|
|
--- |
|
|
language: tyv |
|
|
language_name: Tuvinian |
|
|
language_family: turkic_siberian |
|
|
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-turkic_siberian |
|
|
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: 4.537 |
|
|
- name: best_isotropy |
|
|
type: isotropy |
|
|
value: 0.8935 |
|
|
- name: vocabulary_size |
|
|
type: vocab |
|
|
value: 0 |
|
|
generated: 2026-01-11 |
|
|
--- |
|
|
|
|
|
# Tuvinian - Wikilangs Models |
|
|
## Comprehensive Research Report & Full Ablation Study |
|
|
|
|
|
This repository contains NLP models trained and evaluated by Wikilangs, specifically on **Tuvinian** Wikipedia data. |
|
|
We analyze tokenizers, n-gram models, Markov chains, vocabulary statistics, and word embeddings. |
|
|
|
|
|
## ๐ 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](#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 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
### Results |
|
|
|
|
|
| Vocab Size | Compression | Avg Token Len | UNK Rate | Total Tokens | |
|
|
|------------|-------------|---------------|----------|--------------| |
|
|
| **8k** | 3.594x | 3.60 | 0.0328% | 531,182 | |
|
|
| **16k** | 3.989x | 3.99 | 0.0364% | 478,519 | |
|
|
| **32k** | 4.325x | 4.33 | 0.0394% | 441,354 | |
|
|
| **64k** | 4.537x ๐ | 4.54 | 0.0414% | 420,702 | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Tokenization Examples |
|
|
|
|
|
Below are sample sentences tokenized with each vocabulary size: |
|
|
|
|
|
**Sample 1:** `120 โ ะธะปะตัะตะดะธะฟ ะฑะพะปัั: 120 (ัะฐะฝ) โ 119 ะฑะธะปะต 121 ะฐัะฐะทัะฝะดะฐ ะฐะปัั ัะฐะฝ. 120 ััะป โ ะณัะธะณ...` |
|
|
|
|
|
| Vocab | Tokens | Count | |
|
|
|-------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 8k | `โ 1 2 0 โโ โะธะปะตัะตะดะธะฟ โะฑะพะปัั : โ 1 ... (+30 more)` | 40 | |
|
|
| 16k | `โ 1 2 0 โโ โะธะปะตัะตะดะธะฟ โะฑะพะปัั : โ 1 ... (+30 more)` | 40 | |
|
|
| 32k | `โ 1 2 0 โโ โะธะปะตัะตะดะธะฟ โะฑะพะปัั : โ 1 ... (+29 more)` | 39 | |
|
|
| 64k | `โ 1 2 0 โโ โะธะปะตัะตะดะธะฟ โะฑะพะปัั : โ 1 ... (+29 more)` | 39 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**Sample 2:** `ะะพะปะพะฝััั () โ ะบะฐะฝะดัะณ-ะปะฐ ะฑะธั ะผำฉำฉัะตะน, ัััะปะณะฐะฝ ะฐะทั ัะปัะณ ะฑะฐะนััะปะฐะปะดะฐัะณะฐ ะฐะบัะฐ-ัะฐะปัาฃ ะดั...` |
|
|
|
|
|
| Vocab | Tokens | Count | |
|
|
|-------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 8k | `โะฒะพะป ะพะฝั ัั โ() โโ โะบะฐะฝะดัะณ - ะปะฐ โะฑะธั โะผำฉำฉัะตะน ... (+28 more)` | 38 | |
|
|
| 16k | `โะฒะพะป ะพะฝั ัั โ() โโ โะบะฐะฝะดัะณ - ะปะฐ โะฑะธั โะผำฉำฉัะตะน ... (+25 more)` | 35 | |
|
|
| 32k | `โะฒะพะป ะพะฝััั โ() โโ โะบะฐะฝะดัะณ - ะปะฐ โะฑะธั โะผำฉำฉัะตะน , ... (+21 more)` | 31 | |
|
|
| 64k | `โะฒะพะปะพะฝััั โ() โโ โะบะฐะฝะดัะณ - ะปะฐ โะฑะธั โะผำฉำฉัะตะน , โัััะปะณะฐะฝ ... (+20 more)` | 30 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**Sample 3:** `ะฅะตััะตะบ, ะัััั ะะนะฝัั-ะพะพะป-ะพะณะปั (ั
ั
.ั
ั
.ั
ั
ั. ัะพั.) โ ะาฏะฝะทะตะณะตั ะฐัััะณ ะฝะพะผ าฏะฝะดาฏัะตั ัำฉะฟั...` |
|
|
|
|
|
| Vocab | Tokens | Count | |
|
|
|-------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 8k | `โั
ะตััะตะบ , โะฐัััั โะพะนะฝ ัั - ะพะพะป - ะพะณะปั โ( ... (+19 more)` | 29 | |
|
|
| 16k | `โั
ะตััะตะบ , โะฐัััั โะพะนะฝ ัั - ะพะพะป - ะพะณะปั โ( ... (+19 more)` | 29 | |
|
|
| 32k | `โั
ะตััะตะบ , โะฐัััั โะพะนะฝ ัั - ะพะพะป - ะพะณะปั โ( ... (+18 more)` | 28 | |
|
|
| 64k | `โั
ะตััะตะบ , โะฐัััั โะพะนะฝ ัั - ะพะพะป - ะพะณะปั โ( ... (+18 more)` | 28 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Key Findings |
|
|
|
|
|
- **Best Compression:** 64k achieves 4.537x compression |
|
|
- **Lowest UNK Rate:** 8k with 0.0328% 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 | 12,431 | 13.60 | 23,023 | 9.7% | 31.7% | |
|
|
| **2-gram** | Subword | 472 ๐ | 8.88 | 5,348 | 53.6% | 96.7% | |
|
|
| **3-gram** | Word | 14,165 | 13.79 | 23,322 | 8.4% | 28.5% | |
|
|
| **3-gram** | Subword | 4,204 | 12.04 | 40,268 | 18.3% | 58.9% | |
