|
|
--- |
|
|
language: ur |
|
|
language_name: Urdu |
|
|
language_family: indoaryan_central |
|
|
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-indoaryan_central |
|
|
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: 4.066 |
|
|
- name: best_isotropy |
|
|
type: isotropy |
|
|
value: 0.7965 |
|
|
- name: vocabulary_size |
|
|
type: vocab |
|
|
value: 0 |
|
|
generated: 2026-01-11 |
|
|
--- |
|
|
|
|
|
# Urdu - Wikilangs Models |
|
|
## Comprehensive Research Report & Full Ablation Study |
|
|
|
|
|
This repository contains NLP models trained and evaluated by Wikilangs, specifically on **Urdu** 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](#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** | 3.434x | 3.44 | 0.1597% | 2,494,826 | |
|
|
| **16k** | 3.731x | 3.74 | 0.1735% | 2,296,340 | |
|
|
| **32k** | 3.936x | 3.95 | 0.1830% | 2,176,646 | |
|
|
| **64k** | 4.066x 🏆 | 4.08 | 0.1891% | 2,107,362 | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Tokenization Examples |
|
|
|
|
|
Below are sample sentences tokenized with each vocabulary size: |
|
|
|
|
|
**Sample 1:** `لائژوو چین کا ایک کاؤنٹی سطح شہر جو ژانگجیانگ میں واقع ہے۔ مزید دیکھیے چین فہرست...` |
|
|
|
|
|
| Vocab | Tokens | Count | |
|
|
|-------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 8k | `▁لائ ژ وو ▁چین ▁کا ▁ایک ▁کاؤنٹی ▁سطح ▁شہر ▁جو ... (+21 more)` | 31 | |
|
|
| 16k | `▁لائ ژوو ▁چین ▁کا ▁ایک ▁کاؤنٹی ▁سطح ▁شہر ▁جو ▁ژ ... (+19 more)` | 29 | |
|
|
| 32k | `▁لائ ژوو ▁چین ▁کا ▁ایک ▁کاؤنٹی ▁سطح ▁شہر ▁جو ▁ژانگ ... (+18 more)` | 28 | |
|
|
| 64k | `▁لائ ژوو ▁چین ▁کا ▁ایک ▁کاؤنٹی ▁سطح ▁شہر ▁جو ▁ژانگ ... (+18 more)` | 28 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**Sample 2:** `ساروی پاکستان کا ایک آباد مقام جو ضلع لاہور میں واقع ہے۔ مزید دیکھیے پاکستان پاک...` |
|
|
|
|
|
| Vocab | Tokens | Count | |
|
|
|-------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 8k | `▁سار وی ▁پاکستان ▁کا ▁ایک ▁آباد ▁مقام ▁جو ▁ضلع ▁لاہور ... (+16 more)` | 26 | |
|
|
| 16k | `▁سار وی ▁پاکستان ▁کا ▁ایک ▁آباد ▁مقام ▁جو ▁ضلع ▁لاہور ... (+16 more)` | 26 | |
|
|
| 32k | `▁سار وی ▁پاکستان ▁کا ▁ایک ▁آباد ▁مقام ▁جو ▁ضلع ▁لاہور ... (+16 more)` | 26 | |
|
|
| 64k | `▁سار وی ▁پاکستان ▁کا ▁ایک ▁آباد ▁مقام ▁جو ▁ضلع ▁لاہور ... (+16 more)` | 26 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**Sample 3:** `انڈونیشیا کی ثقافت سے مراد انڈونیشیا کا ثقافتی ورثہ ہے۔ حوالہ جات ثقافت مشرقی ای...` |
|
|
|
|
|
| Vocab | Tokens | Count | |
|
|
|-------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 8k | `▁انڈونیشیا ▁کی ▁ثقافت ▁سے ▁مراد ▁انڈونیشیا ▁کا ▁ثقافتی ▁ورثہ ▁ہے۔ ... (+6 more)` | 16 | |
|
|
| 16k | `▁انڈونیشیا ▁کی ▁ثقافت ▁سے ▁مراد ▁انڈونیشیا ▁کا ▁ثقافتی ▁ورثہ ▁ہے۔ ... (+6 more)` | 16 | |
|
|
| 32k | `▁انڈونیشیا ▁کی ▁ثقافت ▁سے ▁مراد ▁انڈونیشیا ▁کا ▁ثقافتی ▁ورثہ ▁ہے۔ ... (+6 more)` | 16 | |
|
|
