pnt / README.md
omarkamali's picture
Upload all models and assets for pnt (latest)
79336b0 verified
---
language: pnt
language_name: Pontic
language_family: greek
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-greek
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: 3.670
- name: best_isotropy
type: isotropy
value: 0.0523
- name: vocabulary_size
type: vocab
value: 0
generated: 2026-01-10
---
# Pontic - Wikilangs Models
## Comprehensive Research Report & Full Ablation Study
This repository contains NLP models trained and evaluated by Wikilangs, specifically on **Pontic** Wikipedia data.
We analyze tokenizers, n-gram models, Markov chains, vocabulary statistics, and word embeddings.
## ๐Ÿ“‹ 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
![Performance Dashboard](visualizations/performance_dashboard.png)
### 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
![Tokenizer Compression](visualizations/tokenizer_compression.png)
![Tokenizer Fertility](visualizations/tokenizer_fertility.png)
![Tokenizer OOV](visualizations/tokenizer_oov.png)
![Total Tokens](visualizations/tokenizer_total_tokens.png)
### Results
| Vocab Size | Compression | Avg Token Len | UNK Rate | Total Tokens |
|------------|-------------|---------------|----------|--------------|
| **8k** | 3.197x | 3.20 | 0.1329% | 100,820 |
| **16k** | 3.540x | 3.55 | 0.1472% | 91,057 |
| **32k** | 3.670x ๐Ÿ† | 3.68 | 0.1526% | 87,822 |
### Tokenization Examples
Below are sample sentences tokenized with each vocabulary size:
**Sample 1:** `ฮ— ฮŸฯƒฮฌฮบฮฑ ฮตฮฝ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮนฯ„ฮตฮฏฮฑ ฯƒฮทฮฝ ฮ™ฮฑฯ€ฯ‰ฮฝฮฏฮฑฮฝ. ฮŸฯƒฮฎฮผฮตฯฮฟฮฝ ฮตฯ‡' ฯ€ฮปฮทฮธฯ…ฯƒฮผฯŒฮฝ 2.668.586 ฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€.`
| Vocab | Tokens | Count |
|-------|--------|-------|
| 8k | `โ–ฮท โ–ฮฟฯƒฮฌฮบฮฑ โ–ฮตฮฝ โ–ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮนฯ„ฮตฮฏฮฑ โ–ฯƒฮทฮฝ โ–ฮนฮฑฯ€ฯ‰ฮฝฮฏฮฑฮฝ . โ–ฮฟฯƒฮฎฮผฮตฯฮฟฮฝ โ–ฮตฯ‡ ' ... (+13 more)` | 23 |
| 16k | `โ–ฮท โ–ฮฟฯƒฮฌฮบฮฑ โ–ฮตฮฝ โ–ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮนฯ„ฮตฮฏฮฑ โ–ฯƒฮทฮฝ โ–ฮนฮฑฯ€ฯ‰ฮฝฮฏฮฑฮฝ . โ–ฮฟฯƒฮฎฮผฮตฯฮฟฮฝ โ–ฮตฯ‡ ' ... (+13 more)` | 23 |
| 32k | `โ–ฮท โ–ฮฟฯƒฮฌฮบฮฑ โ–ฮตฮฝ โ–ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮนฯ„ฮตฮฏฮฑ โ–ฯƒฮทฮฝ โ–ฮนฮฑฯ€ฯ‰ฮฝฮฏฮฑฮฝ . โ–ฮฟฯƒฮฎฮผฮตฯฮฟฮฝ โ–ฮตฯ‡ ' ... (+13 more)` | 23 |
**Sample 2:** `ฮŸ ฮ’ฯŒฮปฮฟฯ‚ ฮตฮฝ ฯ€ฯŒฮปฮทฮฝ ฯ„ฯฮฑฮฝฮฎ (ฯ„ฯฮฑฮฝฯŒฯ„ฮตฯฮท ฯ„ฮทฯ‚ ฮœฮฑฮณฮฝฮทฯƒฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮฟฯฮปฮทฯ‚) ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฌ ฯ„ฮทฮฝ ฮธฮฌฮปฮฑฯƒฯƒฮฑฮฝ ฮฑฯƒฮฟ ฮบฮญฮฝ...`
| Vocab | Tokens | Count |