|
|
| **4-gram** | Word | 28,047 | 14.78 | 43,599 | 6.7% | 21.1% | |
|
|
| **4-gram** | Subword | 21,807 | 14.41 | 186,047 | 9.6% | 30.8% | |
|
|
| **5-gram** | Word | 20,854 | 14.35 | 32,166 | 8.0% | 23.8% | |
|
|
| **5-gram** | Subword | 64,567 | 15.98 | 403,526 | 6.4% | 20.6% | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Top 5 N-grams by Size |
|
|
|
|
|
**2-grams (Word):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `ะฑะธั ะดัะณะฐะฐั` | 1,161 | |
|
|
| 2 | `ััะฒะฐ ัะตัะฟัะฑะปะธะบะฐะฝัาฃ` | 859 | |
|
|
| 3 | `ัะฝัะฐะปะทะฐ ะดะฐะฐ` | 839 | |
|
|
| 4 | `ะบาฏั ะฐะถัะปะดัาฃ` | 724 | |
|
|
| 5 | `ัััั ะฝะธาฃ` | 721 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**3-grams (Word):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `ัะพัะธะฐะปะธััะธะณ ะบาฏั ะฐะถัะปะดัาฃ` | 353 | |
|
|
| 2 | `ะบาฏั ะฐะถัะปะดัาฃ ะผะฐะฐะดััั` | 325 | |
|
|
| 3 | `ะดำฉั ััะฒะฐ ะดัะปะดัาฃ` | 280 | |
|
|
| 4 | `ััะปะดะฐะฝ ััะปะณะฐ ัะตะดะธั` | 279 | |
|
|
| 5 | `i ะฝะฐัะบะฐ ะฝะพะฒะพัะธะฑะธััะบ` | 268 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**4-grams (Word):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `ัะพัะธะฐะปะธััะธะณ ะบาฏั ะฐะถัะปะดัาฃ ะผะฐะฐะดััั` | 316 | |
|
|
| 2 | `ัะพะผ i ะฝะฐัะบะฐ ะฝะพะฒะพัะธะฑะธััะบ` | 268 | |
|
|
| 3 | `ัำฉััาฏาฏ ัะปะพะฒะฐัั ัะพะผ i` | 240 | |
|
|
| 4 | `ัะปะพะฒะฐัั ัะพะผ i ะฝะฐัะบะฐ` | 240 | |
|
|
| 5 | `ัััั ะฝะธาฃ ะดััะดะธ ัะพะฒะตะดะธะฝะธาฃ` | 190 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**5-grams (Word):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `ัำฉััาฏาฏ ัะปะพะฒะฐัั ัะพะผ i ะฝะฐัะบะฐ` | 240 | |
|
|
| 2 | `ัะปะพะฒะฐัั ัะพะผ i ะฝะฐัะบะฐ ะฝะพะฒะพัะธะฑะธััะบ` | 240 | |
|
|
| 3 | `ัััั ะฝะธาฃ ะดััะดะธ ัะพะฒะตะดะธะฝะธาฃ ะฟัะตะทะธะดะธัะผ` | 158 | |
|
|
| 4 | `ะดำฉั ััะฒะฐ ะดัะปะดัาฃ ัะฐะนะปัะฑัั ัำฉััาฏาฏ` | 154 | |
|
|
| 5 | `ััะฒะฐ ะดัะปะดัาฃ ัะฐะนะปัะฑัั ัำฉััาฏาฏ ัะปะพะฒะฐัั` | 137 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**2-grams (Subword):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `ะฐ ั` | 114,452 | |
|
|
| 2 | `ะฐ _` | 112,817 | |
|
|
| 3 | `ะฐ ะฝ` | 101,864 | |
|
|
| 4 | `. _` | 94,390 | |
|
|
| 5 | `_ ะบ` | 90,647 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**3-grams (Subword):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `ั าฃ _` | 33,971 | |
|
|
| 2 | `ั ะป ะด` | 29,526 | |
|
|
| 3 | `_ ั ั` | 28,537 | |
|
|
| 4 | `ะด ะฐ _` | 28,076 | |
|
|
| 5 | `ั ั ั` | 27,698 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**4-grams (Subword):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `ะฝ ั าฃ _` | 25,621 | |
|
|
| 2 | `_ ั ั ั` | 23,645 | |
|
|
| 3 | `_ ั ั ะป` | 20,602 | |
|
|
| 4 | `ั ะป ะด ะฐ` | 19,319 | |
|
|
| 5 | `_ ะฑ ะพ ะป` | 18,075 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**5-grams (Subword):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `_ ั ั ะป ะด` | 16,920 | |
|
|
| 2 | `ั ั ะป ะด ะฐ` | 12,964 | |
|
|
| 3 | `ะฟ _ ั ั ั` | 12,742 | |
|
|
| 4 | `_ ั ั ั ะณ` | 12,031 | |
|
|
| 5 | `ะฑ ะธ ะป ะต _` | 11,388 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Key Findings |
|
|
|
|
|
- **Best Perplexity:** 2-gram (subword) with 472 |
|
|
- **Entropy Trend:** Decreases with larger n-grams (more predictable) |
|
|
- **Coverage:** Top-1000 patterns cover ~21% 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 | 0.5460 | 1.460 | 3.63 | 203,818 | 45.4% | |
|
|
| **1** | Subword | 0.0398 | 1.028 | 2.20 | 54,956 | 96.0% | |
|
|
| **2** | Word | 0.1739 | 1.128 | 1.35 | 738,821 | 82.6% | |
|
|
| **2** | Subword | 0.1135 | 1.082 | 1.59 | 120,839 | 88.7% | |
|
|
| **3** | Word | 0.0508 | 1.036 | 1.08 | 995,160 | 94.9% | |
|
|
| **3** | Subword | 0.3477 | 1.272 | 2.28 | 192,258 | 65.2% | |
|
|
| **4** | Word | 0.0186 ๐ | 1.013 | 1.03 | 1,068,473 | 98.1% | |
|
|
| **4** | Subword | 0.4488 | 1.365 | 2.19 | 438,273 | 55.1% | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Generated Text Samples (Word-based) |