| 64k | `▁انڈونیشیا ▁کی ▁ثقافت ▁سے ▁مراد ▁انڈونیشیا ▁کا ▁ثقافتی ▁ورثہ ▁ہے۔ ... (+6 more)` | 16 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Key Findings |
|
|
|
|
|
- **Best Compression:** 64k achieves 4.066x compression |
|
|
- **Lowest UNK Rate:** 8k with 0.1597% 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 | 71,880 | 16.13 | 920,952 | 12.1% | 28.0% | |
|
|
| **2-gram** | Subword | 407 🏆 | 8.67 | 31,986 | 59.9% | 96.3% | |
|
|
| **3-gram** | Word | 315,178 | 18.27 | 2,297,981 | 8.3% | 17.4% | |
|
|
| **3-gram** | Subword | 3,547 | 11.79 | 203,673 | 25.5% | 63.2% | |
|
|
| **4-gram** | Word | 765,780 | 19.55 | 4,319,755 | 7.4% | 14.2% | |
|
|
| **4-gram** | Subword | 19,593 | 14.26 | 1,069,845 | 12.6% | 37.0% | |
|
|
| **5-gram** | Word | 617,009 | 19.23 | 3,316,122 | 7.9% | 15.7% | |
|
|
| **5-gram** | Subword | 75,628 | 16.21 | 3,267,447 | 7.4% | 25.5% | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Top 5 N-grams by Size |
|
|
|
|
|
**2-grams (Word):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `کے لیے` | 246,197 | |
|
|
| 2 | `حوالہ جات` | 212,286 | |
|
|
| 3 | `واقع ہے` | 138,739 | |
|
|
| 4 | `مزید دیکھیے` | 134,662 | |
|
|
| 5 | `ہے اور` | 134,251 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**3-grams (Word):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `میں واقع ہے` | 98,697 | |
|
|
| 2 | `ہے مزید دیکھیے` | 91,225 | |
|
|
| 3 | `ریاستہائے متحدہ امریکا` | 75,905 | |
|
|
| 4 | `شہر حوالہ جات` | 70,046 | |
|
|
| 5 | `کے شہر حوالہ` | 69,949 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**4-grams (Word):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `کے شہر حوالہ جات` | 69,947 | |
|
|
| 2 | `ڈیٹا سے مختلف مختصر` | 60,477 | |
|
|
| 3 | `سے مختلف مختصر وضاحت` | 60,477 | |
|
|
| 4 | `میں واقع ہے تفصیلات` | 57,274 | |
|
|
| 5 | `واقع ہے مزید دیکھیے` | 56,176 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**5-grams (Word):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `ڈیٹا سے مختلف مختصر وضاحت` | 60,477 | |
|
|
| 2 | `مطابقت رکھنے والی مختصر تفصیل` | 36,597 | |
|
|
| 3 | `ڈیٹا سے مطابقت رکھنے والی` | 36,597 | |
|
|
| 4 | `سے مطابقت رکھنے والی مختصر` | 36,597 | |
|
|
| 5 | `ریاستہائے متحدہ امریکا کا ایک` | 32,162 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**2-grams (Subword):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `_ ک` | 8,939,155 | |
|
|
| 2 | `ے _` | 7,506,929 | |
|
|
| 3 | `ی _` | 7,229,403 | |
|
|
| 4 | `_ ا` | 6,895,736 | |
|
|
| 5 | `_ م` | 5,580,612 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**3-grams (Subword):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `ی ں _` | 2,526,926 | |
|
|
| 2 | `ک ے _` | 2,439,009 | |
|
|
| 3 | `_ ک ے` | 2,399,929 | |
|
|
| 4 | `_ ک ی` | 2,309,611 | |
|
|
| 5 | `_ م ی` | 2,222,538 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**4-grams (Subword):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `_ ک ے _` | 2,395,195 | |
