Kinyarwanda - Wikilangs Models

Comprehensive Research Report & Full Ablation Study

This repository contains NLP models trained and evaluated by Wikilangs, specifically on Kinyarwanda 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	3.440x	3.44	0.7778%	231,049
16k	3.758x	3.76	0.8498%	211,461
32k	4.054x	4.06	0.9168%	196,016
64k	4.330x 🏆	4.34	0.9791%	183,531

Tokenization Examples

Below are sample sentences tokenized with each vocabulary size:

Sample 1: Jibuti (izina mu cyarabu : جيبوتي ‎ ; izina mu gifaransa : Djibouti ) n’igihugu ...

Vocab	Tokens	Count
8k	▁j ibu ti ▁( izina ▁mu ▁cyarabu ▁: ▁ج ي ... (+20 more)	30
16k	▁jibu ti ▁( izina ▁mu ▁cyarabu ▁: ▁ج ي ب ... (+19 more)	29
32k	▁jibuti ▁( izina ▁mu ▁cyarabu ▁: ▁ج ي بو ت ... (+17 more)	27
64k	▁jibuti ▁( izina ▁mu ▁cyarabu ▁: ▁ج ي بو تي ... (+16 more)	26

Sample 2: Bizimana Abdu uzwi nka Bekeni wari umutoza wa Etincelles FC, akayibera umuyobozi...

Vocab	Tokens	Count
8k	▁bi zimana ▁abdu ▁uzwi ▁nka ▁be ke ni ▁wari ▁umutoza ... (+18 more)	28
16k	▁bizimana ▁abdu ▁uzwi ▁nka ▁be ke ni ▁wari ▁umutoza ▁wa ... (+15 more)	25
32k	▁bizimana ▁abdu ▁uzwi ▁nka ▁be ke ni ▁wari ▁umutoza ▁wa ... (+12 more)	22
64k	▁bizimana ▁abdu ▁uzwi ▁nka ▁be ke ni ▁wari ▁umutoza ▁wa ... (+12 more)	22

Sample 3: thumb Umusigiti wa mukuru muri Dubai (izina mu cyarabu: مسجد دبي الكبير) ni umus...

Vocab	Tokens	Count
8k	▁thumb ▁umusigiti ▁wa ▁mukuru ▁muri ▁du bai ▁( izina ▁mu ... (+29 more)	39
16k	▁thumb ▁umusigiti ▁wa ▁mukuru ▁muri ▁dubai ▁( izina ▁mu ▁cyarabu ... (+24 more)	34
32k	▁thumb ▁umusigiti ▁wa ▁mukuru ▁muri ▁dubai ▁( izina ▁mu ▁cyarabu ... (+19 more)	29
64k	▁thumb ▁umusigiti ▁wa ▁mukuru ▁muri ▁dubai ▁( izina ▁mu ▁cyarabu ... (+19 more)	29

Key Findings

• Best Compression: 64k achieves 4.330x compression
• Lowest UNK Rate: 8k with 0.7778% 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	18,987	14.21	53,674	10.8%	31.0%
2-gram	Subword	211 🏆	7.72	3,711	74.0%	99.6%
3-gram	Word	34,739	15.08	72,467	7.4%	22.2%
3-gram	Subword	1,627	10.67	26,865	29.4%	80.4%
4-gram	Word	91,637	16.48	141,823	3.7%	12.2%
4-gram	Subword	8,816	13.11	136,860	12.5%	45.0%
5-gram	Word	80,915	16.30	108,276	3.1%	10.7%
5-gram	Subword	31,538	14.94	354,876	6.7%	26.2%

Top 5 N-grams by Size

2-grams (Word):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	mu rwanda	5,463
2	u rwanda	4,916
3	ku ya	3,826
4	mu mwaka	3,035
5	ndetse n	2,749

3-grams (Word):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	mu mwaka wa	2,056
2	y u rwanda	1,711
3	mu karere ka	1,652
4	umupira w amaguru	1,081
5	ihuza ryo hanze	917

4-grams (Word):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	repubulika iharanira demokarasi ya	738
2	iharanira demokarasi ya kongo	731
3	reba ihuza ryo hanze	632
4	muri afurika y epfo	365
5	ukina umupira w amaguru	346

5-grams (Word):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	repubulika iharanira demokarasi ya kongo	686
2	umukinnyi ukina umupira w amaguru	271
3	ni umukinnyi ukina umupira w	248
4	izina ry ubumenyi mu kilatini	240
5	leta zunze ubumwe z amerika	203

2-grams (Subword):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	a _	625,374
2	e _	368,094
3	i _	293,023
4	a n	290,094
5	o _	286,827

