Yiddish - Wikilangs Models
Comprehensive Research Report & Full Ablation Study
This repository contains NLP models trained and evaluated by Wikilangs, specifically on Yiddish Wikipedia data. We analyze tokenizers, n-gram models, Markov chains, vocabulary statistics, and word embeddings.
π Repository Contents
Models & Assets
- Tokenizers (8k, 16k, 32k, 64k)
- N-gram models (2, 3, 4, 5-gram)
- Markov chains (context of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5)
- Subword N-gram and Markov chains
- Embeddings in various sizes and dimensions (aligned and unaligned)
- Language Vocabulary
- Language Statistics
Analysis and Evaluation
- 1. Tokenizer Evaluation
- 2. N-gram Model Evaluation
- 3. Markov Chain Evaluation
- 4. Vocabulary Analysis
- 5. Word Embeddings Evaluation
- 6. Morphological Analysis (Experimental)
- 7. Summary & Recommendations
- Metrics Glossary
- Visualizations Index
1. Tokenizer Evaluation
Results
| Vocab Size | Compression | Avg Token Len | UNK Rate | Total Tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8k | 3.841x | 3.84 | 0.1120% | 631,919 |
| 16k | 4.158x | 4.16 | 0.1213% | 583,788 |
| 32k | 4.393x | 4.40 | 0.1282% | 552,468 |
| 64k | 4.552x π | 4.55 | 0.1328% | 533,206 |
Tokenization Examples
Below are sample sentences tokenized with each vocabulary size:
Sample 1: ΧΧ’Χ©Χ’Χ’Χ ΧΧ©Χ ΧΧ’ΧΧΧΧ¨Χ Χ Χ€ΧΧ¨ ΧΧ’ΧΧΧΧ¨Χ Χ§ΧΧΧ’Χ ΧΧΧ¨ Χ¦ΧΧ ΧΧΧΧ’Χ¨Χ§Χ Χ¨Χ’Χ€Χ’Χ¨Χ’Χ Χ¦Χ
| Vocab | Tokens | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 8k | βΧΧ’Χ©Χ’Χ’Χ ΧΧ©Χ βΧΧ’ΧΧΧΧ¨Χ βΧ Χ€ΧΧ¨ βΧΧ’ΧΧΧΧ¨Χ βΧ§ΧΧΧ’Χ ΧΧΧ¨ βΧ¦ΧΧ βΧΧΧΧ’Χ¨Χ§Χ βΧ¨Χ’Χ€Χ’Χ¨Χ’Χ Χ¦Χ |
8 |
| 16k | βΧΧ’Χ©Χ’Χ’Χ ΧΧ©Χ βΧΧ’ΧΧΧΧ¨Χ βΧ Χ€ΧΧ¨ βΧΧ’ΧΧΧΧ¨Χ βΧ§ΧΧΧ’Χ ΧΧΧ¨ βΧ¦ΧΧ βΧΧΧΧ’Χ¨Χ§Χ βΧ¨Χ’Χ€Χ’Χ¨Χ’Χ Χ¦Χ |
8 |
| 32k | βΧΧ’Χ©Χ’Χ’Χ ΧΧ©Χ βΧΧ’ΧΧΧΧ¨Χ βΧ Χ€ΧΧ¨ βΧΧ’ΧΧΧΧ¨Χ βΧ§ΧΧΧ’Χ ΧΧΧ¨ βΧ¦ΧΧ βΧΧΧΧ’Χ¨Χ§Χ βΧ¨Χ’Χ€Χ’Χ¨Χ’Χ Χ¦Χ |
8 |
| 64k | βΧΧ’Χ©Χ’Χ’Χ ΧΧ©Χ βΧΧ’ΧΧΧΧ¨Χ βΧ Χ€ΧΧ¨ βΧΧ’ΧΧΧΧ¨Χ βΧ§ΧΧΧ’Χ ΧΧΧ¨ βΧ¦ΧΧ βΧΧΧΧ’Χ¨Χ§Χ βΧ¨Χ’Χ€Χ’Χ¨Χ’Χ Χ¦Χ |
8 |
Sample 2: ΧΧ’Χ©Χ’Χ’Χ ΧΧ©Χ ΧΧ’ΧΧΧΧ¨Χ 24Χ‘ΧΧ ΧΧΧ ΧΧΧ¨ - Χ€Χ¨ΧΧΧ¨ΧΧ ΧΧ’Χ¨ ΧΧ¨ΧΧΧ‘Χ’Χ¨, ΧΧΧ Χ€ΧΧ Χ€Χ¨ΧΧΧ‘Χ (ΧΧ’Χ©' 28Χ‘ΧΧ...