|
|
| 2 | `م ی ں _` | 1,913,836 | |
|
|
| 3 | `_ م ی ں` | 1,894,953 | |
|
|
| 4 | `_ ک ی _` | 1,654,644 | |
|
|
| 5 | `_ ا و ر` | 1,206,959 | |
|
|
|
|
|
**5-grams (Subword):** |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | N-gram | Count | |
|
|
|------|--------|-------| |
|
|
| 1 | `_ م ی ں _` | 1,841,071 | |
|
|
| 2 | `_ ا و ر _` | 1,180,320 | |
|
|
| 3 | `_ ا ی ک _` | 540,019 | |
|
|
| 4 | `_ ہ ے ۔ _` | 533,595 | |
|
|
| 5 | `ن _ ک ے _` | 281,812 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Key Findings |
|
|
|
|
|
- **Best Perplexity:** 2-gram (subword) with 407 |
|
|
- **Entropy Trend:** Decreases with larger n-grams (more predictable) |
|
|
- **Coverage:** Top-1000 patterns cover ~26% of corpus |
|
|
- **Recommendation:** 4-gram or 5-gram for best predictive performance |
|
|
|
|
|
--- |
|
|
## 3. Markov Chain Evaluation |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
### Results |
|
|
|
|
|
| Context | Variant | Avg Entropy | Perplexity | Branching Factor | Unique Contexts | Predictability | |
|
|
|---------|---------|-------------|------------|------------------|-----------------|----------------| |
|
|
| **1** | Word | 0.7878 | 1.726 | 10.02 | 931,321 | 21.2% | |
|
|
| **1** | Subword | 1.0778 | 2.111 | 8.71 | 12,123 | 0.0% | |
|
|
| **2** | Word | 0.4142 | 1.333 | 2.63 | 9,325,685 | 58.6% | |
|
|
| **2** | Subword | 0.7107 | 1.637 | 4.70 | 105,552 | 28.9% | |
|
|
| **3** | Word | 0.2036 | 1.152 | 1.51 | 24,486,673 | 79.6% | |
|
|
| **3** | Subword | 0.6567 | 1.576 | 3.92 | 496,416 | 34.3% | |
|
|
| **4** | Word | 0.0977 🏆 | 1.070 | 1.19 | 36,918,721 | 90.2% | |
|
|
| **4** | Subword | 0.6391 | 1.557 | 3.25 | 1,947,168 | 36.1% | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Generated Text Samples (Word-based) |
|
|
|
|
|
Below are text samples generated from each word-based Markov chain model: |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 1:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `کے خلاف شمالی افریقی ارکان پارلیمنٹ جان جیکب آباد مقامات ڈیٹا سے قبل مسیح rishi 24` |
|
|
2. `میں اس پر پہچان ایک وسیع تحقیق کی جاتی ہے اور دیگر نے بنا مزید دیکھیے` |
|
|
3. `کی سپریم کورٹ سی پی سی اے حسینہ اور 626 0 126 نے مسترد کرتے ہوئے` |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 2:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `کے لیے دو فرسٹ کلاس کرکٹ میں ان کی نمائندگی کرتے ہیں اور طنز کرتے اور حقانیت` |
|
|
2. `حوالہ جات بیرونی روابط طرطلیان کا معما بنی ہوئی ایک ترقی یافتہ ڈویژن فور کے لیے حملہ` |
|
|
3. `واقع ہے مزید دیکھیے لتھووینیا فہرست لتھووینیا کے نامکمل مضامین ڈیٹا سے مختلف مختصر وضاحت کی پیدائشیں` |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 3:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `میں واقع ہے تفصیلات ییپچس ضلع کا رقبہ 53 944 مربع کلومیٹر ہے اس کی مجموعی آبادی 6` |
