---
language: tdd
language_name: Tai Nüa
language_family: taikadai_other
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-taikadai_other
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: 3.452
  - name: best_isotropy
    type: isotropy
    value: 0.1576
  - name: vocabulary_size
    type: vocab
    value: 0
generated: 2026-01-11
---

# Tai Nüa - Wikilangs Models
## Comprehensive Research Report & Full Ablation Study

This repository contains NLP models trained and evaluated by Wikilangs, specifically on **Tai Nüa** 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** | 3.452x 🏆 | 3.45 | 0.8999% | 134,463 |

### Tokenization Examples

Below are sample sentences tokenized with each vocabulary size:

**Sample 1:** `ธ ᥕᥧᥱ ᥘᥬᥰ ᥖᥨᥝ ᥘᥤᥐ ᥗᥭᥰ ᥘᥢᥳ ᥙ​​​ᥥᥢ ᥗᥤᥳ ᥔᥩᥒᥴ ᥔᥤᥙᥴ ᥔᥤᥱ，ᥑᥙᥳ ᥐᥢᥲ ᥘᥒᥴ ท ᥖᥒᥰ ᥕᥧᥱ ᥙᥣᥲ ᥘᥣᥲ...`

| Vocab | Tokens | Count |
|-------|--------|-------|
| 8k | `▁ธ ▁ᥕᥧᥱ ▁ᥘᥬᥰ ▁ᥖᥨᥝ ▁ᥘᥤᥐ ▁ᥗᥭᥰ ▁ᥘᥢᥳ ▁ᥙ ▁ᥥᥢ ▁ᥗᥤᥳ ... (+14 more)` | 24 |

**Sample 2:** `ᥜᥭᥰ ᥛᥭᥲ ᥘᥩᥭ, ᥟᥤᥱ ᥑᥣᥴ ᥑᥩᥭ ᥖᥨᥝᥰ ᥜᥧᥢᥰ, ᥜᥭᥰ ᥛᥭᥲ ᥔᥨᥢᥴ, ᥟᥤᥱ ᥑᥣᥴ ᥑᥧᥢᥴ ᥖᥒᥲ ᥐᥨᥢᥲ, ᥜᥭᥰ ᥛᥭᥲ...`

| Vocab | Tokens | Count |
|-------|--------|-------|
| 8k | `▁ᥜᥭᥰ ▁ᥛᥭᥲ ▁ᥘᥩᥭ , ▁ᥟᥤᥱ ▁ᥑᥣᥴ ▁ᥑᥩᥭ ▁ᥖᥨᥝᥰ ▁ᥜᥧᥢᥰ , ... (+20 more)` | 30 |

**Sample 3:** `ᥔᥩᥒᥴ ᥐᥝ ᥖᥒᥰ ᥛᥬᥰ ᥙᥦᥒᥰ ᥐᥢ ᥘᥩᥰ ᥙᥭᥱ ᥘᥣ ᥘᥪᥛᥰ ( ᥞᥦᥴ ) ᥘᥣᥲ ᥘᥒᥴ ᥐᥝᥱ ( ᥞᥫ ᥞᥫᥭᥰ ) , ᥙᥫᥢ ᥝᥣ...`

| Vocab | Tokens | Count |
|-------|--------|-------|
| 8k | `▁ᥔᥩᥒᥴ ▁ᥐᥝ ▁ᥖᥒᥰ ▁ᥛᥬᥰ ▁ᥙᥦᥒᥰ ▁ᥐᥢ ▁ᥘᥩᥰ ▁ᥙᥭᥱ ▁ᥘᥣ ▁ᥘᥪᥛᥰ ... (+31 more)` | 41 |


### Key Findings

- **Best Compression:** 8k achieves 3.452x compression
- **Lowest UNK Rate:** 8k with 0.8999% 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 | 2,092 | 11.03 | 3,132 | 19.7% | 64.7% |
| **2-gram** | Subword | 254 🏆 | 7.99 | 1,907 | 67.9% | 98.3% |
| **3-gram** | Word | 2,477 | 11.27 | 3,460 | 19.4% | 56.6% |
| **3-gram** | Subword | 1,269 | 10.31 | 7,339 | 34.2% | 83.4% |
| **4-gram** | Word | 4,559 | 12.15 | 6,235 | 15.9% | 38.4% |
| **4-gram** | Subword | 5,182 | 12.34 | 21,769 | 16.8% | 52.9% |
| **5-gram** | Word | 3,124 | 11.61 | 4,326 | 19.6% | 43.7% |
| **5-gram** | Subword | 13,546 | 13.73 | 39,860 | 11.4% | 34.1% |