|
|
|
|
|
Below are text samples generated from each word-based Markov chain model: |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 1:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `ะฑะธะปะต ะพะปััะฐั ัะฐะฐ ััััะฐั ััะดัะฟ ัะธะธั ะฑัััะฐ ะดะฐะณ ัะพะฒะตััะตัะธะฝะธาฃ ะดะตะฟััะฐะดัะฝะณะฐ ัะพาฃะณััะบะฐะฝ ััะปะดะฐ ัะพััะธัะฝัาฃ ัะปัะธะฝ...` |
|
|
2. `ะดะตะฟ ะฑะฐัะบะธั ะฟะตะดะฐะณะพะณะธะบะฐ ะธะฝััะธััะดัะฝัาฃ ัะปัะณ ั
ะตะผ ััะฒะฐ ะฐัะฐั ัะตัะฟัะฑะปะธะบะฐะฝัาฃ ั
ำฉะน ะบะธัััะฝะณะตะนะธะฝ ำฉำฉัะตะดะธะปะณะต ัััะบะตะฝ...` |
|
|
3. `ััะปะดะฐ ะพะป ััะฒะฐะฝัาฃ ะฝะพะผ าฏะฝะดาฏัะตั ะฐะถัะป ะฐะณัะน ััะฝะบะฐ ัะฐะทะฒะปะตัะตะฝะธะน ะธะณัั ะฒ ััััะธะธ ะธ 51 ะผะฐัั 8` |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 2:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `ะฑะธั ะดัะณะฐะฐั ัะปัะณ ั
ััะฐะปั ะพะพำ ะผััะฝัะฝะดะฐ ัััะณะฐะฝ ะบะฐะปะตะฝะดะฐััะฝั ััะณะธ ัะฐะฝะฝัาฃ ะดะตะฟ ัะปะณะฐะฟ ัะพะดะฐัะฐะดัั ะผะพะพะป ะฐัััะพะฝะพะผ...` |
|
|
2. `ััะฒะฐ ัะตัะฟัะฑะปะธะบะฐะฝัาฃ ำฉำฉัะตะดะธะปะณะต ะฑะพะปะณะฐั ัััะตะผ ัะฐะผัะทัะฝัาฃ ั
าฏะฝะดาฏะปะตะป ะฑะธะถะธะธ ะทะฐ ะทะฐัะปัะณะธ ะฟะตัะตะด ััะฒะฐััะบะพะน ัะตัะฟัะฑ...` |
|
|
3. `ัะฝัะฐะปะทะฐ ะดะฐะฐ ััะปะดะฐัะดะฐ ัะบะพะฝะพะผะธะบะฐะฝัาฃ ะฑัััะฐะฐะฝั ะฑะธะปะต ะพะป ะธะนะธ ัััะตะผะฝะธาฃ าฏะฝะดะตะทะธะฝ ัะธะฝัะธะปััั ัาฏาฏะปาฏ ะบะธะถะธ ะฑะธั ะดัะณ...` |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 3:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `ัะพัะธะฐะปะธััะธะณ ะบาฏั ะฐะถัะปะดัาฃ ะผะฐะฐะดััั ะฝะฐะผะดะฐัั 3 ัะตะฝััะฑัั ััะปะดะฐ ะบำฉะดัั ัััั ะณะฐะณะธะดะฐ ะณะฐะปััะบะพะณะพ ัะฐะนะพะฝะฐ ัำฉัาฏััาฏะฝ...` |
|
|
2. `ะบาฏั ะฐะถัะปะดัาฃ ะผะฐะฐะดััั ะฐััั ััะฒััะบะฐะฝ ะปะตะฝะธะฝ ะพัะดะตะฝะธ ััะฟัััั ะฑะฐะทะฐ ัะตัะฟ ะฑะธะปะต ะผะพะปะพั ะผะตะดะฐะปัะดะฐั ะฟัะพะดะพะปะถะฐะปะฐ ะธ ะด...` |
|
|
3. `ะดำฉั ััะฒะฐ ะดัะปะดัาฃ ัะฐะนะปัะฑัั ัำฉััาฏาฏ ัะปะพะฒะฐัั ัะพะผ i ะฝะฐัะบะฐ ะฝะพะฒะพัะธะฑะธััะบ ะณ ะณ ะณ` |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 4:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `ัะพัะธะฐะปะธััะธะณ ะบาฏั ะฐะถัะปะดัาฃ ะผะฐะฐะดััั ะฝะฐะผะดะฐัั 6 ะพะบััะฑัั ััะปะดะฐ ะฒ ะบะธัะปะฐะบะต ะฟะฐัะบะธะฝะฐะฑ ะฑะพ าฏะตะดะต ะดะฐัะฒะฐะทัะบะพะณะพ ัะฐะนะพะฝ...` |
|
|
2. `ัะพะผ i ะฝะฐัะบะฐ ะฝะพะฒะพัะธะฑะธััะบ ะฒ ะฒ` |
|
|
3. `ัำฉััาฏาฏ ัะปะพะฒะฐัั ัะพะผ i ะฝะฐัะบะฐ ะฝะพะฒะพัะธะฑะธััะบ ะน ะน` |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Generated Text Samples (Subword-based) |
|
|
|
|
|
Below are text samples generated from each subword-based Markov chain model: |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 1:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `_4_ะฑะธาฃ_ััาฏะฝะฐะฝะฝัั` |
|
|
2. `ะฐะถั_็ปจ_ะฐะฝะดะตะทััะณะฐะฝ` |
|
|
3. `ััะตะปะฐั._ะดะพัะฝ_ััั` |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 2:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `ะฐััะฝัาฃ_ะธ_ัััะตะฝ._ั` |
|
|
2. `ะฐ_ัะฒะตัะฟะตะน_ะบะธะน_ััั` |
|
|
3. `ะฐะฝะพะปะณะฐ_ำฉำฉะณาฏะดะตะณะตะฝะณ` |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 3:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `ัาฃ_ะพัะดะตะฝะธะต_ะฟะฐะผััะธ_` |
|
|
2. `ัะปะดะฐะนะดะถะฐะฝะฝัาฃ_ะดะตะผะดะต` |
|
|
3. `_ััั;_ะบะฐะปะณะฐั_ัะปัะณ-` |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 4:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `ะฝัาฃ_ัะฐาฃ-ั
ำฉำฉะฝ,_ำฉำฉัาฏะฟ` |
|
|
2. `_ัััะฐ_ัำฉะปาฏะณะปะตั_ะฐัะบะฐ` |
|
|
3. `_ััะปะดัาฃ_ะผะพะฝะณัั,_ะฐ_ยซ` |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Key Findings |
|
|
|
|
|
- **Best Predictability:** Context-4 (word) with 98.1% predictability |
|
|
- **Branching Factor:** Decreases with context size (more deterministic) |
|
|
- **Memory Trade-off:** Larger contexts require more storage (438,273 contexts) |
|
|
- **Recommendation:** Context-3 or Context-4 for text generation |
|
|
|
|
|
--- |
|
|
## 4. Vocabulary Analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
### Statistics |
|
|
|
|
|
| Metric | Value | |