3-grams (Subword):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	_ m u	160,364
2	r i _	100,543
3	_ k u	99,022
4	r a _	93,428
5	m u _	88,869

4-grams (Subword):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	_ m u _	84,002
2	u r i _	57,539
3	a _ m u	45,538
4	_ m u r	43,557
5	m u r i	42,556

5-grams (Subword):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	_ m u r i	39,861
2	m u r i _	39,743
3	a _ m u _	25,873
4	e _ m u _	22,150
5	_ m u _ m	20,415

Key Findings

• Best Perplexity: 2-gram (subword) with 211
• Entropy Trend: Decreases with larger n-grams (more predictable)
• Coverage: Top-1000 patterns cover ~26% 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	0.8463	1.798	6.38	163,621	15.4%
1	Subword	0.8435	1.794	6.17	1,743	15.7%
2	Word	0.2628	1.200	1.68	1,040,519	73.7%
2	Subword	0.8424	1.793	5.13	10,741	15.8%
3	Word	0.0947	1.068	1.17	1,737,932	90.5%
3	Subword	0.8178	1.763	4.19	55,059	18.2%
4	Word	0.0364 🏆	1.026	1.06	2,027,315	96.4%
4	Subword	0.6852	1.608	2.97	230,427	31.5%

Generated Text Samples (Word-based)

Below are text samples generated from each word-based Markov chain model:

Context Size 1:

1. mu buryo ababukora batabukora neza 2 n umuryango w ukwezi kwa muganga cyangwa bashyizeho amakaro gif...
2. n imwe iyo mibare ari umukunzi we washinze kandi ifite umukara amaguru bakiri mu kugabanya ubutaka
3. muri na dabby chimere muriyi filime nibwo yambitswe ikamba agaciro no muri drc ubuzima n imyumbati

Context Size 2:

1. mu rwanda nka kaminuza ifunguye mu bwongereza agakingirizo ni uburyo abanyarwanda bo hambere bateka ...
2. u rwanda rugeze rwiyubaka ndetse akishimira icyerekezo igihugu gifite abaturage 6 kwigisha ubuhanga ...
3. ku ya 7 nyakanga itangira ku mwanya wa gatandatu mu mikino olempike mu gihugu akatirwa igifungo kire...

Context Size 3:

1. mu mwaka wa na padiri hitimana waje kucyirukanwamo bivugwa ko byagizwemo uruhare n uwitwa musonera f...
2. mu karere ka bugesera haboneka inamaz ihariye zirebana no guhangana nicyo kibazo cya abana mu miirya...
3. y u rwanda gutera busongora kuko yatekerezaga ko kamaliza akiri muto agikeneye umuntu ujya mu kimbo ...

Context Size 4:

1. repubulika iharanira demokarasi ya kongo afite imyaka 13 yaje mu bubiligi bitewe nuko nyina yashakan...
2. iharanira demokarasi ya kongo mu mukino wa gicuti 0 0 imibare reba wa congo
3. reba ihuza ryo hanze u rwanda mu gutanga amasoko atandukanye u rwanda rwabonye amashanyarazi ya mber...

Generated Text Samples (Subword-based)

Below are text samples generated from each subword-based Markov chain model:

Context Size 1:

1. _yangit'd_uge,_n
2. ano_kwa_ranga_gs
3. i_ma_kure_mu_ne_

Context Size 2:

1. a_a_wuge_yumu_bya
2. e_kwicingarerandi
3. i_ko_(kuza_mya_ir

Context Size 3:

1. _mu_bara:_munta_ic
2. ri_ebya_kare_bushy
3. _kubakororidageneg

Context Size 4:

1. _mu_rwanyarwaye_mu_
2. uri_ndijk_africa_pr
3. a_muri_w'ama_imye_a

Key Findings

• Best Predictability: Context-4 (word) with 96.4% predictability
• Branching Factor: Decreases with context size (more deterministic)
• Memory Trade-off: Larger contexts require more storage (230,427 contexts)
• Recommendation: Context-3 or Context-4 for text generation

---

4. Vocabulary Analysis

Statistics

Metric	Value
Vocabulary Size	71,439
Total Tokens	2,285,892
Mean Frequency	32.00
Median Frequency	4
Frequency Std Dev	512.25

Most Common Words

Rank	Word	Frequency
1	mu	84,764
2	n	44,189
3	muri	39,306
4	y	32,989
5	ya	31,781
6	ku	30,372
7	na	26,704
8	wa	20,501
9	ni	18,825
10	kandi	14,981

Least Common Words (from vocabulary)

Rank	Word	Frequency
1	faddis	2
2	twiganye	2
3	pierson	2
4	whitehead	2
5	imposing	2
6	whirlwind	2
7	abwire	2
8	verve	2
9	bassiste	2
10	pinderhughes	2

