--- language: sq language_name: Albanian language_family: albanian 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-albanian license: mit library_name: wikilangs pipeline_tag: text-generation datasets: - omarkamali/wikipedia-monthly dataset_info: name: wikipedia-monthly description: Monthly snapshots of Wikipedia articles across 300+ languages metrics: - name: best_compression_ratio type: compression value: 4.622 - name: best_isotropy type: isotropy value: 0.7903 - name: vocabulary_size type: vocab value: 0 generated: 2026-01-11 --- # Albanian - Wikilangs Models ## Comprehensive Research Report & Full Ablation Study This repository contains NLP models trained and evaluated by Wikilangs, specifically on **Albanian** 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 ![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** | 3.687x | 3.69 | 0.1022% | 1,633,568 | | **16k** | 4.049x | 4.05 | 0.1123% | 1,487,544 | | **32k** | 4.376x | 4.38 | 0.1213% | 1,376,347 | | **64k** | 4.622x 🏆 | 4.62 | 0.1281% | 1,303,233 | ### Tokenization Examples Below are sample sentences tokenized with each vocabulary size: **Sample 1:** `Ă«shtĂ« vendbanim nĂ« Ish RepublikĂ«n Jugosllave tĂ« MaqedonisĂ«. nĂ« komunĂ«n e NovacĂ«s` | Vocab | Tokens | Count | |-------|--------|-------| | 8k | `▁ështĂ« ▁vendbanim ▁nĂ« ▁ish ▁republikĂ«n ▁jugosllave ▁tĂ« ▁maqedonisĂ« . ▁nĂ« ... (+5 more)` | 15 | | 16k | `▁ështĂ« ▁vendbanim ▁nĂ« ▁ish ▁republikĂ«n ▁jugosllave ▁tĂ« ▁maqedonisĂ« . ▁nĂ« ... (+4 more)` | 14 | | 32k | `▁ështĂ« ▁vendbanim ▁nĂ« ▁ish ▁republikĂ«n ▁jugosllave ▁tĂ« ▁maqedonisĂ« . ▁nĂ« ... (+4 more)` | 14 | | 64k | `▁ështĂ« ▁vendbanim ▁nĂ« ▁ish ▁republikĂ«n ▁jugosllave ▁tĂ« ▁maqedonisĂ« . ▁nĂ« ... (+4 more)` | 14 | **Sample 2:** `Mbi vitin 390 p.e.s.. Ngjarje Lindje Vdekje 390 p.e.s. p.e.s.` | Vocab | Tokens | Count | |-------|--------|-------| | 8k | `▁mbi ▁vitin ▁ 3 9 0 ▁p . e . ... (+21 more)` | 31 | | 16k | `▁mbi ▁vitin ▁ 3 9 0 ▁p . e . ... (+21 more)` | 31 | | 32k | `▁mbi ▁vitin ▁ 3 9 0 ▁p . e . ... (+21 more)` | 31 | | 64k | `▁mbi ▁vitin ▁ 3 9 0 ▁p . e . ... (+21 more)` | 31 | **Sample 3:** `Shqiponja Perandorake e Lindjes (Aquila heliaca) Ă«shtĂ« njĂ« ShqiponjĂ« e madhe mbr...` | Vocab | Tokens | Count | |-------|--------|-------| | 8k | `▁shqip on ja ▁perandora ke ▁e ▁lindjes ▁( aqu ila ... (+20 more)` | 30 | | 16k | `▁shqiponja ▁perandorake ▁e ▁lindjes ▁( aqu ila ▁he lia ca ... (+16 more)` | 26 | | 32k | `▁shqiponja ▁perandorake ▁e ▁lindjes ▁( aqu ila ▁he lia ca ... (+15 more)` | 25 | | 64k | `▁shqiponja ▁perandorake ▁e ▁lindjes ▁( aqu ila ▁he lia ca ... (+12 more)` | 22 | ### Key Findings - **Best Compression:** 64k achieves 4.622x compression - **Lowest UNK Rate:** 8k with 0.1022% 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 | 103,585 | 16.66 | 735,922 | 8.7% | 21.6% | | **2-gram** | Subword | 273 🏆 | 8.09 | 13,805 | 67.0% | 99.1% | | **3-gram** | Word | 407,031 | 18.63 | 1,487,174 | 3.6% | 11.6% | | **3-gram** | Subword | 2,395 | 11.23 | 109,546 | 26.0% | 70.6% | | **4-gram** | Word | 1,138,059 | 20.12 | 2,670,902 | 2.8% | 7.3% | | **4-gram** | Subword | 14,457 | 13.82 | 620,829 | 12.9% | 37.9% | | **5-gram** | Word | 918,336 | 19.81 | 1,883,419 | 3.3% | 7.9% | | **5-gram** | Subword | 61,644 | 15.91 | 2,032,514 | 7.3% | 23.3% | ### Top 5 N-grams by Size **2-grams (Word):** | Rank | N-gram | Count | |------|--------|-------| | 1 | `pĂ«r tĂ«` | 102,538 | | 2 | `nĂ« vitin` | 94,038 | | 3 | `e tij` | 91,198 | | 4 | `Ă«shtĂ« njĂ«` | 86,400 | | 5 | `mĂ« tĂ«` | 65,002 | **3-grams (Word):** | Rank | N-gram | Count | |------|--------|-------| | 1 | `lidhje tĂ« jashtme` | 34,104 | | 2 | `pĂ«r shkak tĂ«` | 15,607 | | 3 | `e tij tĂ«` | 14,217 | | 4 | `Ă«shtĂ« njĂ« komunĂ«` | 12,600 | | 5 | `referime lidhje tĂ«` | 12,450 | **4-grams (Word):** | Rank | N-gram | Count | |------|--------|-------| | 1 | `referime lidhje tĂ« jashtme` | 12,389 | | 2 | `Ă«shtĂ« njĂ« komunĂ« nĂ«` | 9,790 | | 3 | `referimet lidhje tĂ« jashtme` | 8,703 | | 4 | `pĂ«r herĂ« tĂ« parĂ«` | 6,794 | | 5 | `ka njĂ« popullsi prej` | 5,533 | **5-grams (Word):** | Rank | N-gram | Count | |------|--------|-------| | 1 | `km referimet lidhje tĂ« jashtme` | 4,615 | | 2 | `lidhje tĂ« jashtme informacion i` | 3,985 | | 3 | `tĂ« jashtme informacion i pĂ«rgjithshĂ«m` | 3,984 | | 4 | `informacion i pĂ«rgjithshĂ«m harta e` | 3,984 | | 5 | `i pĂ«rgjithshĂ«m harta e kantonit` | 3,984 | **2-grams (Subword):** | Rank | N-gram | Count | |------|--------|-------| | 1 | `Ă« _` | 7,800,858 | | 2 | `e _` | 6,917,648 | | 3 | `_ n` | 3,861,981 | | 4 | `t Ă«` | 3,696,217 | | 5 | `_ t` | 3,628,673 | **3-grams (Subword):** | Rank | N-gram | Count | |------|--------|-------| | 1 | `t Ă« _` | 2,956,258 | | 2 | `n Ă« _` | 2,160,628 | | 3 | `_ t Ă«` | 2,148,124 | | 4 | `_ e _` | 1,801,956 | | 5 | `_ n Ă«` | 1,679,817 | **4-grams (Subword):** | Rank | N-gram | Count | |------|--------|-------| | 1 | `_ t Ă« _` | 2,122,187 | | 2 | `_ n Ă« _` | 1,575,702 | | 3 | `d h e _` | 1,117,215 | | 4 | `_ d h e` | 974,183 | | 5 | `_ p Ă« r` | 960,414 | **5-grams (Subword):** | Rank | N-gram | Count | |------|--------|-------| | 1 | `_ d h e _` | 966,499 | | 2 | `_ n j Ă« _` | 630,318 | | 3 | `e _ t Ă« _` | 584,704 | | 4 | `_ p Ă« r _` | 452,162 | | 5 | `_ n g a _` | 451,796 | ### Key Findings - **Best Perplexity:** 2-gram (subword) with 273 - **Entropy Trend:** Decreases with larger n-grams (more predictable) - **Coverage:** Top-1000 patterns cover ~23% 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 | 0.9594 | 1.945 | 9.98 | 960,080 | 4.1% | | **1** | Subword | 1.0835 | 2.119 | 7.10 | 7,063 | 0.0% | | **2** | Word | 0.3588 | 1.282 | 2.30 | 9,558,817 | 64.1% | | **2** | Subword | 0.7555 | 1.688 | 4.95 | 50,088 | 24.4% | | **3** | Word | 0.1576 | 1.115 | 