### Top 5 N-grams by Size

**2-grams (Word):**

| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|------|--------|-------|
| 1 | `ᥓᥦᥲ ᥝᥥᥒᥰ` | 339 |
| 2 | `ᥘᥢᥳ ᥕᥝᥳ` | 218 |
| 3 | `ᥘᥭᥳ ᥙᥥᥢ` | 213 |
| 4 | `ᥟᥣ ᥛᥥᥝᥰ` | 160 |
| 5 | `ᥖᥨᥝ ᥘᥤᥐ` | 148 |

**3-grams (Word):**

| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|------|--------|-------|
| 1 | `ᥕᥧᥱ ᥘᥬᥰ ᥖᥨᥝ` | 76 |
| 2 | `ᥘᥬᥰ ᥖᥨᥝ ᥘᥤᥐ` | 75 |
| 3 | `ᥙ ᥥᥢ ᥗᥤᥳ` | 75 |
| 4 | `ᥘᥢᥳ ᥙ ᥥᥢ` | 74 |
| 5 | `ᥟᥣ ᥛᥥᥝᥰ ᥖᥭᥰ` | 71 |

**4-grams (Word):**

| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|------|--------|-------|
| 1 | `ᥕᥧᥱ ᥘᥬᥰ ᥖᥨᥝ ᥘᥤᥐ` | 75 |
| 2 | `ᥘᥢᥳ ᥙ ᥥᥢ ᥗᥤᥳ` | 74 |
| 3 | `ᥖᥒᥰ ᥕᥧᥱ ᥙᥣᥲ ᥘᥣᥲ` | 68 |
| 4 | `size 5em line height` | 49 |
| 5 | `5em line height 1` | 49 |

**5-grams (Word):**

| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|------|--------|-------|
| 1 | `1 2em vertical align super` | 49 |
| 2 | `height 1 2em vertical align` | 49 |
| 3 | `5em line height 1 2em` | 49 |
| 4 | `size 5em line height 1` | 49 |
| 5 | `span style font size 5em` | 49 |

**2-grams (Subword):**

| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|------|--------|-------|
| 1 | `ᥰ _` | 21,662 |
| 2 | `_ ᥘ` | 16,383 |
| 3 | `ᥱ _` | 15,128 |
| 4 | `ᥴ _` | 11,888 |
| 5 | `ᥳ _` | 9,912 |

**3-grams (Subword):**

| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|------|--------|-------|
| 1 | `ᥒ ᥰ _` | 5,607 |
| 2 | `ᥰ _ ᥘ` | 3,794 |
| 3 | `ᥢ ᥰ _` | 3,733 |
| 4 | `_ ᥘ ᥣ` | 2,627 |
| 5 | `_ ᥘ ᥭ` | 2,613 |

**4-grams (Subword):**

| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|------|--------|-------|
| 1 | `ᥫ ᥒ ᥰ _` | 1,836 |
| 2 | `ᥛ ᥫ ᥒ ᥰ` | 1,646 |
| 3 | `_ ᥙ ᥥ ᥢ` | 1,542 |
| 4 | `_ ᥛ ᥫ ᥒ` | 1,528 |
| 5 | `_ ᥕ ᥝ ᥳ` | 1,457 |

**5-grams (Subword):**

| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|------|--------|-------|
| 1 | `ᥛ ᥫ ᥒ ᥰ _` | 1,522 |
| 2 | `_ ᥛ ᥫ ᥒ ᥰ` | 1,516 |
| 3 | `_ ᥙ ᥥ ᥢ _` | 1,376 |
| 4 | `_ ᥘ ᥢ ᥳ _` | 1,156 |
| 5 | `_ ᥘ ᥭ ᥳ _` | 1,114 |


### Key Findings

- **Best Perplexity:** 2-gram (subword) with 254
- **Entropy Trend:** Decreases with larger n-grams (more predictable)
- **Coverage:** Top-1000 patterns cover ~34% 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 | 1.0436 | 2.061 | 6.61 | 7,646 | 0.0% |
| **1** | Subword | 0.8264 | 1.773 | 4.89 | 1,510 | 17.4% |
| **2** | Word | 0.2992 | 1.230 | 1.58 | 50,365 | 70.1% |
| **2** | Subword | 0.6143 | 1.531 | 3.08 | 7,320 | 38.6% |
| **3** | Word | 0.0928 | 1.066 | 1.13 | 79,152 | 90.7% |
| **3** | Subword | 0.4606 | 1.376 | 2.22 | 22,469 | 53.9% |
| **4** | Word | 0.0344 🏆 | 1.024 | 1.04 | 89,118 | 96.6% |
| **4** | Subword | 0.4009 | 1.320 | 1.94 | 49,645 | 59.9% |

