Atayal - Wikilangs Models

Comprehensive Research Report & Full Ablation Study

This repository contains NLP models trained and evaluated by Wikilangs, specifically on Atayal 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	3.548x	3.55	0.2003%	384,001
16k	3.734x	3.74	0.2108%	364,864
32k	3.856x	3.86	0.2176%	353,338
64k	3.937x 🏆	3.94	0.2222%	346,059

Tokenization Examples

Below are sample sentences tokenized with each vocabulary size:

Sample 1: Will Arnett kawas tay ryax sa tay 4 nqu tay 5, Will Arnett, squliq na Bunge’. ci...

Vocab	Tokens	Count
8k	▁will ▁arn ett ▁kawas ▁tay ▁ryax ▁sa ▁tay ▁ 4 ... (+24 more)	34
16k	▁will ▁arn ett ▁kawas ▁tay ▁ryax ▁sa ▁tay ▁ 4 ... (+24 more)	34
32k	▁will ▁arnett ▁kawas ▁tay ▁ryax ▁sa ▁tay ▁ 4 ▁nqu ... (+22 more)	32
64k	▁will ▁arnett ▁kawas ▁tay ▁ryax ▁sa ▁tay ▁ 4 ▁nqu ... (+22 more)	32

Sample 2: cingay balay llamu/kinkyalan nya phpah. hoqay su' abaw na phpah qasa lwah. iyat ...

Vocab	Tokens	Count
8k	▁cingay ▁balay ▁llamu / k ink yalan ▁nya ▁phpah . ... (+18 more)	28
16k	▁cingay ▁balay ▁llamu / k ink yalan ▁nya ▁phpah . ... (+16 more)	26
32k	▁cingay ▁balay ▁llamu / kinkyalan ▁nya ▁phpah . ▁hoqay ▁su ... (+12 more)	22
64k	▁cingay ▁balay ▁llamu / kinkyalan ▁nya ▁phpah . ▁hoqay ▁su ... (+12 more)	22

Sample 3: ksxun (被敬重) Mrhuw Yumimg ka ksxun nha mita kwara maki qalang sami. (由命耆老在我們部落很受人...

Vocab	Tokens	Count
8k	▁ks xun ▁( 被 敬 重 ) ▁mrhuw ▁yu mi ... (+26 more)	36
16k	▁ks xun ▁( 被 敬重 ) ▁mrhuw ▁yu mim g ... (+23 more)	33
32k	▁ksxun ▁( 被敬重 ) ▁mrhuw ▁yumimg ▁ka ▁ksxun ▁nha ▁mita ... (+10 more)	20
64k	▁ksxun ▁( 被敬重 ) ▁mrhuw ▁yumimg ▁ka ▁ksxun ▁nha ▁mita ... (+9 more)	19

Key Findings

• Best Compression: 64k achieves 3.937x compression
• Lowest UNK Rate: 8k with 0.2003% 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	3,184	11.64	13,869	25.5%	63.6%
2-gram	Subword	260 🏆	8.02	5,715	71.6%	98.1%
3-gram	Word	4,214	12.04	22,311	25.5%	60.8%
3-gram	Subword	1,646	10.68	21,057	33.3%	78.1%
4-gram	Word	9,656	13.24	54,321	21.7%	50.4%
4-gram	Subword	6,466	12.66	75,451	18.1%	52.9%
5-gram	Word	9,511	13.22	50,500	22.2%	50.1%
5-gram	Subword	15,348	13.91	137,181	11.7%	39.8%

Top 5 N-grams by Size

2-grams (Word):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	hya ga	6,473
2	s uli	2,840
3	gyencumin ga	2,299
4	uli tayan	2,183
5	pqwasan biru	1,860

3-grams (Word):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	s uli tayan	2,182
2	pinspngan gyencumin ga	1,473
3	kwara s uli	1,448
4	hi ku kwara	1,445
5	ku kwara s	1,445

4-grams (Word):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	hi ku kwara s	1,445
2	ku kwara s uli	1,445
3	kwara s uli tayan	1,445
4	sa knita sa brbiru	1,401
5	cinkhulan sa knita sa	1,401

5-grams (Word):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	ku kwara s uli tayan	1,445
2	hi ku kwara s uli	1,445
3	cinkhulan sa knita sa brbiru	1,401
4	sa knita sa brbiru lists	882
5	knita sa brbiru lists of	882

2-grams (Subword):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	a _	122,942
2	a n	88,116
3	y a	79,076
4	_ n	70,851
5	g a	62,384

3-grams (Subword):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	a n _	44,559
2	_ n a	40,951
3	n a _	34,903
4	n g _	30,103
5	_ g a	29,840