|-------|--------|-------|
| 8k | `โ–ฮฟ โ–ฮฒฯŒฮปฮฟฯƒ โ–ฮตฮฝ โ–ฯ€ฯŒฮปฮทฮฝ โ–ฯ„ฯฮฑฮฝ ฮฎ โ–( ฯ„ ฯฮฑฮฝ ฯŒฯ„ฮตฯฮท ... (+26 more)` | 36 |
| 16k | `โ–ฮฟ โ–ฮฒฯŒฮปฮฟฯƒ โ–ฮตฮฝ โ–ฯ€ฯŒฮปฮทฮฝ โ–ฯ„ฯฮฑฮฝฮฎ โ–( ฯ„ฯฮฑฮฝฯŒฯ„ฮตฯฮท โ–ฯ„ฮทฯƒ โ–ฮผฮฑฮณฮฝฮทฯƒฮฏฮฑฯƒ โ–ฮฟฯฮปฮทฯƒ ... (+20 more)` | 30 |
| 32k | `โ–ฮฟ โ–ฮฒฯŒฮปฮฟฯƒ โ–ฮตฮฝ โ–ฯ€ฯŒฮปฮทฮฝ โ–ฯ„ฯฮฑฮฝฮฎ โ–( ฯ„ฯฮฑฮฝฯŒฯ„ฮตฯฮท โ–ฯ„ฮทฯƒ โ–ฮผฮฑฮณฮฝฮทฯƒฮฏฮฑฯƒ โ–ฮฟฯฮปฮทฯƒ ... (+20 more)` | 30 |
**Sample 3:** `ฮ— ฮ›ฮฑ ฮกฮฟฯƒฮญฮป ฮตฮฝ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮนฯ„ฮตฮฏฮฑ ฯƒฮทฮฝ ฮ“ฮฑฮปฮปฮฏฮฑฮฝ. ฮŸฯƒฮฎฮผฮตฯฮฟฮฝ ฮตฯ‡' ฯ€ฮปฮทฮธฯ…ฯƒฮผฯŒฮฝ 74.998 ฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€.`
| Vocab | Tokens | Count |
|-------|--------|-------|
| 8k | `โ–ฮท โ–ฮปฮฑ โ–ฯ ฮฟฯƒ ฮญฮป โ–ฮตฮฝ โ–ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮนฯ„ฮตฮฏฮฑ โ–ฯƒฮทฮฝ โ–ฮณฮฑฮปฮปฮฏฮฑฮฝ . ... (+13 more)` | 23 |
| 16k | `โ–ฮท โ–ฮปฮฑ โ–ฯฮฟฯƒฮญฮป โ–ฮตฮฝ โ–ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮนฯ„ฮตฮฏฮฑ โ–ฯƒฮทฮฝ โ–ฮณฮฑฮปฮปฮฏฮฑฮฝ . โ–ฮฟฯƒฮฎฮผฮตฯฮฟฮฝ โ–ฮตฯ‡ ... (+11 more)` | 21 |
| 32k | `โ–ฮท โ–ฮปฮฑ โ–ฯฮฟฯƒฮญฮป โ–ฮตฮฝ โ–ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮนฯ„ฮตฮฏฮฑ โ–ฯƒฮทฮฝ โ–ฮณฮฑฮปฮปฮฏฮฑฮฝ . โ–ฮฟฯƒฮฎฮผฮตฯฮฟฮฝ โ–ฮตฯ‡ ... (+11 more)` | 21 |
### Key Findings
- **Best Compression:** 32k achieves 3.670x compression
- **Lowest UNK Rate:** 8k with 0.1329% 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
![N-gram Perplexity](visualizations/ngram_perplexity.png)
![N-gram Unique](visualizations/ngram_unique.png)
![N-gram Coverage](visualizations/ngram_coverage.png)
### Results
| N-gram | Variant | Perplexity | Entropy | Unique N-grams | Top-100 Coverage | Top-1000 Coverage |
|--------|---------|------------|---------|----------------|------------------|-------------------|
| **2-gram** | Word | 378 | 8.56 | 778 | 59.1% | 100.0% |
| **2-gram** | Subword | 411 | 8.68 | 1,785 | 57.2% | 97.4% |
| **3-gram** | Word | 302 ๐Ÿ† | 8.24 | 829 | 68.5% | 100.0% |
| **3-gram** | Subword | 2,487 | 11.28 | 9,341 | 25.0% | 68.3% |
| **4-gram** | Word | 459 | 8.84 | 1,665 | 62.9% | 89.3% |
| **4-gram** | Subword | 7,482 | 12.87 | 24,840 | 13.4% | 46.9% |
| **5-gram** | Word | 321 | 8.33 | 1,188 | 70.5% | 96.3% |
| **5-gram** | Subword | 11,940 | 13.54 | 32,544 | 9.4% | 38.6% |
### Top 5 N-grams by Size
**2-grams (Word):**
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|------|--------|-------|
| 1 | `ฯ„ฮท ฯ‡ฯฮฟฮฝฮฏฮฑฯ‚` | 207 |