1.37 | 21,934,967 | 84.2% | | **3** | Subword | 0.7799 | 1.717 | 4.37 | 247,611 | 22.0% | | **4** | Word | 0.0660 🏆 | 1.047 | 1.12 | 29,902,129 | 93.4% | | **4** | Subword | 0.7135 | 1.640 | 3.50 | 1,082,029 | 28.7% | ### Generated Text Samples (Word-based) Below are text samples generated from each word-based Markov chain model: **Context Size 1:** 1. `tĂ« energjisĂ« siq Ă«shtĂ« i konsideroi gjithashtu edhe pak tĂ« dhe republika bosna nĂ« tĂ« cilat` 2. `e shkelte nĂ« indi i cili ia doli si zĂ«vendĂ«s trajner tĂ« clintonit mĂ« shumĂ« zbulime` 3. `nĂ« maduranthakam chennai shqip tĂ« jashtme html kultura e liqenit tĂ« njĂ«jtin vit 5 vezĂ« nga` **Context Size 2:** 1. `pĂ«r tĂ« kuptuar fuqinĂ« e fjalĂ«ve dhe shprehjeve tĂ« pastra ishin tĂ« lirĂ« nuk Ă«shtĂ« e pasur` 2. `nĂ« vitin si regjisor aktor dhe çmimin kombĂ«tar azem shkreli shkrimtar shqiptarĂ« akademik i tipit gjy...` 3. `e tij hidrogjenin dhe squfuri nuk mund tĂ« jenĂ« nĂ« gjendje tĂ« zhvendoste kryeqytetin e tyre los` **Context Size 3:** 1. `lidhje tĂ« jashtme insee quinson` 2. `pĂ«r shkak tĂ« papunĂ«sisĂ« Ă«shtĂ« dukshĂ«m negativ efekti i dytĂ« qĂ« ra nga kategoria nĂ« nivel ndĂ«rkombĂ«ta...` 3. `e tij tĂ« ardhshme ilenia betti mĂ« tĂ« cilĂ«n pati njĂ« djalĂ« me nofkĂ«n candlewick i cili do` **Context Size 4:** 1. `referime lidhje tĂ« jashtme profili tek chelseafc com profili tek goal com andrea ranocchia tek uefa ...` 2. `Ă«shtĂ« njĂ« komunĂ« nĂ« spanjĂ« e vendosur nĂ« qarkun alt urgell tĂ« provincĂ«s lleida nĂ« katalonia ponts ka...` 3. `referimet lidhje tĂ« jashtme insee saint didier sur chalaronne Ă«shtĂ« njĂ« komunĂ« franceze e cila ndodh...` ### Generated Text Samples (Subword-based) Below are text samples generated from each subword-based Markov chain model: **Context Size 1:** 1. `_2,_uamjĂ«_nsisia` 2. `e_dmurĂ«,_prornda` 3. `isha_prare_j_pĂ«s` **Context Size 2:** 1. `Ă«_mun)._fulĂ«_lojĂ«` 2. `e_çdoi_nger_me_pu` 3. `_njepsemejatĂ«_lat` **Context Size 3:** 1. `tĂ«_zbulloges_tĂ«_ep` 2. `nĂ«_mundin_e_munim,` 3. `_tĂ«_tij_ca._shtu_n` **Context Size 4:** 1. `_tĂ«_pjesĂ«_egjimi_qĂ«` 2. `_nĂ«_qartĂ«sisht_pĂ«r_` 3. `dhe_filmin_e_fsk-sĂ«` ### Key Findings - **Best Predictability:** Context-4 (word) with 93.4% predictability - **Branching Factor:** Decreases with context size (more deterministic) - **Memory Trade-off:** Larger contexts require more storage (1,082,029 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 | 445,748 | | Total Tokens | 37,825,256 | | Mean Frequency | 84.86 | | Median Frequency | 4 | | Frequency Std Dev | 5646.34 | ### Most Common Words | Rank | Word | Frequency | |------|------|-----------| | 1 | tĂ« | 2,156,535 | | 2 | e | 1,823,346 | | 3 | nĂ« | 1,592,899 | | 4 | dhe | 973,190 | | 5 | i | 901,212 | | 6 | njĂ« | 639,479 | | 7 | me | 483,719 | | 8 | pĂ«r | 456,456 | | 9 | nga | 456,107 | | 10 | Ă«shtĂ« | 317,914 | ### Least Common Words (from vocabulary) | Rank | Word | Frequency | |------|------|-----------| | 1 | hofbrĂ€u | 2 | | 2 | steckerlfisch | 2 | | 3 | 0i | 2 | | 4 | 0tendĂ« | 2 | | 5 | guglhupf | 2 | | 6 | wildmoser | 2 | | 7 | zynq | 2 | | 8 | systemc | 2 | | 9 | ogrenci | 2 | | 10 | memik | 2 | ### Zipf's Law Analysis | Metric | Value | |--------|-------| | Zipf Coefficient | 0.9377 | | RÂČ (Goodness of Fit) | 0.997109 | | Adherence Quality | **excellent** | ### Coverage Analysis | Top N Words | Coverage | |-------------|----------| | Top 100 | 41.4% | | Top 1,000 | 58.5% | | Top 5,000 | 73.7% | | Top 10,000 | 80.4% | ### Key Findings - **Zipf Compliance:** RÂČ=0.9971 indicates excellent adherence to Zipf's law - **High Frequency Dominance:** Top 100 words cover 41.4% of corpus - **Long Tail:** 435,748 words needed for remaining 19.6% 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 | 0.7903 🏆 | 0.3749 | N/A | N/A | | **mono_64d** | 64 | 0.7310 | 0.2949 | N/A | N/A | | **mono_128d** | 128 | 0.6419 | 0.2452 | N/A | N/A | | **aligned_32d** | 32 | 0.7903 | 0.3890 | 0.2580 | 0.6680 | | **aligned_64d** | 64 | 0.7310 | 0.2993 | 0.4940 | 0.8400 | | **aligned_128d** | 128 | 0.6419 | 0.2548 | 0.6120 | 0.8980 | ### Key Findings - **Best Isotropy:** mono_32d with 0.7903 (more uniform distribution) - **Semantic Density:** Average pairwise similarity of 0.3097. Lower values indicate better semantic separation. - **Alignment Quality:** Aligned models achieve up to 61.2% 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 | **-0.661** | 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` | stroheim, shestani, shenjtĂ«oren | | `-a` | audiovizualeve, aktroj, alsek | | `-b` | bronislawa, bpmn, beige | | `-ma` | matricĂ«n, matĂ«rialit, marie | | `-m` | matricĂ«n, muskĂ«s, matĂ«rialit | | `-k` | krille, kobuleti, kontemporane | | `-p` | performuar, pile, protoshqipisht | | `-d` | drogave, duanĂ«, delk | #### Productive Suffixes | Suffix | Examples | |--------|----------| | `-e` | krille, rriteshe, craniate | | `-t` | lincolnit, protoshqipisht, waset | | `-n` | nderrohen, njomen, shenjtĂ«oren | | `-a` | bronislawa, sphyrna, pawaia | | `-s` | gronovius, objectives, sphenophalos | | `-i` | kobuleti, shestani, sendai | | `-it` | lincolnit, nishanit, abdulbasit | | `-in` | xhemin, korpusin, kukumin | ### 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 | |------|----------|------------------|----------| | `etit` | 2.01x | 131 contexts | getit, letit, eetit | | `itha` | 2.18x | 66 contexts | sitha, ithac, pitha | | `ioni` | 1.65x | 233 contexts | pioni, rioni, ionic | | `rish` | 1.58x | 273 contexts | irish, rrish, prish | | `Ă«sis` | 1.99x | 80 contexts | njĂ«sis, njĂ«sisĂ«, malĂ«sis | | `gjit` | 1.81x | 118 contexts | gjith, ngjit, gjita | | `itet` | 1.68x | 129 contexts | pitet, mitet, hitet | | `jith` | 2.00x | 58 contexts | gjith, gjithi, gjitho | | `rejt` | 1.64x | 143 contexts | krejt, grejt, drejt | | `htet` | 1.95x | 64 contexts | shtet, shtetĂ«, shteto | | `ptar` | 2.67x | 18 contexts | loptar, guptar, ĆĄiptar | | `efer` | 1.70x | 80 contexts | sefer, refer, nefer | ### 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` | `-e` | 113 words | publicae, prokurorie | | `-s` | `-e` | 98 words | sketerre, shokve | | `-k` | `-t` | 89 words | konotacionet, kurtit | | `-s` | `-n` | 86 words | sankirtan, seksizmin | | `-p` | `-t` | 82 words | pleasant, pinet | | `-p` | `-n` | 81 words | prathan, ponton | | `-s` | `-a` | 76 words | soraya, shkreta | | `-k` | `-i` | 74 words | klorifikimi, kopulimi | | `-a` | `-e` | 72 words | akide, ayrshire | | `-s` | `-s` | 70 words | sunexpress, saldues | ### 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 | |------|-----------------|------------|------| | asteriskĂ«t | **`asteris-k-Ă«t`** | 7.5 | `k` | | mbaheshin | **`mbahe-sh-in`** | 7.5 | `sh` | | hugjenotĂ« | **`hugjeno-t-Ă«`** | 7.5 | `t` | | grassroots | **`grassroo-t-s`** | 7.5 | `t` | | kalorĂ«siakĂ« | **`kalorĂ«sia-k-Ă«`** | 7.5 | `k` | | kushĂ«riren | **`kushĂ«ri-re-n`** | 7.5 | `re` | | parameswara | **`paramesw-ar-a`** | 7.5 | `ar` | | aliagatit | **`aliaga-t-it`** | 7.5 | `t` | | koretisht | **`koreti-sh-t`** | 7.5 | `sh` | | arimateas | **`arimate-a-s`** | 7.5 | `a` | | firdeusin | **`firdeu-s-in`** | 7.5 | `s` | | gjithĂ«kund | **`gjithĂ«ku-n-d`** | 7.5 | `n` | | producteurs | **`producteu-r-s`** | 7.5 | `r` | | vetĂ«vranĂ« | **`vetĂ«v-ra-nĂ«`** | 7.5 | `ra` | | georgjane | **`georgja-n-e`** | 7.5 | `n` | ### 6.6 Linguistic Interpretation > **Automated Insight:** The language Albanian 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 ![Performance Dashboard](visualizations/performance_dashboard.png) ### Production Recommendations | Component | Recommended | Rationale | |-----------|-------------|-----------| | Tokenizer | **64k BPE** | Best compression (4.62x) | | N-gram | **2-gram** | Lowest perplexity (273) | | Markov | **Context-4** | Highest predictability (93.4%) | | 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. **RÂČ (Coefficient of Determination)** > *Definition:* Measures how well the linear fit explains the frequency-rank relationship. Ranges from 0 to 1. > > *Intuition:* RÂČ near 1.0 means the data closely follows Zipf's law; lower values indicate deviation from expected word frequency patterns. > > *What to seek:* RÂČ > 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 - 🌐 Website: [wikilangs.org](https://wikilangs.org) - đŸ€— Models: [huggingface.co/wikilangs](https://huggingface.co/wikilangs) - 📊 Data: [wikipedia-monthly](https://huggingface.co/datasets/omarkamali/wikipedia-monthly) - đŸ‘€ Author: [Omar Kamali](https://huggingface.co/omarkamali) - đŸ€ Sponsor: [Featherless AI](https://featherless.ai) --- *Generated by Wikilangs Models Pipeline* *Report Date: 2026-01-11 00:57:18*