4-grams (Subword):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	_ n a _	32,577
2	_ g a _	21,648
3	_ t a y	16,975
4	t a y _	12,076
5	a n g _	11,989

5-grams (Subword):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	_ t a y _	10,709
2	k a w a s	8,363
3	_ k a w a	7,754
4	a w a s _	7,042
5	y a ’ _ g	6,882

Key Findings

• Best Perplexity: 2-gram (subword) with 260
• Entropy Trend: Decreases with larger n-grams (more predictable)
• Coverage: Top-1000 patterns cover ~40% 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	0.6602	1.580	4.61	39,339	34.0%
1	Subword	1.7512	3.366	12.08	3,139	0.0%
2	Word	0.2844	1.218	1.71	181,030	71.6%
2	Subword	0.4330	1.350	2.34	37,911	56.7%
3	Word	0.1014	1.073	1.19	308,446	89.9%
3	Subword	0.3425	1.268	2.04	88,638	65.8%
4	Word	0.0422 🏆	1.030	1.08	365,569	95.8%
4	Subword	0.3240	1.252	1.82	180,359	67.6%

Generated Text Samples (Word-based)

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

Context Size 1:

1. na spyang maki yow na linhuyan gyencumin ga 68 buwan 292 buwan nya kwara s uli
2. ga 107 kg banggo na holi na sbunaw wal mhuqil sraral mbuwah nuway ay hya ga
3. sa bleqaw ta mlahang sali buwan nya skwan biru laqi cinkhulan sa zik na qalang myan

Context Size 2:

1. hya ga nakahama go kwara sali buwan nya ga cingay bes nya jeraldine 杰拉爾丁 musa chicago mlahang
2. s uli 2 maki qu ngasal bziran ngasal psatu tegami ru pqniqan iyu rhzyal kki an tay
3. gyencumin ga 10 kyan ku 175 hi binah ga yat kahun sku pinspngan gyencumin ga 88 kyan

Context Size 3:

1. s uli tayan s uli tayan pinspngan gyencumin ga 3 kyan ku 15 hi nya pinspung na linhuyan
2. pinspngan gyencumin ga 84 kyan ku 227 hi binah ga yat kahun sku pinspngan gyencumin ga 32 kyan
3. kwara s uli tayan pinspngan gyencumin ga 88 kyan ku 830 hi binah ga yat kahun sku pinspngan

Context Size 4:

1. ku kwara s uli tayan s uli tayan pinspngan gyencumin ga 70 kyan ku 1 961 hi nya pinspung
2. hi ku kwara s uli tayan s uli tayan pinspngan gyencumin ga 67 kyan ku 191 hi binah ga
3. kwara s uli tayan s uli tayan pinspngan gyencumin ga 72 kyan ku 154 hi binah ga yat kahun

Generated Text Samples (Subword-based)

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

Context Size 1:

1. _ta’uyu’ul_roket
2. alppcinokup’,_s_
3. n、ci’_micirun_’u

Context Size 2:

1. a_si_qqmuchaw_psi
2. an_sa_shingiqutu_
3. yan._qwas_natjan_

Context Size 3:

1. an_ga,_syo._rhzyal
2. _nah_na_ga_pinliw_
3. na_pqwas,_ru_mimal

Context Size 4:

1. _na_te_ru_beinango,
2. _ga_bqanux_balay_te
3. _tay_9_byacing_sazi

Key Findings

• Best Predictability: Context-4 (word) with 95.8% predictability
• Branching Factor: Decreases with context size (more deterministic)
• Memory Trade-off: Larger contexts require more storage (180,359 contexts)
• Recommendation: Context-3 or Context-4 for text generation

---

4. Vocabulary Analysis

Statistics

Metric	Value
Vocabulary Size	17,362
Total Tokens	611,143
Mean Frequency	35.20
Median Frequency	4
Frequency Std Dev	414.96

Most Common Words

Rank	Word	Frequency
1	na	32,851
2	ga	27,245
3	sa	11,539
4	tay	10,733
5	nya	8,397
6	qu	8,173
7	kawas	8,159
8	ru	7,855
9	hya	7,019
10	maki	6,131

Least Common Words (from vocabulary)

Rank	Word	Frequency
1	nyut	2
2	qnsun	2
3	mtlu	2
4	sayat	2
5	泰雅族女用名	2
6	rimuy是女子名	2
7	有思念之意	2
8	也有愉悅的情境	2
9	父母命名子女	2
10	期望快樂成長	2

Zipf's Law Analysis

Metric	Value
Zipf Coefficient	1.2513
R² (Goodness of Fit)	0.994822
Adherence Quality	excellent