|
|
2. `ہے مزید دیکھیے جرمنی کی ریاستیں 16 بھارت کی ریاستیں بلحاظ آبادی حوالہ جات میں قائم ہونے والے` |
|
|
3. `ریاستہائے متحدہ امریکا ریاستہائے متحدہ امریکا کا ایک ٹاؤن شپ جو کلنٹن کاؤنٹی اوہائیو اوہائیو 61 310 ...` |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 4:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `کے شہر حوالہ جات میں آباد ہونے والے مقامات ڈیٹا سے مختلف مختصر وضاحت کے آباد مقامات میں مرگ` |
|
|
2. `ڈیٹا سے مختلف مختصر وضاحت مزاحیہ ڈراما فلمیں فلمیں متحدہ میں زنا کے بارے میں فلمیں فلمیں سے تخلیق` |
|
|
3. `میں واقع ہے تفصیلات لا شاپیل این والگوڈیمار کا رقبہ 108 02 مربع کلومیٹر ہے اور اس کی مجموعی` |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Generated Text Samples (Subword-based) |
|
|
|
|
|
Below are text samples generated from each subword-based Markov chain model: |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 1:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `_16_دیکاس_مد_کے_` |
|
|
2. `ا_اتھروساہے_لے۔_` |
|
|
3. `یں_tad_ا_نیا_205` |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 2:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `_کی_پان_ال_ہور_بر` |
|
|
2. `ے_ان_میں_معا_مغرب` |
|
|
3. `ی_ول_گار_پیدارکھی` |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 3:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `یں_کا_کورپینیجرینڈ` |
|
|
2. `کے_بلندیر_بِکری_علی` |
|
|
3. `_کے_تھے۔_ابھ_انھوں` |
|
|
|
|
|
**Context Size 4:** |
|
|
|
|
|
1. `_کے_نتیجے_میں_واقع_` |
|
|
2. `میں_جہاں_i_tehsil_w` |
|
|
3. `_میں_وشون-شوگر_پار،` |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Key Findings |
|
|
|
|
|
- **Best Predictability:** Context-4 (word) with 90.2% predictability |
|
|
- **Branching Factor:** Decreases with context size (more deterministic) |
|
|
- **Memory Trade-off:** Larger contexts require more storage (1,947,168 contexts) |
|
|
- **Recommendation:** Context-3 or Context-4 for text generation |
|
|
|
|
|
--- |
|
|
## 4. Vocabulary Analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
### Statistics |
|
|
|
|
|
| Metric | Value | |
|
|
|--------|-------| |
|
|
| Vocabulary Size | 395,742 | |
|
|
| Total Tokens | 58,544,950 | |
|
|
| Mean Frequency | 147.94 | |
|
|
| Median Frequency | 4 | |
|
|
| Frequency Std Dev | 7177.12 | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Most Common Words |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Word | Frequency | |
|
|
|------|------|-----------| |
|
|
| 1 | کے | 2,399,956 | |
|
|
| 2 | میں | 1,897,386 | |
|
|
| 3 | کی | 1,727,992 | |
|
|
| 4 | اور | 1,185,297 | |
|
|
| 5 | ہے | 1,085,895 | |
|
|
| 6 | سے | 991,149 | |
|
|
| 7 | کا | 802,866 | |
|
|
| 8 | نے | 660,570 | |
|
|
| 9 | اس | 581,153 | |
|
|
| 10 | پر | 570,105 | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Least Common Words (from vocabulary) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Word | Frequency | |
