" the model is by test data. Mathematically: 2^(cross-entropy). Lower values indicate better prediction.
Intuition: If perplexity is 100, the model is as uncertain as if choosing uniformly among 100 options at each step. A perplexity of 10 means effectively choosing among 10 equally likely options.
What to seek: Lower is better. Perplexity decreases with larger n-grams (more context). Values vary widely by language and corpus size.
Entropy
Definition: Average information content (in bits) needed to encode the next token given the context. Related to perplexity: perplexity = 2^entropy.
Intuition: High entropy means high uncertainty/randomness; low entropy means predictable patterns. Natural language typically has entropy between 1-4 bits per character.
What to seek: Lower entropy indicates more predictable text patterns. Entropy should decrease as n-gram size increases.
Coverage (Top-K)
Definition: Percentage of corpus occurrences explained by the top K most frequent n-grams.
Intuition: High coverage with few patterns indicates repetitive/formulaic text; low coverage suggests diverse vocabulary usage.
What to seek: Depends on use case. For language modeling, moderate coverage (40-60% with top-1000) is typical for natural text.
Markov Chain Metrics
Average Entropy
Definition: Mean entropy across all contexts, measuring average uncertainty in next-word prediction.
Intuition: Lower entropy means the model is more confident about what comes next. Context-1 has high entropy (many possible next words); Context-4 has low entropy (few likely continuations).
What to seek: Decreasing entropy with larger context sizes. Very low entropy (<0.1) indicates highly deterministic transitions.
Branching Factor
Definition: Average number of unique next tokens observed for each context.
Intuition: High branching = many possible continuations (flexible but uncertain); low branching = few options (predictable but potentially repetitive).
What to seek: Branching factor should decrease with context size. Values near 1.0 indicate nearly deterministic chains.
Predictability
Definition: Derived metric: (1 - normalized_entropy) Γ 100%. Indicates how deterministic the model's predictions are.
Intuition: 100% predictability means the next word is always certain; 0% means completely random. Real text falls between these extremes.
What to seek: Higher predictability for text generation quality, but too high (>98%) may produce repetitive output.
Vocabulary & Zipf's Law Metrics
Zipf's Coefficient
Definition: The slope of the log-log plot of word frequency vs. rank. Zipf's law predicts this should be approximately -1.
Intuition: A coefficient near -1 indicates the corpus follows natural language patterns where a few words are very common and most words are rare.
What to seek: Values between -0.8 and -1.2 indicate healthy natural language distribution. Deviations may suggest domain-specific or artificial text.
RΒ² (Coefficient of Determination)
Definition: Measures how well the linear fit explains the frequency-rank relationship. Ranges from 0 to 1.
Intuition: RΒ² near 1.0 means the data closely follows Zipf's law; lower values indicate deviation from expected word frequency patterns.
What to seek: RΒ² > 0.95 is excellent; > 0.99 indicates near-perfect Zipf adherence typical of large natural corpora.
Vocabulary Coverage
Definition: Cumulative percentage of corpus tokens accounted for by the top N words.
Intuition: Shows how concentrated word usage is. If top-100 words cover 50% of text, the corpus relies heavily on common words.
What to seek: Top-100 covering 30-50% is typical. Higher coverage indicates more repetitive text; lower suggests richer vocabulary.
Word Embedding Metrics
Isotropy
Definition: Measures how uniformly distributed vectors are in the embedding space. Computed as the ratio of minimum to maximum singular values.
Intuition: High isotropy (near 1.0) means vectors spread evenly in all directions; low isotropy means vectors cluster in certain directions, reducing expressiveness.
What to seek: Higher isotropy generally indicates better-quality embeddings. Values > 0.1 are reasonable; > 0.3 is good. Lower-dimensional embeddings tend to have higher isotropy.
Average Norm
Definition: Mean magnitude (L2 norm) of word vectors in the embedding space.
Intuition: Indicates the typical "length" of vectors. Consistent norms suggest stable training; high variance may indicate some words are undertrained.
What to seek: Relatively consistent norms across models. The absolute value matters less than consistency (low std deviation).
Cosine Similarity
Definition: Measures angular similarity between vectors, ranging from -1 (opposite) to 1 (identical direction).
Intuition: Words with similar meanings should have high cosine similarity. This is the standard metric for semantic relatedness in embeddings.
What to seek: Semantically related words should score > 0.5; unrelated words should be near 0. Synonyms often score > 0.7.
t-SNE Visualization
Definition: t-Distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding - a dimensionality reduction technique that preserves local structure for visualization.
Intuition: Clusters in t-SNE plots indicate groups of semantically related words. Spread indicates vocabulary diversity; tight clusters suggest semantic coherence.
What to seek: Meaningful clusters (e.g., numbers together, verbs together). Avoid over-interpreting distances - t-SNE preserves local, not global, structure.
General Interpretation Guidelines
- Compare within model families: Metrics are most meaningful when comparing models of the same type (e.g., 8k vs 64k tokenizer).
- Consider trade-offs: Better performance on one metric often comes at the cost of another (e.g., compression vs. OOV rate).
- Context matters: Optimal values depend on downstream tasks. Text generation may prioritize different metrics than classification.
- Corpus influence: All metrics are influenced by corpus characteristics. Wikipedia text differs from social media or literature.
- Language-specific patterns: Morphologically rich languages (like Arabic) may show different optimal ranges than analytic languages.
Visualizations Index
| Visualization | Description |
|---|---|
| Tokenizer Compression | Compression ratios by vocabulary size |
| Tokenizer Fertility | Average token length by vocabulary |
| Tokenizer OOV | Unknown token rates |
| Tokenizer Total Tokens | Total tokens by vocabulary |
| N-gram Perplexity | Perplexity by n-gram size |
| N-gram Entropy | Entropy by n-gram size |
| N-gram Coverage | Top pattern coverage |
| N-gram Unique | Unique n-gram counts |
| Markov Entropy | Entropy by context size |
| Markov Branching | Branching factor by context |
| Markov Contexts | Unique context counts |
| Zipf's Law | Frequency-rank distribution with fit |
| Vocab Frequency | Word frequency distribution |
| Top 20 Words | Most frequent words |
| Vocab Coverage | Cumulative coverage curve |
| Embedding Isotropy | Vector space uniformity |
| Embedding Norms | Vector magnitude distribution |
| Embedding Similarity | Word similarity heatmap |
| Nearest Neighbors | Similar words for key terms |
| t-SNE Words | 2D word embedding visualization |
| t-SNE Sentences | 2D sentence embedding visualization |
| Position Encoding | Encoding method comparison |
| Model Sizes | Storage requirements |
| Performance Dashboard | Comprehensive performance overview |
About This Project
Data Source
Models trained on wikipedia-monthly - a monthly snapshot of Wikipedia articles across 300+ languages.
Project
A project by Wikilangs - Open-source NLP models for every Wikipedia language.
Maintainer
Citation
If you use these models in your research, please cite:
@misc{wikilangs2025,
author = {Kamali, Omar},
title = {Wikilangs: Open NLP Models for Wikipedia Languages},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.5281/zenodo.18073153},
publisher = {Zenodo},
url = {https://huggingface.co/wikilangs}
institution = {Omneity Labs}
}
License
MIT License - Free for academic and commercial use.
Links
- π Website: wikilangs.org
- π€ Models: huggingface.co/wikilangs
- π Data: wikipedia-monthly
- π€ Author: Omar Kamali
- π€ Sponsor: Featherless AI
Generated by Wikilangs Models Pipeline
Report Date: 2026-01-10 17:28:24



