|
|
|--------|-------| |
|
|
| Vocabulary Size | 62,436 | |
|
|
| Total Tokens | 1,039,813 | |
|
|
| Mean Frequency | 16.65 | |
|
|
| Median Frequency | 3 | |
|
|
| Frequency Std Dev | 134.66 | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Most Common Words |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Word | Frequency | |
|
|
|------|------|-----------| |
|
|
| 1 | ะฑะธะปะต | 11,983 | |
|
|
| 2 | ะดะตะฟ | 8,474 | |
|
|
| 3 | ััะปะดะฐ | 8,314 | |
|
|
| 4 | ัััะณะฐะฝ | 8,262 | |
|
|
| 5 | ะฒ | 7,660 | |
|
|
| 6 | ะฑะพะปะณะฐั | 7,220 | |
|
|
| 7 | ะพะป | 7,087 | |
|
|
| 8 | ะฑะฐะทะฐ | 7,027 | |
|
|
| 9 | ัััะฐั | 6,804 | |
|
|
| 10 | ะธ | 5,739 | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Least Common Words (from vocabulary) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Word | Frequency | |
|
|
|------|------|-----------| |
|
|
| 1 | ๐ฅผ | 2 | |
|
|
| 2 | ๐ฅผ | 2 | |
|
|
| 3 | ๐ฅผ | 2 | |
|
|
| 4 | ๐ฅผ | 2 | |
|
|
| 5 | ๐ฅผ | 2 | |
|
|
| 6 | ๐ฅผ | 2 | |
|
|
| 7 | 361 | 2 | |
|
|
| 8 | 359 | 2 | |
|
|
| 9 | moons | 2 | |
|
|
| 10 | ะฟะตะณะฐั | 2 | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Zipf's Law Analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
| Metric | Value | |
|
|
|--------|-------| |
|
|
| Zipf Coefficient | 0.9998 | |
|
|
| Rยฒ (Goodness of Fit) | 0.992471 | |
|
|
| Adherence Quality | **excellent** | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Coverage Analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
| Top N Words | Coverage | |
|
|
|-------------|----------| |
|
|
| Top 100 | 23.1% | |
|
|
| Top 1,000 | 51.4% | |
|
|
| Top 5,000 | 72.7% | |
|
|
| Top 10,000 | 81.0% | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Key Findings |
|
|
|
|
|
- **Zipf Compliance:** Rยฒ=0.9925 indicates excellent adherence to Zipf's law |
|
|
- **High Frequency Dominance:** Top 100 words cover 23.1% of corpus |
|
|
- **Long Tail:** 52,436 words needed for remaining 19.0% 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 | 0.8935 | 0.3132 | N/A | N/A | |
|
|
| **mono_64d** | 64 | 0.8586 | 0.2437 | N/A | N/A | |
|
|
| **mono_128d** | 128 | 0.5600 | 0.2029 | N/A | N/A | |
|
|
| **aligned_32d** | 32 | 0.8935 ๐ | 0.3180 | 0.0200 | 0.1780 | |
|
|
| **aligned_64d** | 64 | 0.8586 | 0.2406 | 0.0320 | 0.1860 | |
|
|
| **aligned_128d** | 128 | 0.5600 | 0.2028 | 0.0720 | 0.2540 | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Key Findings |
|
|
|
|
|
- **Best Isotropy:** aligned_32d with 0.8935 (more uniform distribution) |
|
|
- **Semantic Density:** Average pairwise similarity of 0.2535. Lower values indicate better semantic separation. |
|
|
- **Alignment Quality:** Aligned models achieve up to 7.2% 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 | **0.159** | 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 | |
|
|
|--------|----------| |
|
|
| `-ั` | ัั, ััะฟะตัะปะธะณะธ, ัำฉำฉััาฏั | |
|
|
| `-ะบ` | ะบะพะปะตัะฝะธะบะพะฒ, ะบะฐัะฐะทัะผะฐะฐั, ะบำฉัะตะนะปะตั | |
|
|
| `-ะฐ` | ะฐััะณะปะฐะฐัะบัะฝ, ะฐะดะฐะณัะปะฐะฐั, ะฐะฐัะบะฐ | |
|
|
| `-ะด` | ะดะธะฐะปะตะบัะธะปะตัะธะฝะธาฃ, ะดะตะนััะฒะธัะตะปัะฝะพ, ะดะฐะฒะฐะปะฐ | |
|
|
| `-ะฑ` | ะฑัะดัั, ะฑะฐัะฑะฐั, ะฑัะดะดะธััะตัะธะฝะธาฃ | |
|
|
| `-ั` | ััะฒะฐะถัะดัะฟ, ัััะฐััะปะฐััะฝ, ัะธะดะต | |
|
|
| `-ะผ` | ะผะตัะพะดะพะปะพะณะธัะทัะฝ, ะผะฐะบัะพะฝ, ะผะพะตะณะพ | |
|
|
| `-ะบะฐ` | ะบะฐัะฐะทัะผะฐะฐั, ะบะฐัะปัะบ, ะบะฐััััะบะฐะฝัะฝัาฃ | |
|
|
|
|
|
#### Productive Suffixes |
|
|
| Suffix | Examples | |
|
|
|--------|----------| |
|
|
| `-ะฐ` | ัะธะฟะธะปะธะฝะฐ, ะดะฐะฒะฐะปะฐ, ะณะฐััะพะฝะบัะฑะฐ | |
|
|
| `-ะฝ` | ะฐััะณะปะฐะฐัะบัะฝ, ััะธะฝ, ัััะฐััะปะฐััะฝ | |
|
|
| `-าฃ` | ะพัะฝะฝะฐัะฝัาฃ, ะดะธะฐะปะตะบัะธะปะตัะธะฝะธาฃ, ัะฐะดะตะตะฒัะธาฃ | |
|
|
| `-ั` | ัะฝะฐะฝัั, ะบะฐัะฐะทัะผะฐะฐั, ะบำฉัะตะนะปะตั | |
|
|
| `-ัาฃ` | ะพัะฝะฝะฐัะฝัาฃ, ะฑะฐัะบัะทัะฝัาฃ, ััััะบััาฃ | |
|
|
| `-ะต` | ัะบัะธะฝะดะต, ะฟัะธะฒััะฝะพะต, ะพัััะฐะฒะบะต | |