### Generated Text Samples (Word-based)

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

**Context Size 1:**

1. `ᥛᥫᥒᥰ ᥛᥣᥰ ᥟᥛᥱ ᥞᥐᥳ ᥟᥥᥐᥱ ᥑᥨᥝ ᥐᥧᥰ ᥙᥩᥐᥳ ᥟᥫᥒᥱ ᥑᥣᥲ ᥖᥥᥴ ᥘᥭᥲ ᥟᥝ ᥘᥤᥐ ᥗᥭᥰ ᥔᥣ`
2. `ᥙᥥᥢ ᥛᥫᥒᥰ ᥐᥢ ᥖᥪᥰ ᥟᥤᥴ ᥓᥤᥴ ᥛᥣᥭᥱ ᥘᥝᥲ ᥙᥝᥱ ᥝᥭᥳ ᥐᥣᥢᥲ ᥑᥛᥰ ᥘᥭᥴ ᥘᥦᥳ ᥟᥛᥱ ᥛᥤᥰ`
3. `ᥕᥝᥳ ᥘᥧᥐᥳ ᥖᥤ ᥘᥤᥐ ᥖᥬ university press standard dialect one hears on girl guy star fruit`

**Context Size 2:**

1. `ᥓᥦᥲ ᥝᥥᥒᥰ ᥛᥫᥒᥰ ᥛᥩᥐᥱ ᥓᥦᥲ ᥝᥥᥒᥰ ᥙᥨᥝᥱ ᥖ ᥗᥩᥒᥱ ᥓᥦᥲ ᥝᥥᥒᥰ ᥭᥩᥒᥱ ᥖᥨᥒᥰ ᥓᥦᥲ ᥝᥥᥒᥰ ᥟᥢᥰ ᥖᥣᥢᥱ`
2. `ᥘᥭᥳ ᥙᥥᥢ ᥖᥨᥝ ᥓᥣᥙ ᥙᥩᥒ ᥛᥥ ᥓᥣᥙᥛᥥ ᥓᥣᥙ 15 ᥖᥨᥝ ᥔᥥᥴ ᥙᥨᥝᥰ ᥙᥭ ᥟᥩᥐᥱ ᥑᥨᥢᥴ ᥖᥣᥒᥰ ᥟᥢ`
3. `ᥘᥢᥳ ᥕᥝᥳ ᥓᥩᥖᥱ ᥞᥩᥖ ᥙᥣᥭ ᥙᥫᥒ ᥔᥣᥛᥴ ᥐᥢᥱ ᥖᥨᥝᥰ ᥘᥥᥐ ᥘᥧᥛᥱ ᥗᥝᥲ ᥔᥣᥛᥴ ᥐᥣᥙ ᥑᥩᥒᥴ ᥟᥣ ᥛᥥᥝᥰ`

**Context Size 3:**

1. `ᥕᥧᥱ ᥘᥬᥰ ᥖᥨᥝ ᥘᥤᥐ ᥗᥭᥰ ᥘᥢᥳ ᥙ ᥥᥢ ᥗᥤᥳ ᥔᥣᥛᥴ ᥔᥤᥙᥴ ᥐᥝᥲ ᥑᥙᥳ ᥐᥢᥲ ᥘᥒᥴ ว ᥖᥒᥰ ᥕᥧᥱ`
2. `ᥘᥬᥰ ᥖᥨᥝ ᥘᥤᥐ ᥘᥣ ᥖᥤᥒ paraipa ᥖᥣ ᥢᥦ`
3. `ᥙ ᥥᥢ ᥗᥤᥳ ᥔᥤᥱ ᥔᥤᥙᥴ ᥔᥣᥛᥴ ᥑᥙᥳ ᥐᥢᥲ ᥘᥒᥴ ต ᥖᥒᥰ ᥕᥧᥱ ᥙᥣᥲ ᥘᥣᥲ ถ`