|
|
|------|------|-----------| |
|
|
| 1 | yarns | 2 | |
|
|
| 2 | anika | 2 | |
|
|
| 3 | dailystar | 2 | |
|
|
| 4 | دامنیوں | 2 | |
|
|
| 5 | دریاچۂ | 2 | |
|
|
| 6 | murgap | 2 | |
|
|
| 7 | دیمقراطیت | 2 | |
|
|
| 8 | الممتنعة | 2 | |
|
|
| 9 | کرداراے | 2 | |
|
|
| 10 | قیطابای | 2 | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Zipf's Law Analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
| Metric | Value | |
|
|
|--------|-------| |
|
|
| Zipf Coefficient | 1.1596 | |
|
|
| R² (Goodness of Fit) | 0.989996 | |
|
|
| Adherence Quality | **excellent** | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Coverage Analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
| Top N Words | Coverage | |
|
|
|-------------|----------| |
|
|
| Top 100 | 40.8% | |
|
|
| Top 1,000 | 67.7% | |
|
|
| Top 5,000 | 84.7% | |
|
|
| Top 10,000 | 89.9% | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Key Findings |
|
|
|
|
|
- **Zipf Compliance:** R²=0.9900 indicates excellent adherence to Zipf's law |
|
|
- **High Frequency Dominance:** Top 100 words cover 40.8% of corpus |
|
|
- **Long Tail:** 385,742 words needed for remaining 10.1% 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 | 0.7965 🏆 | 0.3746 | N/A | N/A | |
|
|
| **mono_64d** | 64 | 0.7804 | 0.3072 | N/A | N/A | |
|
|
| **mono_128d** | 128 | 0.7411 | 0.2584 | N/A | N/A | |
|
|
| **aligned_32d** | 32 | 0.7965 | 0.3667 | 0.0900 | 0.3980 | |
|
|
| **aligned_64d** | 64 | 0.7804 | 0.3243 | 0.1900 | 0.5220 | |
|
|
| **aligned_128d** | 128 | 0.7411 | 0.2599 | 0.2640 | 0.6360 | |
|
|
|
|
|
### Key Findings |
|
|
|
|
|
- **Best Isotropy:** mono_32d with 0.7965 (more uniform distribution) |
|
|
- **Semantic Density:** Average pairwise similarity of 0.3152. Lower values indicate better semantic separation. |
|
|
- **Alignment Quality:** Aligned models achieve up to 26.4% 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 | **-0.387** | 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 | |
|
|
|--------|----------| |
|
|
| `-ال` | الازہار, الحسينی, الكرخی | |
|
|
| `-ا` | الازہار, اعادی, اسکن | |
|
|
| `-م` | موزولینی, مشہورہ, میلوم | |
|
|
| `-ب` | بیٹاہے, بمبی, بدیشگرام | |
|
|
| `-س` | سکھانے, سگاچے, سووموٹو | |
|
|
| `-ک` | کورینتینے, کتابتِ, کٹمور | |
|
|
| `-و` | وملل, وففینگے, وولڈز | |
|
|
| `-ت` | تبصروں, تحس, ترسیلات | |
|
|
|
|
|
#### Productive Suffixes |
|
|
| Suffix | Examples | |
|
|
|--------|----------| |
|
|
| `-ی` | نمامی, اعادی, بمبی | |
|
|
| `-ا` | آئیڈیلا, چھیڈا, سنگڑا | |
|
|
| `-ن` | اسکن, ڑککن, لعبدالرحمن | |
|
|
| `-s` | anthonys, carpets, condoles | |
|
|
| `-n` | usenon, areairon, bannerman | |
|
|
| `-e` | linkage, lafitte, ampère | |
|
|
| `-ں` | پنجابیوں, بیروتژاں, تبصروں | |
|
|
| `-ر` | الازہار, کٹمور, خائر | |
|
|
|
|
|