|
|
| `-ั` | ััะณะถะฐะผััั, ะฑัะดะดั, ะพะฟะตัะตััะฐะทั | |
|
|
| `-ะธ` | ะฝะธะธัะธะปะตะปะดะตัะธ, ััะฟะตัะปะธะณะธ, ะพัะธัะตัะปะตัะฝะธ | |
|
|
|
|
|
### 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 | |
|
|
|------|----------|------------------|----------| |
|
|
| `ัะฝัาฃ` | 1.96x | 48 contexts | ะทัะฝัาฃ, ะฐััะฝัาฃ, ัะทัะฝัาฃ | |
|
|
| `ัะณะฐะฐ` | 2.04x | 40 contexts | ััะณะฐะฐ, ัะณะฐะฐะฟ, ัะณะฐะฐะฝ | |
|
|
| `ะฐะปะดะฐ` | 1.66x | 93 contexts | ะฒะฐะปะดะฐ, ะฐะปะดะฐะฝ, ัะฐะปะดะฐ | |
|
|
| `ะฐะฝัาฃ` | 1.81x | 57 contexts | ัะฐะฝัาฃ, ั
ะฐะฝัาฃ, ะฐะฐะฝัาฃ | |
|
|
| `ะธะฝะธาฃ` | 1.92x | 43 contexts | ะทะธะฝะธาฃ, ะปะธะฝะธาฃ, ะธะฒะธะฝะธาฃ | |
|
|
| `ะฐะทัะฝ` | 1.44x | 151 contexts | ัะฐะทัะฝ, ะฝะฐะทัะฝ, ัะฐะทัะฝ | |
|
|
| `ะปะดะฐั` | 1.51x | 108 contexts | ะฐะปะดะฐั, ัะฐะปะดะฐั, ั
ะพะปะดะฐั | |
|
|
| `ะปะณะฐะฝ` | 1.67x | 66 contexts | ะฐะปะณะฐะฝ, ะบะปะณะฐะฝ, ัะฐะปะณะฐะฝ | |
|
|
| `ัะปะดั` | 1.76x | 49 contexts | ะบัะปะดั, ั
ัะปะดั, ััะปะดั | |
|
|
| `ะตัะณะต` | 1.61x | 67 contexts | ะฑะตัะณะต, ัะตัะณะต, ัะตัะณะต | |
|
|
| `ััะณะฐ` | 1.50x | 80 contexts | ัััะณะฐ, ัััะณะฐ, ััะณะฐั | |
|
|
| `ัะณะฐะฝ` | 1.47x | 87 contexts | ะพัะณะฐะฝ, ััะณะฐะฝ, ะฐัะณะฐะฝ | |
|
|
|
|
|
### 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 | |
|
|
|--------|--------|-----------|----------| |
|
|
| `-ะบ` | `-ะฝ` | 97 words | ะบะฐะฝะฐะปัะฝ, ะบะฐััะตัะฐะทัะฝ | |
|
|
| `-ะบ` | `-ะฐ` | 96 words | ะบะฐะปะฑะฐะฐ, ะบะธะบะฑะพะบัะบะฐ | |
|
|
| `-ะฐ` | `-ะฐ` | 76 words | ะฐะทััะฐะปะณะฐ, ะฐะฝะบะฐัะฐะณะฐ | |
|
|
| `-ั` | `-ะฝ` | 70 words | ััะณะฐะฐะทัะฝ, ัะฐะทัะฝ | |
|
|
| `-ั` | `-ะฐ` | 70 words | ััะฒัะฝะดะฐ, ัะฐะปัะฐะบะฐ | |
|
|
| `-ะบ` | `-าฃ` | 70 words | ะบะพั
ััาฃ, ะบะพะฝัะตัะฒะฐัะพัะธัะทัะฝัาฃ | |
|
|
| `-ั` | `-าฃ` | 60 words | ัะพะฝัััะณะฐะปะดะฐััะฝัาฃ, ัะตะทะพะฝัะฝัาฃ | |
|
|
| `-ั` | `-ะฝ` | 57 words | ััะฝ, ัััะธะฝ | |
|
|
| `-ะบ` | `-ะต` | 56 words | ะบาฏััะตะปะดะธัะตัะธะฝะณะต, ะบะตะทะตะบัะต | |
|
|
| `-ะฑ` | `-ะฝ` | 55 words | ะฑัะธะณะฐะดะฐะทัะฝ, ะฑะฐะบะฐะปะฐะฒััะฝ | |
|
|
|
|
|
### 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 | |
|
|
|------|-----------------|------------|------| |
|
|
| ะฐัั
ะตะพะปะพะณัะฐัั | **`ะฐัั
ะตะพะปะพะณั-ะฐ-ัั`** | 7.5 | `ะฐ` | |
|
|
| าฏะฝะดะตะทะธะฝะฝะธาฃ | **`าฏะฝะดะตะทะธะฝ-ะฝ-ะธาฃ`** | 7.5 | `ะฝ` | |
|
|
| ะบะฐััะธะฝะฝะฐั | **`ะบะฐััะธะฝ-ะฝ-ะฐั`** | 7.5 | `ะฝ` | |
|
|
| ะพะฑะปะฐัััะฐะฐั | **`ะพะฑะปะฐััั-ะฐ-ะฐั`** | 7.5 | `ะฐ` | |
|
|
| ัะตะดะธัะธัะปะฐะผ | **`ัะตะดะธัะธัะป-ะฐ-ะผ`** | 7.5 | `ะฐ` | |
|
|
| ัะบัะฐะธะฝะฐะดะฐ | **`ัะบัะฐะธะฝ-ะฐ-ะดะฐ`** | 7.5 | `ะฐ` | |
|
|
| ะฑะฐะดัััะฟัะฐั | **`ะฑะฐะดัััะฟ-ั-ะฐั`** | 7.5 | `ั` | |
|
|
| ะฝะตะดะตะปัะปะฐัะณะฐ | **`ะฝะตะดะตะปัะป-ะฐั-ะณะฐ`** | 7.5 | `ะฐั` | |
|
|
| ะดะตะปะตะณะตะนะฝะธะฝ | **`ะดะตะปะตะณะตะน-ะฝ-ะธะฝ`** | 7.5 | `ะฝ` | |
|
|
| ะผะตะดะฐะปะดะฐัั | **`ะผะตะดะฐะป-ะดะฐ-ัั`** | 7.5 | `ะดะฐ` | |
|
|
| ะพะฑะปะฐััััะฐ | **`ะพะฑะปะฐััั-ั-ะฐ`** | 7.5 | `ั` | |
|
|
| ัััััะฐะฟะบะฐะฝ | **`ัััััะฐะฟ-ะบะฐ-ะฝ`** | 7.5 | `ะบะฐ` | |
|
|
| ะทะฐะณะฐะดะพัะฝะฐั | **`ะทะฐะณะฐะดะพั-ะฝ-ะฐั`** | 7.5 | `ะฝ` | |
|
|
| ะพะฑะปะฐััะฝะฐั | **`ะพะฑะปะฐัั-ะฝ-ะฐั`** | 7.5 | `ะฝ` | |
|
|
| ััะบััะฒะบะฐัะต | **`ััะบััะฒะบ-ะฐั-ะต`** | 7.5 | `ะฐั` | |
|
|
|
|
|
### 6.6 Linguistic Interpretation |
|
|
|
|
|
> **Automated Insight:** |
|
|
The language Tuvinian 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 (4.54x) | |
|
|
| N-gram | **2-gram** | Lowest perplexity (472) | |
|
|
| Markov | **Context-4** | Highest predictability (98.1%) | |
|
|
| Embeddings | **100d** | Balanced semantic capture and isotropy | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
--- |
|
|
## Appendix: Metrics Glossary & Interpretation Guide |
|
|
|
|
|
This section provides definitions, intuitions, and guidance for interpreting the metrics used throughout this report. |
|
|
|
|
|
### Tokenizer Metrics |
|
|
|
|
|
**Compression Ratio** |
|
|