| 2 | `ฮณฮนฮฑ ฮฝฮฑ` | 153 |
| 3 | `ฯ„ฮฟ ฮณฯฮทฮณฮฟฯฮนฮฑฮฝฯŒฮฝ` | 134 |
| 4 | `ฮณฯฮทฮณฮฟฯฮนฮฑฮฝฯŒฮฝ ฮทฮผฮตฯฮฟฮปฯŒฮณฮนฮฟฮฝ` | 134 |
| 5 | `2 3` | 133 |
**3-grams (Word):**
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|------|--------|-------|
| 1 | `ฯ„ฮฟ ฮณฯฮทฮณฮฟฯฮนฮฑฮฝฯŒฮฝ ฮทฮผฮตฯฮฟฮปฯŒฮณฮนฮฟฮฝ` | 133 |
| 2 | `2 3 4` | 132 |
| 3 | `15 16 17` | 131 |
| 4 | `17 18 19` | 131 |
| 5 | `9 10 11` | 131 |
**4-grams (Word):**
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|------|--------|-------|
| 1 | `25 26 27 28` | 131 |
| 2 | `9 10 11 12` | 131 |
| 3 | `10 11 12 13` | 131 |
| 4 | `3 4 5 6` | 131 |
| 5 | `11 12 13 14` | 131 |
**5-grams (Word):**
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|------|--------|-------|
| 1 | `8 9 10 11 12` | 131 |
| 2 | `10 11 12 13 14` | 131 |
| 3 | `11 12 13 14 15` | 131 |
| 4 | `12 13 14 15 16` | 131 |
| 5 | `13 14 15 16 17` | 131 |
**2-grams (Subword):**
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|------|--------|-------|
| 1 | `ฮฝ _` | 10,498 |
| 2 | `_ ฯ„` | 7,042 |
| 3 | `ฮฑ ฮฝ` | 5,192 |
| 4 | `ฮฑ _` | 4,454 |
| 5 | `ฯ‚ _` | 4,288 |
**3-grams (Subword):**
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|------|--------|-------|
| 1 | `ฮฟ ฮฝ _` | 2,539 |
| 2 | `ฮฑ ฮฝ _` | 2,368 |
| 3 | `_ ฯ„ ฮท` | 2,160 |
| 4 | `_ ฮบ ฮฑ` | 1,899 |
| 5 | `_ ฯ„ ฮฟ` | 1,888 |
**4-grams (Subword):**
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|------|--------|-------|
| 1 | `_ ฯ„ ฮท _` | 1,677 |
| 2 | `_ ฮบ ฮฑ ฮน` | 1,214 |
| 3 | `ฮบ ฮฑ ฮน _` | 1,179 |
| 4 | `_ ฯ„ ฮฟ _` | 1,174 |
| 5 | `_ ฮต ฮฝ _` | 752 |
**5-grams (Subword):**
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|------|--------|-------|
| 1 | `_ ฮบ ฮฑ ฮน _` | 1,176 |
| 2 | `ฮฝ _ ฯ„ ฮท _` | 594 |
| 3 | `_ ฯ‡ ฯ ฮฟ ฮฝ` | 536 |
| 4 | `ฮน ฮบ ฯŒ ฮฝ _` | 527 |
| 5 | `ฯ‡ ฯ ฮฟ ฮฝ ฮฏ` | 523 |
### Key Findings
- **Best Perplexity:** 3-gram (word) with 302
- **Entropy Trend:** Decreases with larger n-grams (more predictable)
- **Coverage:** Top-1000 patterns cover ~39% of corpus
- **Recommendation:** 4-gram or 5-gram for best predictive performance
---
## 3. Markov Chain Evaluation
![Markov Entropy](visualizations/markov_entropy.png)
![Markov Contexts](visualizations/markov_contexts.png)
![Markov Branching](visualizations/markov_branching.png)
### Results
| Context | Variant | Avg Entropy | Perplexity | Branching Factor | Unique Contexts | Predictability |
|---------|---------|-------------|------------|------------------|-----------------|----------------|
| **1** | Word | 0.4938 | 1.408 | 2.69 | 11,667 | 50.6% |