**Context Size 4:**

1. `ᥕᥧᥱ ᥘᥬᥰ ᥖᥨᥝ ᥘᥤᥐ ᥗᥭᥰ ᥘᥢᥳ ᥙ ᥥᥢ ᥗᥤᥳ ᥔᥤᥙᥴ ᥔᥣᥛᥴ ᥑᥙᥳ ᥐᥢᥲ ᥘᥒᥴ ภ ᥖᥒᥰ ᥕᥧᥱ ᥙᥣᥲ ᥘᥣᥲ`
2. `ᥘᥢᥳ ᥙ ᥥᥢ ᥗᥤᥳ ᥔᥤᥙᥴ ᥔᥤᥱ ᥑᥙᥳ ᥐᥢᥲ ᥘᥒᥴ m ᥖᥒᥰ ᥕᥧᥱ ᥙᥣᥲ ᥘᥣᥲ ต`
3. `ᥖᥒᥰ ᥕᥧᥱ ᥙᥣᥲ ᥘᥣᥲ ซ`


### Generated Text Samples (Subword-based)

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

**Context Size 1:**

1. `_.._ᥘᥣᥒᥲ_ᥘᥤᥲ_ᥑᥣᥒ`
2. `ᥰ._ᥙᥫᥢᥨᥢᥴ_ᥑᥣᥛᥲ_ᥙ`
3. `ᥣᥭᥲ_ᥘᥫᥴ_ᥖᥴᥤᥢᥰ_ᥘᥣ`

**Context Size 2:**

1. `ᥰ_ᥐᥛᥰ_ᥖᥫᥒᥰ_ᥞᥣᥛᥲ_ᥟ`
2. `_ᥘᥤᥐ:_ᥐᥩᥲ_ᥛᥫᥒᥰ_”ᥐ`
3. `ᥱ_ᥔᥝᥰ_(33_ᥟᥣᥛᥱ_(1`

**Context Size 3:**

1. `ᥒᥰ_ᥛᥭᥳ_ᥙᥥᥢ_ᥔᥥᥴ_ᥙᥩᥐ`
2. `ᥰ_ᥘᥢᥳ_ᥑᥪᥢᥲ_ᥛᥣᥐᥱ_ᥛᥣ`
3. `ᥢᥰ_ᥚᥣᥐ_ᥖᥥᥰ_ᥗᥭᥴ_ᥐᥩᥢ`

**Context Size 4:**

1. `ᥫᥒᥰ_ᥛᥣᥱ_ᥘᥤᥳ_ᥞᥣᥱ_ᥕᥧᥱ`
2. `ᥛᥫᥒᥰ_ᥖᥣᥲ_ᥘᥛᥳ_ᥘᥫᥴᥓᥬᥲ`
3. `_ᥙᥥᥢ_ᥘᥧᥳ_ᥕᥬᥱ_ᥔᥩᥖᥱ_ᥖ`


### Key Findings

- **Best Predictability:** Context-4 (word) with 96.6% predictability
- **Branching Factor:** Decreases with context size (more deterministic)
- **Memory Trade-off:** Larger contexts require more storage (49,645 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 | 3,667 |
| Total Tokens | 98,753 |
| Mean Frequency | 26.93 |
| Median Frequency | 5 |
| Frequency Std Dev | 91.04 |

### Most Common Words

| Rank | Word | Frequency |
|------|------|-----------|
| 1 | ᥛᥫᥒᥰ | 1,556 |
| 2 | ᥕᥝᥳ | 1,469 |
| 3 | ᥙᥥᥢ | 1,422 |
| 4 | ᥘᥢᥳ | 1,266 |
| 5 | ᥘᥭᥳ | 1,185 |
| 6 | ᥟᥢ | 1,100 |
| 7 | ᥕᥧᥱ | 1,054 |
| 8 | ᥛᥤᥰ | 1,019 |
| 9 | ᥖᥤ | 988 |
| 10 | ᥔᥥᥴ | 982 |

### Least Common Words (from vocabulary)

| Rank | Word | Frequency |
|------|------|-----------|
| 1 | mid | 2 |
| 2 | class | 2 |
| 3 | wikitable | 2 |
| 4 | hul | 2 |
| 5 | um | 2 |
| 6 | ō | 2 |
| 7 | ꞵ̡ | 2 |
| 8 | paraipa | 2 |
| 9 | ꞔ | 2 |
| 10 | ᥙ̬ | 2 |

### Zipf's Law Analysis

| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Zipf Coefficient | 1.3118 |
| R² (Goodness of Fit) | 0.963118 |
| Adherence Quality | **excellent** |

### Coverage Analysis

| Top N Words | Coverage |
|-------------|----------|
| Top 100 | 45.6% |
| Top 1,000 | 87.7% |
| Top 5,000 | 0.0% |
| Top 10,000 | 0.0% |