> *Definition:* The ratio of characters to tokens (chars/token). Measures how efficiently the tokenizer represents text. |
|
|
> |
|
|
> *Intuition:* Higher compression means fewer tokens needed to represent the same text, reducing sequence lengths for downstream models. A 3x compression means ~3 characters per token on average. |
|
|
> |
|
|
> *What to seek:* Higher is generally better for efficiency, but extremely high compression may indicate overly aggressive merging that loses morphological information. |
|
|
|
|
|
**Average Token Length (Fertility)** |
|
|
> *Definition:* Mean number of characters per token produced by the tokenizer. |
|
|
> |
|
|
> *Intuition:* Reflects the granularity of tokenization. Longer tokens capture more context but may struggle with rare words; shorter tokens are more flexible but increase sequence length. |
|
|
> |
|
|
> *What to seek:* Balance between 2-5 characters for most languages. Arabic/morphologically-rich languages may benefit from slightly longer tokens. |
|
|
|
|
|
**Unknown Token Rate (OOV Rate)** |
|
|
> *Definition:* Percentage of tokens that map to the unknown/UNK token, indicating words the tokenizer cannot represent. |
|
|
> |
|
|
> *Intuition:* Lower OOV means better vocabulary coverage. High OOV indicates the tokenizer encounters many unseen character sequences. |
|
|
> |
|
|
> *What to seek:* Below 1% is excellent; below 5% is acceptable. BPE tokenizers typically achieve very low OOV due to subword fallback. |
|
|
|
|
|
### N-gram Model Metrics |
|
|
|
|
|
**Perplexity** |
|
|
> *Definition:* Measures how "surprised" the model is by test data. Mathematically: 2^(cross-entropy). Lower values indicate better prediction. |
|
|
> |
|
|
> *Intuition:* If perplexity is 100, the model is as uncertain as if choosing uniformly among 100 options at each step. A perplexity of 10 means effectively choosing among 10 equally likely options. |
|
|
> |
|
|
> *What to seek:* Lower is better. Perplexity decreases with larger n-grams (more context). Values vary widely by language and corpus size. |
|
|
|
|
|
**Entropy** |
|
|
> *Definition:* Average information content (in bits) needed to encode the next token given the context. Related to perplexity: perplexity = 2^entropy. |
|
|
> |
|
|
> *Intuition:* High entropy means high uncertainty/randomness; low entropy means predictable patterns. Natural language typically has entropy between 1-4 bits per character. |
|
|
> |
|
|
> *What to seek:* Lower entropy indicates more predictable text patterns. Entropy should decrease as n-gram size increases. |
|
|
|
|
|
**Coverage (Top-K)** |
|
|
> *Definition:* Percentage of corpus occurrences explained by the top K most frequent n-grams. |
|
|
> |
|
|
> *Intuition:* High coverage with few patterns indicates repetitive/formulaic text; low coverage suggests diverse vocabulary usage. |
|
|
> |
|
|
> *What to seek:* Depends on use case. For language modeling, moderate coverage (40-60% with top-1000) is typical for natural text. |
|
|
|
|
|
### Markov Chain Metrics |
|
|
|
|
|
**Average Entropy** |
|
|
> *Definition:* Mean entropy across all contexts, measuring average uncertainty in next-word prediction. |
|
|
> |
|
|
> *Intuition:* Lower entropy means the model is more confident about what comes next. Context-1 has high entropy (many possible next words); Context-4 has low entropy (few likely continuations). |
|
|
> |
|
|
> *What to seek:* Decreasing entropy with larger context sizes. Very low entropy (<0.1) indicates highly deterministic transitions. |
|
|
|
|
|
**Branching Factor** |
|
|
> *Definition:* Average number of unique next tokens observed for each context. |
|
|
> |
|
|
> *Intuition:* High branching = many possible continuations (flexible but uncertain); low branching = few options (predictable but potentially repetitive). |
|
|
> |
|
|
> *What to seek:* Branching factor should decrease with context size. Values near 1.0 indicate nearly deterministic chains. |