| **1** | Subword | 1.2400 | 2.362 | 8.79 | 439 | 0.0% |
| **2** | Word | 0.1458 | 1.106 | 1.25 | 31,022 | 85.4% |
| **2** | Subword | 1.0962 | 2.138 | 5.25 | 3,856 | 0.0% |
| **3** | Word | 0.0419 | 1.029 | 1.07 | 38,349 | 95.8% |
| **3** | Subword | 0.6896 | 1.613 | 2.67 | 20,216 | 31.0% |
| **4** | Word | 0.0219 ๐Ÿ† | 1.015 | 1.04 | 40,551 | 97.8% |
| **4** | Subword | 0.3670 | 1.290 | 1.70 | 53,958 | 63.3% |
### Generated Text Samples (Word-based)
Below are text samples generated from each word-based Markov chain model:
**Context Size 1:**
1. `ฯ„ฮท ฮณฮฑฮปฮปฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฮฟฯƒฮฎฮผฮตฯฮฟฮฝ ฮตฯ‡ ฯ€ฮปฮทฮธฯ…ฯƒฮผฯŒฮฝ ฯ„ฮท ฮปฮญฮพฮทฮฝ encyclopaedia ฮฑฮญฯ„ฯ‚ ฮฌฮผฮฟฮฝ ฮฝฯ„ฮฟ ฮตฯ€ฮฟฮฏฮบฮฑฮฝ ฯ‡ฮฌฯ„ฮฑฮปฮฑ ฮดฮฏฮดฯ…ฮผฮฑ ฯƒฮฑ commo...`
2. `ฯ„ฮฟ ฯ€ฮฟฯ„ฮฌฮผ ฮปฮญฯ‡ฮบฮฟฯ…ฮฝฯ„ฮฑฮฝ doฤŸu karadeniz daฤŸlarฤฑ ฮฌฮผฮฑ ฮตฯ…ฯฮฏฯƒฮบฮฟฯ…ฮผฮต ฮบฮฑฮน ฯ†ฮนฮปฯŒฮปฮฟฮณฮฟฮฝ ฮณฮนฯŒฯ‡ฮฑฮฝ ฮฒฯŒฮปฯ†ฮณฮบฮฑฮฝฮณฮบ ฮผฯ€ฮญฯฮนฯ‚ฯ‚ ฮญฮฒ...`
3. `ฮบฮฑฮน ฮฟ ฯ€ฮปฮทฮธฯ…ฯƒฮผฯŒฮฝ ฯƒฮฑ ฮดฯ…ฯ„ฮนฮบฮฌ ฯ€ฮฏฯƒฯ‰ ฯƒฮทฮฝ ฯ€ฮฟฮปฯ‰ฮฝฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฯ„ฮทฮฝ ฯฯŽฮผฮทฮฝ ฮตฯ€ฮญฮผฮฝฮตฮฝ ฮญฮฝฮฑฮฝ ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮตฯฮณฮฑฯƒฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฮฝฯ„ฮฟ ฮตฯ…ฯฮฏฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน ฯƒฮฟ`
**Context Size 2:**
1. `ฮณฮนฮฑ ฮฝฮฑ ฯ„ฮตฮปฮฟฯฯ„ฮตฮฝ ฮท ฯ‡ฯฮฟฮฝฮฏฮฑ 363 ฮทฮผฮญฯฮฑฯ‚ ฮณฮนฮฑ ฮฝฮฑ ฮตฮณฯฮฟฮนฮบฮฌฯ„ฮตฮฝ ฮบฮน ฮตฯƒฮตฮฏฯ‚ ฮฑฮฟฯฯ„ฮฟ ฮตฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟ ฮณฯฮฌฯˆฮนฮผฮฟฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟ`
2. `ฯ„ฮท ฯ‡ฯฮฟฮฝฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮฏฯƒฯ„ฮต ฮปฮตฮตฮน ฮผฮฑฯ‚ ฯ„ฮฟ ฮณฯฮทฮณฮฟฯฮนฮฑฮฝฯŒฮฝ ฮทฮผฮตฯฮฟฮปฯŒฮณฮนฮฟฮฝ ฮตฯ€ฮญฮผฮฝฮฑฮฝ ฮฌฮปฮปฮฑ 360 ฮทฮผฮญฯฮฑฯ‚ ฯƒฮฟ ฮดฮฏฯƒฮตฮบฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฯ„ฮท ฯ‡ฯฮฟฮฝฮฏฮฑ ฮฑฯ„...`
3. `ฯ„ฮฟ ฮณฯฮทฮณฮฟฯฮนฮฑฮฝฯŒฮฝ ฮทฮผฮตฯฮฟฮปฯŒฮณฮนฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮน ฮตฯ‡ 31 ฮทฮผฮญฯฮฑฯ‚ ฯƒ ฮฑฮฒฮฟฯฯ„ฮฟฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟ ฮบฯฮฌฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฮญฯ‡ฮตฮนฯ‚ ฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮตฯ€ฮฏฯƒฮทฮผฮฟฮฝ ฮปฮฑฮปฮฏฮฑฮฝ ฯ„ฮทฮฝ ฮบฮฑฮถฮฑฮบฮนฮบฮฎ...`
**Context Size 3:**
1. `ฯ„ฮฟ ฮณฯฮทฮณฮฟฯฮนฮฑฮฝฯŒฮฝ ฮทฮผฮตฯฮฟฮปฯŒฮณฮนฮฟฮฝ ฮตฯ€ฮญฮผฮฝฮฑฮฝ ฮฌฮปฮปฮฑ 348 ฮทฮผฮญฯฮฑฯ‚ ฮณฮนฮฑ ฮฝฮฑ ฯ„ฮตฮปฮฟฯฯ„ฮตฮฝ ฮท ฯ‡ฯฮฟฮฝฮฏฮฑ ฮฑฯ„ฮฌ ฮฝฯ„ ฮตฮณฮญฮฝฯ„ฮฑฮฝ ฮตฮณฮตฮฝฮฝฮญฮธฮฑฮฝ...`
2. `2 3 4 5 6 u 7 u 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17`