### 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 | |
|
|
|------|----------|------------------|----------| |
|
|
| `ھارت` | 2.29x | 63 contexts | ہھارت, پھارت, دھارت | |
|
|
| `مریک` | 2.26x | 41 contexts | امریک, مریکی, مریکہ | |
|
|
| `اؤنٹ` | 2.16x | 43 contexts | ماؤنٹ, گاؤنٹ, کاؤنٹ | |
|
|
| `کاؤن` | 2.21x | 39 contexts | کاؤنا, کاؤنی, کاؤنٹ | |
|
|
| `اریخ` | 1.86x | 54 contexts | فاریخ, تاریخ, تاریخٰ | |
|
|
| `لاقو` | 2.48x | 18 contexts | علاقو, الاقو, لاقوۃ | |
|
|
| `ھلاڑ` | 2.91x | 11 contexts | ڈھلاڑ, کھلاڑ, لھلاڑی | |
|
|
| `اقوا` | 2.16x | 27 contexts | اقوام, جاقوا, اقوال | |
|
|
| `ختلف` | 2.31x | 20 contexts | اختلف, يختلف, مختلف | |
|
|
| `ختصر` | 2.07x | 23 contexts | اختصر, مختصر, مختصرا | |
|
|
| `الاق` | 1.77x | 39 contexts | الاقو, الاقصي, الاقصى | |
|
|
| `تحدہ` | 2.47x | 11 contexts | متحدہ, 1متحدہ, المتحدہ | |
|
|
|
|
|
### 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 | |
|
|
|--------|--------|-----------|----------| |
|
|
| `-ال` | `-ی` | 59 words | النفیسی, الأولی | |
|
|
| `-ا` | `-ا` | 45 words | اورلینزلوویزیانا, اماٹیلا | |
|
|
| `-ا` | `-ی` | 43 words | انڈیانامیامی, النفیسی | |
|
|
| `-س` | `-ی` | 35 words | سریمورالی, سیارچوی | |
|
|
| `-ک` | `-ی` | 32 words | کندی, کولاتیری | |
|
|
| `-ال` | `-ن` | 31 words | الوالدين, الیکزاندرپشکن | |
|
|
| `-ال` | `-ہ` | 28 words | العربیہ, السیارہ | |
|
|
| `-م` | `-ی` | 26 words | مہرؤلی, مورنسی | |
|
|
| `-ب` | `-ی` | 24 words | بحیری, بریطانی | |
|
|
| `-ا` | `-ن` | 23 words | ابوالرین, انبان | |
|
|
|
|
|
### 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 | |
|
|
|------|-----------------|------------|------| |
|
|
| ایکسیلنسی | **`ایکسیلن-س-ی`** | 7.5 | `س` | |
|
|
| ریٹروگریڈ | **`ریٹروگر-ی-ڈ`** | 7.5 | `ی` | |
|
|
| گراؤنڈبیونس | **`گراؤنڈبیو-ن-س`** | 7.5 | `ن` | |
|
|
| کوستنجویکانہ | **`کوستنجویک-ان-ہ`** | 7.5 | `ان` | |
|
|
| اورتعلیمی | **`اور-تعلیم-ی`** | 6.0 | `تعلیم` | |
|
|
| مالمزبیری | **`م-الم-زبیری`** | 6.0 | `زبیری` | |
|
|
| composers | **`composer-s`** | 4.5 | `composer` | |
|
|
| نصیرآبادی | **`نصیرآباد-ی`** | 4.5 | `نصیرآباد` | |
|
|
| تھیوبالڈس | **`تھیوبالڈ-س`** | 4.5 | `تھیوبالڈ` | |
|
|
| ہائیڈریٹس | **`ہائیڈریٹ-س`** | 4.5 | `ہائیڈریٹ` | |
|
|
| پیرالمپکس | **`پیرالمپک-س`** | 4.5 | `پیرالمپک` | |
|
|
| dwellings | **`dwelling-s`** | 4.5 | `dwelling` | |
|
|
| violations | **`violation-s`** | 4.5 | `violation` | |
|
|
| positional | **`position-al`** | 4.5 | `position` | |
|
|
| oscillators | **`oscillator-s`** | 4.5 | `oscillator` | |
|
|
|
|
|
### 6.6 Linguistic Interpretation |
|
|
|
|
|
> **Automated Insight:** |
|
|
The language Urdu 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 (4.07x) | |
|
|
| N-gram | **2-gram** | Lowest perplexity (407) | |
|
|
| Markov | **Context-4** | Highest predictability (90.2%) | |
|
|
| 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 06:46:29* |
|
|
|