|
|
|
|
|
**Predictability** |
|
|
> *Definition:* Derived metric: (1 - normalized_entropy) ร 100%. Indicates how deterministic the model's predictions are. |
|
|
> |
|
|
> *Intuition:* 100% predictability means the next word is always certain; 0% means completely random. Real text falls between these extremes. |
|
|
> |
|
|
> *What to seek:* Higher predictability for text generation quality, but too high (>98%) may produce repetitive output. |
|
|
|
|
|
### Vocabulary & Zipf's Law Metrics |
|
|
|
|
|
**Zipf's Coefficient** |
|
|
> *Definition:* The slope of the log-log plot of word frequency vs. rank. Zipf's law predicts this should be approximately -1. |
|
|
> |
|
|
> *Intuition:* A coefficient near -1 indicates the corpus follows natural language patterns where a few words are very common and most words are rare. |
|
|
> |
|
|
> *What to seek:* Values between -0.8 and -1.2 indicate healthy natural language distribution. Deviations may suggest domain-specific or artificial text. |
|
|
|
|
|
**Rยฒ (Coefficient of Determination)** |
|
|
> *Definition:* Measures how well the linear fit explains the frequency-rank relationship. Ranges from 0 to 1. |
|
|
> |
|
|
> *Intuition:* Rยฒ near 1.0 means the data closely follows Zipf's law; lower values indicate deviation from expected word frequency patterns. |
|
|
> |
|
|
> *What to seek:* Rยฒ > 0.95 is excellent; > 0.99 indicates near-perfect Zipf adherence typical of large natural corpora. |
|
|
|
|
|
**Vocabulary Coverage** |
|
|
> *Definition:* Cumulative percentage of corpus tokens accounted for by the top N words. |
|
|
> |
|
|
> *Intuition:* Shows how concentrated word usage is. If top-100 words cover 50% of text, the corpus relies heavily on common words. |
|
|
> |
|
|
> *What to seek:* Top-100 covering 30-50% is typical. Higher coverage indicates more repetitive text; lower suggests richer vocabulary. |
|
|
|
|
|
### Word Embedding Metrics |
|
|
|
|
|
**Isotropy** |
|
|
> *Definition:* Measures how uniformly distributed vectors are in the embedding space. Computed as the ratio of minimum to maximum singular values. |
|
|
> |
|
|
> *Intuition:* High isotropy (near 1.0) means vectors spread evenly in all directions; low isotropy means vectors cluster in certain directions, reducing expressiveness. |
|
|
> |
|
|
> *What to seek:* Higher isotropy generally indicates better-quality embeddings. Values > 0.1 are reasonable; > 0.3 is good. Lower-dimensional embeddings tend to have higher isotropy. |
|
|
|
|
|
**Average Norm** |
|
|
> *Definition:* Mean magnitude (L2 norm) of word vectors in the embedding space. |
|
|
> |
|
|
> *Intuition:* Indicates the typical "length" of vectors. Consistent norms suggest stable training; high variance may indicate some words are undertrained. |
|
|
> |
|
|
> *What to seek:* Relatively consistent norms across models. The absolute value matters less than consistency (low std deviation). |
|
|
|
|
|
**Cosine Similarity** |
|
|
> *Definition:* Measures angular similarity between vectors, ranging from -1 (opposite) to 1 (identical direction). |
|
|
> |
|
|
> *Intuition:* Words with similar meanings should have high cosine similarity. This is the standard metric for semantic relatedness in embeddings. |
|
|
> |
|
|
> *What to seek:* Semantically related words should score > 0.5; unrelated words should be near 0. Synonyms often score > 0.7. |
|
|
|
|
|
**t-SNE Visualization** |
|
|
> *Definition:* t-Distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding - a dimensionality reduction technique that preserves local structure for visualization. |
|
|
> |
|
|
> *Intuition:* Clusters in t-SNE plots indicate groups of semantically related words. Spread indicates vocabulary diversity; tight clusters suggest semantic coherence. |
|
|
> |
|
|