Coverage Analysis

Top N Words	Coverage
Top 100	51.8%
Top 1,000	82.8%
Top 5,000	93.8%
Top 10,000	97.4%

Key Findings

• Zipf Compliance: R²=0.9948 indicates excellent adherence to Zipf's law
• High Frequency Dominance: Top 100 words cover 51.8% of corpus
• Long Tail: 7,362 words needed for remaining 2.6% 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	0.6811 🏆	0.3844	N/A	N/A
mono_64d	64	0.4048	0.3600	N/A	N/A
mono_128d	128	0.0450	0.3581	N/A	N/A
aligned_32d	32	0.6811	0.3751	0.0160	0.1520
aligned_64d	64	0.4048	0.3639	0.0340	0.1780
aligned_128d	128	0.0450	0.3422	0.0440	0.2260

Key Findings

• Best Isotropy: mono_32d with 0.6811 (more uniform distribution)
• Semantic Density: Average pairwise similarity of 0.3639. Lower values indicate better semantic separation.
• Alignment Quality: Aligned models achieve up to 4.4% 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	0.257	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
-m	mktayax, msurux, mbubu
-s	sirasit, syaw, smbes
-p	plbit, portugueselinpgan, punu
-k	kangcyo, kan, kapang
-t	tluhung, tommy, tpuyan
-b	blin, brenner, buhari
-a	anli, aki, anteng
-h	harin, haru, huwa

Productive Suffixes

Suffix	Examples
-n	kan, rengan, blin
-an	kan, rengan, cinkhulan
-g	tluhung, kapang, uwang
-ng	tluhung, kapang, uwang
-a	kora, rwa, benfica
-y	yabay, yngiy, tommy
-s	keizarmezs, smbes, hakaparis
-i	anli, aki, naui

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
ngan	1.58x	66 contexts	pngan, tngan, hngan
zyuw	1.80x	25 contexts	izyuw, zyuwa, pzyuwi
qala	1.85x	22 contexts	qalan, qalax, qqala
inga	1.42x	42 contexts	ingat, singa, kinga
unga	1.58x	26 contexts	yunga, ungat, lunga
yuwa	1.47x	33 contexts	yuwaw, zyuwa, yuwan
ngas	1.96x	13 contexts	langas, ngasan, sangas
gasa	1.96x	11 contexts	mgasa, ngasan, ngasal
quli	1.48x	24 contexts	squli, qulih, quliq
uliq	1.57x	19 contexts	tuliq, culiq, quliq
inah	1.56x	19 contexts	qinah, binah, mbinah
rgya	1.90x	9 contexts	rgyas, rgyax, rrgyax

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	163 words	ppspun, pinsqihan
-p	-an	124 words	pinsqihan, pinbuyan
-k	-n	97 words	kinyopan, kinsasan
-k	-an	77 words	kinyopan, kinsasan
-s	-n	65 words	sweden, snyogun
-m	-g	52 words	mklahang, mahing
-m	-ng	50 words	mklahang, mahing
-c	-n	46 words	cmyan, ciyan
-t	-n	43 words	timberwolvesginlgan, thyayun
-k	-g	43 words	klhangang, khokung

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
pinthwiru	p-in-thwiru	7.5	thwiru
mshayhway	mshayh-w-ay	7.5	w
matabalay	ma-ta-balay	7.5	balay
msinqutux	ms-in-qutux	7.5	qutux
kincingay	ki-n-cingay	7.5	cingay
mananigay	manani-g-ay	7.5	g
pincyawgan	pincyaw-g-an	7.5	g
allenryax	allenr-y-ax	7.5	y
cyangcinko	cyangci-n-ko	7.5	n
cinbawnan	cinbaw-n-an	7.5	n
kinsraral	ki-n-sraral	7.5	sraral
sincikusya	sinciku-s-ya	7.5	s
pinqzywan	pinqzy-w-an	7.5	w
skbalayun	s-kbalay-un	6.0	kbalay
kakawasan	ka-kawas-an	6.0	kawas

6.6 Linguistic Interpretation

Automated Insight: The language Atayal shows high morphological productivity. The subword models are significantly more efficient than word models, suggesting a rich system of affixation or compounding.

Note on Idiomaticity: The high Idiomaticity Gap suggests a large number of frequent multi-word expressions or formulaic sequences that are statistically distinct from their component parts.

---

7. Summary & Recommendations

Production Recommendations

Component	Recommended	Rationale
Tokenizer	64k BPE	Best compression (3.94x)
N-gram	2-gram	Lowest perplexity (260)
Markov	Context-4	Highest predictability (95.8%)
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) × 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: 2026-01-11 00:23:22