### Key Findings

- **Zipf Compliance:** R²=0.9631 indicates excellent adherence to Zipf's law
- **High Frequency Dominance:** Top 100 words cover 45.6% of corpus
- **Long Tail:** -6,333 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 | 0.1576 🏆 | 0.6123 | N/A | N/A |
| **mono_64d** | 64 | 0.0349 | 0.6483 | N/A | N/A |
| **mono_128d** | 128 | 0.0075 | 0.6492 | N/A | N/A |
| **aligned_32d** | 32 | 0.1576 | 0.6164 | 0.0210 | 0.2308 |
| **aligned_64d** | 64 | 0.0349 | 0.6418 | 0.0350 | 0.3287 |
| **aligned_128d** | 128 | 0.0075 | 0.6540 | 0.0420 | 0.3357 |

### Key Findings

- **Best Isotropy:** mono_32d with 0.1576 (more uniform distribution)
- **Semantic Density:** Average pairwise similarity of 0.6370. Lower values indicate better semantic separation.
- **Alignment Quality:** Aligned models achieve up to 4.2% 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 | **0.284** | 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 |
|--------|----------|
| `-ᥟ` | ᥟᥩᥛᥳ, ᥟᥪᥢᥲ, ᥟᥣᥭ |
| `-ᥘ` | ᥘᥧᥛᥱ, ᥘᥤᥐ, ᥘᥨᥛᥴ |
| `-ᥖ` | ᥖᥭᥰ, ᥖᥪᥰ, ᥖᥨᥒᥲ |
| `-ᥔ` | ᥔᥤᥳ, ᥔᥦᥢᥰ, ᥔᥢᥱ |
| `-ᥐ` | ᥐᥣᥢᥴ, ᥐᥤ, ᥐᥤᥖᥳ |
| `-ᥛ` | ᥛျᥩᥒᥰ, ᥛᥦᥢᥰ, ᥛᥥᥐᥳ |

#### Productive Suffixes
| Suffix | Examples |
|--------|----------|

### 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.

*No significant bound stems detected.*


### 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.

*No significant affix co-occurrences detected.*


### 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 |
|------|-----------------|------------|------|
| ᥟᥧᥐɐɞ̞ᥟᥧᥐäɒ̈ | **`ᥟ-ᥧᥐɐɞ̞ᥟᥧᥐäɒ̈`** | 1.5 | `ᥧᥐɐɞ̞ᥟᥧᥐäɒ̈` |
| ᥟᥢᥴᥝᥣᥲᥢᥢᥳ | **`ᥟ-ᥢᥴᥝᥣᥲᥢᥢᥳ`** | 1.5 | `ᥢᥴᥝᥣᥲᥢᥢᥳ` |
| ᥟᥥᥒᥰᥐᥘᥥᥖᥲᥢᥭᥳ | **`ᥟ-ᥥᥒᥰᥐᥘᥥᥖᥲᥢᥭᥳ`** | 1.5 | `ᥥᥒᥰᥐᥘᥥᥖᥲᥢᥭᥳ` |
| ᥟᥢᥴᥕᥧᥱᥔᥝᥰ | **`ᥟ-ᥢᥴᥕᥧᥱᥔᥝᥰ`** | 1.5 | `ᥢᥴᥕᥧᥱᥔᥝᥰ` |
| ᥟᥛᥱᥞᥩᥖᥲᥛᥣᥐᥱᥚᥨᥝᥱ | **`ᥟ-ᥛᥱᥞᥩᥖᥲᥛᥣᥐᥱᥚᥨᥝᥱ`** | 1.5 | `ᥛᥱᥞᥩᥖᥲᥛᥣᥐᥱᥚᥨᥝᥱ` |

### 6.6 Linguistic Interpretation

> **Automated Insight:**
The language Tai Nüa 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 | **8k BPE** | Best compression (3.45x) |
| N-gram | **2-gram** | Lowest perplexity (254) |
| Markov | **Context-4** | Highest predictability (96.6%) |
| 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](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)
- 🤗 Models: [huggingface.co/wikilangs](https://huggingface.co/wikilangs)
- 📊 Data: [wikipedia-monthly](https://huggingface.co/datasets/omarkamali/wikipedia-monthly)
- 👤 Author: [Omar Kamali](https://huggingface.co/omarkamali)
- 🤝 Sponsor: [Featherless AI](https://featherless.ai)
---
*Generated by Wikilangs Models Pipeline*

*Report Date: 2026-01-11 00:31:50*