> *What to seek:* Meaningful clusters (e.g., numbers together, verbs together). Avoid over-interpreting distances - t-SNE preserves local, not global, structure. |
|
|
|
|
|
### General Interpretation Guidelines |
|
|
|
|
|
1. **Compare within model families:** Metrics are most meaningful when comparing models of the same type (e.g., 8k vs 64k tokenizer). |
|
|
2. **Consider trade-offs:** Better performance on one metric often comes at the cost of another (e.g., compression vs. OOV rate). |
|
|
3. **Context matters:** Optimal values depend on downstream tasks. Text generation may prioritize different metrics than classification. |
|
|
4. **Corpus influence:** All metrics are influenced by corpus characteristics. Wikipedia text differs from social media or literature. |
|
|
5. **Language-specific patterns:** Morphologically rich languages (like Arabic) may show different optimal ranges than analytic languages. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Visualizations Index |
|
|
|
|
|
| Visualization | Description | |
|
|
|---------------|-------------| |
|
|
| Tokenizer Compression | Compression ratios by vocabulary size | |
|
|
| Tokenizer Fertility | Average token length by vocabulary | |
|
|
| Tokenizer OOV | Unknown token rates | |
|
|
| Tokenizer Total Tokens | Total tokens by vocabulary | |
|
|
| N-gram Perplexity | Perplexity by n-gram size | |
|
|
| N-gram Entropy | Entropy by n-gram size | |
|
|
| N-gram Coverage | Top pattern coverage | |
|
|
| N-gram Unique | Unique n-gram counts | |
|
|
| Markov Entropy | Entropy by context size | |
|
|
| Markov Branching | Branching factor by context | |
|
|
| Markov Contexts | Unique context counts | |
|
|
| Zipf's Law | Frequency-rank distribution with fit | |
|
|
| Vocab Frequency | Word frequency distribution | |
|
|
| Top 20 Words | Most frequent words | |
|
|
| Vocab Coverage | Cumulative coverage curve | |
|
|
| Embedding Isotropy | Vector space uniformity | |
|
|
| Embedding Norms | Vector magnitude distribution | |
|
|
| Embedding Similarity | Word similarity heatmap | |
|
|
| Nearest Neighbors | Similar words for key terms | |
|
|
| t-SNE Words | 2D word embedding visualization | |
|
|
| t-SNE Sentences | 2D sentence embedding visualization | |
|
|
| Position Encoding | Encoding method comparison | |
|
|
| Model Sizes | Storage requirements | |
|
|
| Performance Dashboard | Comprehensive performance overview | |
|
|
|
|
|
--- |
|
|
## About This Project |
|
|
|
|
|
### Data Source |
|
|
|
|
|
Models trained on [wikipedia-monthly](https://huggingface.co/datasets/omarkamali/wikipedia-monthly) - a monthly snapshot of Wikipedia articles across 300+ languages. |
|
|
|
|
|
### Project |
|
|
|
|
|
A project by **[Wikilangs](https://wikilangs.org)** - Open-source NLP models for every Wikipedia language. |
|
|
|
|
|
### Maintainer |
|
|
|
|
|
[Omar Kamali](https://omarkamali.com) - [Omneity Labs](https://omneitylabs.com) |
|
|
|
|
|
### Citation |
|
|
|
|
|
If you use these models in your research, please cite: |
|
|
|
|
|
```bibtex |
|
|
@misc{wikilangs2025, |
|
|
author = {Kamali, Omar}, |
|
|
title = {Wikilangs: Open NLP Models for Wikipedia Languages}, |
|
|
year = {2025}, |
|
|
doi = {10.5281/zenodo.18073153}, |
|
|
publisher = {Zenodo}, |
|
|
url = {https://huggingface.co/wikilangs} |
|
|
institution = {Omneity Labs} |
|
|
} |
|
|
``` |
|
|
|
|
|
### License |
|
|
|
|
|
MIT License - Free for academic and commercial use. |
|
|
|
|
|
### Links |
|
|
|
|
|
- ๐ Website: [wikilangs.org](https://wikilangs.org) |
|
|
- ๐ค Models: [huggingface.co/wikilangs](https://huggingface.co/wikilangs) |
|
|
- ๐ Data: [wikipedia-monthly](https://huggingface.co/datasets/omarkamali/wikipedia-monthly) |
|
|
- ๐ค Author: [Omar Kamali](https://huggingface.co/omarkamali) |
|
|
- ๐ค Sponsor: [Featherless AI](https://featherless.ai) |
|
|
--- |
|
|
*Generated by Wikilangs Models Pipeline* |
|
|
|
|
|
*Report Date: 2026-01-11 02:16:25* |
|
|
|