3. `21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 28 ฯ„ฯฯ…ฮณฮฟฮผฮทฮฝฮฌ ฮตฮฝ 301ฮฟฮฝ ฮทฮผฮญฯฮฑ ฯ„ฮท ฯ‡ฯฮฟฮฝฮฏฮฑฯ‚`
**Context Size 4:**
1. `10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28`
2. `25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ฮท 1 ฯ„ฮท ฮบฮฑฮปฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฑฯฮฏ ฮตฮฝ 1ฮฟฮฝ ฮทฮผฮญฯฮฑ ฯ„ฮท ฯ‡ฯฮฟฮฝฮฏฮฑฯ‚ ฮฌฮผฮฟฮฝ ฮฝฯ„ฮฟ ฮปฮตฮตฮน`
3. `19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ฮท 7 ฯ„ฮท ฮบฮฑฮปฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฑฯฮฏ ฮตฮฝ 7ฮฟฮฝ`
### Generated Text Samples (Subword-based)
Below are text samples generated from each subword-based Markov chain model:
**Context Size 1:**
1. `_ฯƒ'_25_ฯ„ฮฟฮบ_ฯƒฮฏฮฑ):`
2. `ฮฑฯ…ฮฝ_ฮทฮฝ_ฮฟฯ…ฮผฮฒฮฟฮพฯ…ฯฯŒ`
3. `ฮฝ_ฮท_ฯฮฏฮฑฮน_ฮดฮฑฮนฮฟ_ฮฝฮฑ`
**Context Size 2:**
1. `ฮฝ_ฮฑฯ€ฮตฯ,_ฮฟ_ฮณฮนฮฑฯ†ฮญฯฮฑ`
2. `_ฯ„ฮทฮปฮตฮฏฮฑ_ฮฒฮนฮบฮฟฯ‚_ฮฑฯ„'`
3. `ฮฑฮฝ_ฯ„ฮท_ฮผฮฟฯฮฏ_|_4_5_`
**Context Size 3:**
1. `ฮฟฮฝ_ฮฟ_ฮฌฮปฮปฮฑ_20_21_22`
2. `ฮฑฮฝ_ฯ„ฮท_ฮฒฮตฯฮฟฮปฯŒฮณฮนฮฟฮฝ,_`
3. `_ฯ„ฮท_ฮฑฯƒฮฏฮฑฮฝ_ฮท_ฯ‡ฯŽฯฮฑฯ‚_`
**Context Size 4:**
1. `_ฯ„ฮท_ฯ‡ฯฮฟฮฝฮฏฮฑฮฝ_ฯƒฮทฮฝ_ฮบฮฑฮน`
2. `_ฮบฮฑฮน_ฮดฮนฮฑฮดฮนฮบฯ„ฯ…ฮฑฮบฮฎฮฝ_ฯƒ`
3. `ฮบฮฑฮน_ฮบฮฌฯ„ฯ‰_ฮฑฯ€ฯŒ_ฯ„ฮนฮผฯŒฯ.`
### Key Findings
- **Best Predictability:** Context-4 (word) with 97.8% predictability
- **Branching Factor:** Decreases with context size (more deterministic)
- **Memory Trade-off:** Larger contexts require more storage (53,958 contexts)
- **Recommendation:** Context-3 or Context-4 for text generation
---
## 4. Vocabulary Analysis
![Zipf's Law](visualizations/zipf_law.png)
![Top Words](visualizations/top20_words.png)
![Coverage Curve](visualizations/vocab_coverage.png)
### Statistics
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Vocabulary Size | 3,936 |
| Total Tokens | 45,584 |
| Mean Frequency | 11.58 |
| Median Frequency | 3 |
| Frequency Std Dev | 56.78 |
### Most Common Words
| Rank | Word | Frequency |
|------|------|-----------|
| 1 | ฯ„ฮท | 1,685 |
| 2 | ฯ„ฮฟ | 1,240 |
| 3 | ฮบฮฑฮน | 1,182 |
| 4 | ฮท | 1,115 |
| 5 | ฮฟ | 813 |
| 6 | ฮตฮฝ | 783 |
| 7 | ฯ„ | 746 |
| 8 | ฯƒฮฑ | 652 |
| 9 | ฯ„ฮฑ | 572 |
| 10 | ฯƒฮฟ | 475 |
### Least Common Words (from vocabulary)
| Rank | Word | Frequency |
|------|------|-----------|
| 1 | ฮผฯ€ฮฑฯƒฮฌฮฝ | 2 |
| 2 | ฮตฯ€ฮฌฯ„ฮทฯƒฮตฮฝ | 2 |
| 3 | ฯ…ฯŒฯฮบฮทฮฝ | 2 |
| 4 | ฯ„ฯฮฑฮณฯ‰ฮดฯŒฯ‚ | 2 |
| 5 | ฯ€ฯฯŒฯƒฯ‰ฯ€ฮฑ | 2 |
| 6 | ฮผฮฟฯฮถฮนฮบฮฑฯ‚ | 2 |
| 7 | born | 2 |
| 8 | rolling | 2 |
| 9 | stone | 2 |
| 10 | ฮดฮตฮฏฯ‡ฮฝ | 2 |
### Zipf's Law Analysis
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Zipf Coefficient | 0.9722 |