Zipf's Law Analysis

Metric	Value
Zipf Coefficient	1.1070
R² (Goodness of Fit)	0.990401
Adherence Quality	excellent

Coverage Analysis

Top N Words	Coverage
Top 100	33.8%
Top 1,000	62.0%
Top 5,000	81.1%
Top 10,000	87.4%

Key Findings

• Zipf Compliance: R²=0.9904 indicates excellent adherence to Zipf's law
• High Frequency Dominance: Top 100 words cover 33.8% of corpus
• Long Tail: 61,439 words needed for remaining 12.6% 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	0.8846	0.3598	N/A	N/A
mono_64d	64	0.8628	0.2440	N/A	N/A
mono_128d	128	0.8154	0.1705	N/A	N/A
aligned_32d	32	0.8846 🏆	0.3561	0.0400	0.2600
aligned_64d	64	0.8628	0.2297	0.1180	0.3800
aligned_128d	128	0.8154	0.1717	0.1600	0.4620

Key Findings

• Best Isotropy: aligned_32d with 0.8846 (more uniform distribution)
• Semantic Density: Average pairwise similarity of 0.2553. Lower values indicate better semantic separation.
• Alignment Quality: Aligned models achieve up to 16.0% 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	-0.590	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
-a	azitandukanya, agbada, anitta
-ba	bariciwe, batisimu, barware
-b	bwakorwaga, bubarizwa, bonnaterre
-m	marked, moi, mtb
-i	ikurikiyeho, ibyinitse, influenced
-n	ninini, ntacyananira, niño
-s	strigiformes, santa, slowakiya
-ma	marked, malagarasi, makossa

Productive Suffixes

Suffix	Examples
-a	azitandukanya, agbada, anitta
-e	kubagore, tubakunde, rugwe
-o	ukorerwamo, cyigo, zubuhumekero
-ra	byinzara, ntacyananira, banywera
-ye	twakagombye, bikoranye, cyicaye
-i	ubukanishi, umusesenguzi, funji
-wa	hagashyirwa, bubarizwa, bigikorwa
-we	rugwe, abimuwe, bariciwe

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
ores	2.61x	62 contexts	forest, flores, scores
anga	1.61x	275 contexts	banga, langa, zanga
mber	2.03x	60 contexts	mbera, imber, amber
atan	1.63x	165 contexts	atanu, zlatan, satani
ngan	1.73x	120 contexts	ngano, ngange, ungana
ihug	2.53x	25 contexts	ihugu, bihugu, gihugu
aban	1.54x	200 contexts	abana, abanu, yabana
ikor	1.64x	138 contexts	ikora, ikoro, ikore
amas	1.96x	56 contexts	damas, amaso, amase
anda	1.67x	114 contexts	andam, randa, panda
shin	1.67x	112 contexts	shina, oshin, shine
ubur	1.73x	84 contexts	ubura, uburo, rubura

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
-k	-a	297 words	kuzenguruka, kudaha
-a	-a	252 words	azerubayija, atarahabwa
-b	-a	240 words	bwanwa, baha
-b	-e	230 words	bristlecone, barateye
-i	-a	226 words	izitera, iyihanganira
-ba	-a	170 words	baha, bahashinga
-i	-e	136 words	inshinge, ikingiye
-a	-e	133 words	abaturajye, ardenne
-ba	-e	119 words	barateye, babonye
-i	-o	119 words	ihitamo, ikirushijeho

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
yoherezayo	yohereza-y-o	7.5	y
wimibereho	wimiber-e-ho	7.5	e
bakamujya	ba-ka-mujya	7.5	mujya
porofeseri	porofes-e-ri	7.5	e
umurynago	umury-na-go	7.5	na
yiyumvagamo	yiyumvag-a-mo	7.5	a
byanditseho	byandits-e-ho	7.5	e
byakongera	byakong-e-ra	7.5	e
karidinari	karidin-a-ri	7.5	a
ashushanyijeho	ashushanyij-e-ho	7.5	e
accessories	accesso-ri-es	7.5	ri
kwerekera	kwerek-e-ra	7.5	e
ikigabiro	ikigab-i-ro	7.5	i
akanyamasyo	akanyamas-y-o	7.5	y
rwagennye	rwagen-n-ye	7.5	n

6.6 Linguistic Interpretation

Automated Insight: The language Kinyarwanda 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 (4.33x)
N-gram	2-gram	Lowest perplexity (211)
Markov	Context-4	Highest predictability (96.4%)
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

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 - a monthly snapshot of Wikipedia articles across 300+ languages.

Project

A project by Wikilangs - Open-source NLP models for every Wikipedia language.

Maintainer

Omar Kamali - Omneity Labs

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 19:15:41