| Rยฒ (Goodness of Fit) | 0.971817 |
| Adherence Quality | **excellent** |
### Coverage Analysis
| Top N Words | Coverage |
|-------------|----------|
| Top 100 | 54.0% |
| Top 1,000 | 83.1% |
| Top 5,000 | 0.0% |
| Top 10,000 | 0.0% |
### Key Findings
- **Zipf Compliance:** Rยฒ=0.9718 indicates excellent adherence to Zipf's law
- **High Frequency Dominance:** Top 100 words cover 54.0% of corpus
- **Long Tail:** -6,064 words needed for remaining 100.0% coverage
---
## 5. Word Embeddings Evaluation
![Embedding Isotropy](visualizations/embedding_isotropy.png)
![Similarity Matrix](visualizations/embedding_similarity.png)
![t-SNE Words](visualizations/tsne_words.png)
![t-SNE Sentences](visualizations/tsne_sentences.png)
### 5.1 Cross-Lingual Alignment
![Alignment Quality](visualizations/embedding_alignment_quality.png)
![Multilingual t-SNE](visualizations/embedding_tsne_multilingual.png)
### 5.2 Model Comparison
| Model | Dimension | Isotropy | Semantic Density | Alignment R@1 | Alignment R@10 |
|-------|-----------|----------|------------------|---------------|----------------|
| **mono_32d** | 32 | 0.0523 | 0.6492 | N/A | N/A |
| **mono_64d** | 64 | 0.0087 | 0.6629 | N/A | N/A |
| **mono_128d** | 128 | 0.0013 | 0.6851 | N/A | N/A |
| **aligned_32d** | 32 | 0.0523 ๐Ÿ† | 0.6519 | 0.0429 | 0.3286 |
| **aligned_64d** | 64 | 0.0087 | 0.6348 | 0.0357 | 0.3571 |
| **aligned_128d** | 128 | 0.0013 | 0.6853 | 0.0500 | 0.4143 |
### Key Findings
- **Best Isotropy:** aligned_32d with 0.0523 (more uniform distribution)
- **Semantic Density:** Average pairwise similarity of 0.6615. 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 | **1.493** | 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 |
|--------|----------|
| `-ฮต` | ฮตฯฮบฯฮฑฯ„ฮฟ, ฮตฮณฮบฯ…ฮบฮปฮฟฯ€ฮฑฮฏฮดฮตฮนฮฑ, ฮตฯ„ฮฑฮนฯฮฏฮฑ |
| `-ฮฑ` | ฮฑฮปฮฒฮฑฮฝฮฏฮฑฯ‚, ฮฑฯฯ‡ฮทฮณฮฟฮฏ, ฮฑฯฯ‡ฮฑฮฏฮฑ |
| `-ฮบ` | ฮบฯŒฮบฮบฮนฮฝฮฟฮฝ, ฮบฮฟฯƒฮผฮนฮบฮฟฮฏ, ฮบฮฑฮปฮฑฯ„ฯƒฮตฯ |
| `-ฯ€` | ฯ€ฯฯŽฯ„ฮฟฮฝ, ฯ€ฮตฯฯƒฮนฮบฯŒฮฝ, ฯ€ฯฮฟฮพฮตฮฝฮตฮฏฮฟฮฝ |
| `-ฯƒ` | ฯƒฯ…ฯƒฯ„ฮญฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ, ฯƒฮฌฮฒฮฒฮฑฯ„ฮฟฮฝ, ฯƒฯ…ฮณฮบฮตฮบฯฮนฮผฮญฮฝฮฑ |
| `-ฮบฮฑ` | ฮบฮฑฮปฮฑฯ„ฯƒฮตฯ, ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮฌฮปฮทฮพฮท, ฮบฮฑฮถฮฏฮฝฮฟ |
| `-ฯ€ฮฑ` | ฯ€ฮฑฯ€ฮฌฮดฮตฯ‚, ฯ€ฮฑฯ„ฮญฯฮฑ, ฯ€ฮฑฯฮฌฮดฮตฮนฮณฮผฮฑ |
| `-ฮตฯ€` | ฮตฯ€ฮนฯ„ฯฮฟฯ€ฮฎ, ฮตฯ€ฮฟฮฏฮฝ, ฮตฯ€ฮฏฯƒฮทฯ‚ |
#### Productive Suffixes
| Suffix | Examples |
|--------|----------|
| `-ฮฝ` | ฮฟฯ€ฮฟฮฏฮฟฮฝ, ฮญฯฯ„ฮตฮฝ, ฯ„ฮนฯฮฌฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ |
| `-ฯ‚` | ฯ‡ฮตฯฯƒฯŒฮฝฮทฯƒฮฟฯ‚, ฮฑฮปฮฒฮฑฮฝฮฏฮฑฯ‚, ฮปฮญฮพฮตฮนฯ‚ |
| `-ฮฑฮฝ` | ฯฯ‰ฮผฮฑฮฝฮฏฮฑฮฝ, ฮฏฮฑฮฝ, ฮผฮฌฮฝฮฑฮฝ |
| `-ฮฑ` | ฯƒฯ…ฯƒฯ„ฮญฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ, ฯฯ‰ฮผฮฑฮฏฮนฮบฮฑ, ฮตฮณฮบฯ…ฮบฮปฮฟฯ€ฮฑฮฏฮดฮตฮนฮฑ |
| `-ฮฟฮฝ` | ฮฟฯ€ฮฟฮฏฮฟฮฝ, ฮบฯŒฮบฮบฮนฮฝฮฟฮฝ, ฯ€ฯฯŽฯ„ฮฟฮฝ |
| `-ฮฑฯ‚` | ฮฑฮปฮฒฮฑฮฝฮฏฮฑฯ‚, ฮตฯฮณฮฑฯƒฮฏฮฑฯ‚, ฮณฮฑฮปฮปฮฏฮฑฯ‚ |
| `-ฯŒฮฝ` | ฯ€ฮตฯฯƒฮนฮบฯŒฮฝ, ฯƒฮบฮฑฮฝฮดฮนฮฝฮฑฮฒฮนฮบฯŒฮฝ, ฮตฮธฮฝฮนฮบฯŒฮฝ |
| `-ฮฟฯ‚` | ฯ‡ฮตฯฯƒฯŒฮฝฮทฯƒฮฟฯ‚, ฯ„ฮญฮปฮฟฯ‚, ฮผฯฯฮฟฯ‚ |
### 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 |
|------|----------|------------------|----------|
| `ฮนฮบฯŒฮฝ` | 1.32x | 17 contexts | ฯ…ฮปฮนฮบฯŒฮฝ, ฮตฮนฮบฯŒฮฝฮฑ, ฮตฮฝฮนฮบฯŒฮฝ |
| `ฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ` | 1.41x | 10 contexts | ฮธฮญฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ, ฮฒฮฎฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ, ฯฮฎฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ |
| `ฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน` | 1.37x | 5 contexts | ฯˆฮญฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน, ฮฏฮฝฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน, ฮปฯฮตฯ„ฮฑฮน |
### 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 |
|--------|--------|-----------|----------|
| `-ฮต` | `-ฮฝ` | 127 words | ฮตฯ€ฮฟฮฏฮฝ, ฮตฮณฮตฮฝฮฝฮญฮธฮฑฮฝ |
| `-ฮฑ` | `-ฮฝ` | 79 words | ฮฑฮฝ, ฮฑฯƒฮฏฮฑฮฝ |
| `-ฯ€` | `-ฮฝ` | 65 words | ฯ€ฯฯŽฯ„ฮฟฮฝ, ฯ€ฮตฯฯƒฮนฮบฯŒฮฝ |
| `-ฮฑ` | `-ฯ‚` | 60 words | ฮฑฮปฮฒฮฑฮฝฮฏฮฑฯ‚, ฮฑฯ‡ฮฟฯ…ฮปฮฎฯ‚ |
| `-ฮบ` | `-ฮฝ` | 56 words | ฮบฯŒฮบฮบฮนฮฝฮฟฮฝ, ฮบฯฯฮฟฮฝ |
| `-ฮต` | `-ฮตฮฝ` | 54 words | ฮตฮดฮญฮฒฮตฮฝ, ฮตฯ†ฯ„ฮฌฯ„ฮตฮฝ |
| `-ฯƒ` | `-ฮฝ` | 49 words | ฯƒฮฌฮฒฮฒฮฑฯ„ฮฟฮฝ, ฯƒฮบฮฑฮฝฮดฮนฮฝฮฑฮฒฮนฮบฯŒฮฝ |
| `-ฯ€` | `-ฯ‚` | 44 words | ฯ€ฮฟฮดฮฟฯƒฯ†ฮฑฮนฯฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฎฯ‚, ฯ€ฮฑฯ€ฮฌฮดฮตฯ‚ |
| `-ฮบ` | `-ฯ‚` | 41 words | ฮบฮฑฯฮฑฮผฮฑฮฝฮปฮฎฯ‚, ฮบฮตฯฯ„ฯ‚ |
| `-ฮต` | `-ฮฑฮฝ` | 40 words | ฮตฮณฮตฮฝฮฝฮญฮธฮฑฮฝ, ฮตฯ€ฮทฯฮตฮฌฯƒฯ„ฮฑฮฝ |
### 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 |
|------|-----------------|------------|------|
| ฮณฯฮฌฯˆฮนฮผฮฑฯ„ฮฑ | **`ฮณฯฮฌฯˆฮนฮผ-ฮฑ-ฯ„ฮฑ`** | 7.5 | `ฮฑ` |
| ฮตฯ€ฮฟฮฏฮบฮตฮฝฮฑฯ„ฮฑ | **`ฮตฯ€ฮฟฮฏฮบฮตฮฝ-ฮฑ-ฯ„ฮฑ`** | 7.5 | `ฮฑ` |
| ฮปฮนฮธฮฟฯ…ฮฑฮฝฮฏฮฑ | **`ฮปฮนฮธฮฟฯ…-ฮฑฮฝ-ฮฏฮฑ`** | 7.5 | `ฮฑฮฝ` |
| ฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€ฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ | **`ฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€-ฮฟฯ…-ฯ‚`** | 6.0 | `ฮฑฮฝฮธฯฯŽฯ€` |
| ฮบฮฑฮปฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฌฯฯ„ฯ‚ | **`ฮบฮฑฮปฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฌฯฯ„-ฯ‚`** | 4.5 | `ฮบฮฑฮปฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮฌฯฯ„` |
| ฮฒฮนฮฟฮณฯฮฑฯ†ฮนฮบฯŒฮฝ | **`ฮฒฮนฮฟฮณฯฮฑฯ†ฮนฮบฯŒ-ฮฝ`** | 4.5 | `ฮฒฮนฮฟฮณฯฮฑฯ†ฮนฮบฯŒ` |
| ฯ…ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮฟฮณฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฎฮฝ | **`ฯ…ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮฟฮณฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฎ-ฮฝ`** | 4.5 | `ฯ…ฯ€ฮฟฮปฮฟฮณฮนฯƒฯ„ฮฎ` |
| ฯƒฮทฮผฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮนฮบฯŒฮฝ | **`ฯƒฮทฮผฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮนฮบฯŒ-ฮฝ`** | 4.5 | `ฯƒฮทฮผฮฑฮฝฯ„ฮนฮบฯŒ` |
| ฮบฮฑฮปฮฟฮผฮทฮฝฮฌฯ‚ | **`ฮบฮฑฮปฮฟฮผฮทฮฝฮฌ-ฯ‚`** | 4.5 | `ฮบฮฑฮปฮฟฮผฮทฮฝฮฌ` |
| ฮพฮตฯ‡ฯ‰ฯฮนฯƒฯ„ฯŒฮฝ | **`ฮพฮตฯ‡ฯ‰ฯฮนฯƒฯ„ฯŒ-ฮฝ`** | 4.5 | `ฮพฮตฯ‡ฯ‰ฯฮนฯƒฯ„ฯŒ` |
| ฯ€ฮตฯฮนฮฟฮดฮนฮบฯŒฮฝ | **`ฯ€ฮตฯฮนฮฟฮดฮนฮบฯŒ-ฮฝ`** | 4.5 | `ฯ€ฮตฯฮนฮฟฮดฮนฮบฯŒ` |
| ฮธฮตฯƒฯƒฮฑฮปฮฟฮฝฮฏฮบฮทฯ‚ | **`ฮธฮตฯƒฯƒฮฑฮปฮฟฮฝฮฏฮบฮท-ฯ‚`** | 4.5 | `ฮธฮตฯƒฯƒฮฑฮปฮฟฮฝฮฏฮบฮท` |
| ฮตฯฯ‡ฮฏฮฝฮตฯƒฮตฮฝ | **`ฮตฯฯ‡ฮฏฮฝฮตฯƒฮต-ฮฝ`** | 4.5 | `ฮตฯฯ‡ฮฏฮฝฮตฯƒฮต` |
| ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฟฯฮตฯฮฝฮต | **`ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฟฯฮตฯ-ฮฝฮต`** | 4.5 | `ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮฟฯฮตฯ` |
| ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮดฮญฮถฮผฮฑฮน | **`ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮดฮญฮถฮผ-ฮฑฮน`** | 4.5 | `ฯƒฯ…ฮฝฮดฮญฮถฮผ` |
### 6.6 Linguistic Interpretation
> **Automated Insight:**
The language Pontic 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
![Performance Dashboard](visualizations/performance_dashboard.png)
### Production Recommendations
| Component | Recommended | Rationale |
|-----------|-------------|-----------|
| Tokenizer | **32k BPE** | Best compression (3.67x) |
| N-gram | **3-gram** | Lowest perplexity (302) |
| Markov | **Context-4** | Highest predictability (97.8%) |
| 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) 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
- ๐ŸŒ Website: [wikilangs.org](https://wikilangs.org)
- ๐Ÿค— Models: [huggingface.co/wikilangs](https://huggingface.co/wikilangs)
- ๐Ÿ“Š Data: [wikipedia-monthly](https://huggingface.co/datasets/omarkamali/wikipedia-monthly)
- ๐Ÿ‘ค Author: [Omar Kamali](https://huggingface.co/omarkamali)
- ๐Ÿค Sponsor: [Featherless AI](https://featherless.ai)
---
*Generated by Wikilangs Models Pipeline*
*Report Date: 2026-01-10 18:08:17*