| Vocab | Tokens | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 8k | βΧΧ’Χ©Χ’Χ’Χ ΧΧ©Χ βΧΧ’ΧΧΧΧ¨Χ β 2 4 Χ‘ΧΧ βΧΧΧ ΧΧΧ¨ β- βΧ€Χ¨ΧΧΧ¨ΧΧ βΧΧ’Χ¨ ... (+27 more) |
37 |
| 16k | βΧΧ’Χ©Χ’Χ’Χ ΧΧ©Χ βΧΧ’ΧΧΧΧ¨Χ β 2 4 Χ‘ΧΧ βΧΧΧ ΧΧΧ¨ β- βΧ€Χ¨ΧΧΧ¨ΧΧ βΧΧ’Χ¨ ... (+27 more) |
37 |
| 32k | βΧΧ’Χ©Χ’Χ’Χ ΧΧ©Χ βΧΧ’ΧΧΧΧ¨Χ β 2 4 Χ‘ΧΧ βΧΧΧ ΧΧΧ¨ β- βΧ€Χ¨ΧΧΧ¨ΧΧ βΧΧ’Χ¨ ... (+25 more) |
35 |
| 64k | βΧΧ’Χ©Χ’Χ’Χ ΧΧ©Χ βΧΧ’ΧΧΧΧ¨Χ β 2 4 Χ‘ΧΧ βΧΧΧ ΧΧΧ¨ β- βΧ€Χ¨ΧΧΧ¨ΧΧ βΧΧ’Χ¨ ... (+25 more) |
35 |
Sample 3: Χ ΧΧ’Χ ΧΧ© ΧΧΧ ΧΧΧΧ£ ΧΧ’ΧΧ’Χ¨ ΧΧΧ Χ Χ€ΧΧ Χ£ Χ€ΧΧ ΧΧ’Χ¨. ΧΧ’Χ ΧΧΧΧ Χ€ΧΧ ΧΧ’Χ¨ (Χ€ΧΧ‘) ΧΧ ΧΧΧΧΧΧ’
| Vocab | Tokens | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 8k | βΧ βΧΧ’Χ ΧΧ© βΧΧΧ βΧΧΧΧ£ βΧΧ’ΧΧ’Χ¨ βΧΧΧ Χ βΧ€ΧΧ Χ£ βΧ€ ΧΧ ΧΧ’Χ¨ . ... (+10 more) |
20 |
| 16k | βΧ βΧΧ’Χ ΧΧ© βΧΧΧ βΧΧΧΧ£ βΧΧ’ΧΧ’Χ¨ βΧΧΧ Χ βΧ€ΧΧ Χ£ βΧ€ΧΧ ΧΧ’Χ¨ . βΧΧ’Χ ... (+6 more) |
16 |
| 32k | βΧ βΧΧ’Χ ΧΧ© βΧΧΧ βΧΧΧΧ£ βΧΧ’ΧΧ’Χ¨ βΧΧΧ Χ βΧ€ΧΧ Χ£ βΧ€ΧΧ ΧΧ’Χ¨ . βΧΧ’Χ ... (+6 more) |
16 |
| 64k | βΧ βΧΧ’Χ ΧΧ© βΧΧΧ βΧΧΧΧ£ βΧΧ’ΧΧ’Χ¨ βΧΧΧ Χ βΧ€ΧΧ Χ£ βΧ€ΧΧ ΧΧ’Χ¨ . βΧΧ’Χ ... (+6 more) |
16 |
Key Findings
- Best Compression: 64k achieves 4.552x compression
- Lowest UNK Rate: 8k with 0.1120% 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 | 21,980 | 14.42 | 83,327 | 13.3% | 32.3% |
| 2-gram | Subword | 275 π | 8.10 | 6,028 | 68.2% | 98.3% |
| 3-gram | Word | 61,497 | 15.91 | 131,301 | 6.0% | 17.5% |
| 3-gram | Subword | 2,102 | 11.04 | 45,237 | 31.8% | 72.4% |
| 4-gram | Word | 130,494 | 16.99 | 212,902 | 3.8% | 10.8% |
| 4-gram | Subword | 10,721 | 13.39 | 208,071 | 17.9% | 44.3% |
| 5-gram | Word | 103,402 | 16.66 | 145,493 | 3.1% | 10.1% |
| 5-gram | Subword | 36,498 | 15.16 | 485,661 | 10.7% | 29.1% |
Top 5 N-grams by Size
2-grams (Word):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Χ€ΧΧ ΧΧ |
13,720 |
| 2 | ΧΧΧ ΧΧ’ΧΧΧ’Χ |
11,141 |
| 3 | ΧΧΧ ΧΧ |
9,304 |
| 4 | ΧΧΧ Χ |
8,395 |
| 5 | ΧΧΧ ΧΧ’Χ¨ |
8,145 |
3-grams (Word):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | ΧΧΧ ΧΧ’ΧΧΧ’Χ Χ |
2,689 |
| 2 | ΧΧ ΧΧΧΧΧ Χ€ΧΧ |
2,393 |
| 3 | Χ ΧΧΧ Χ€ΧΧ |
2,168 |
| 4 | Χ’Χ¨ ΧΧΧ ΧΧ’ΧΧΧ’Χ |
1,847 |
| 5 | ΧΧΧ ΧΧ’ΧΧΧ’Χ ΧΧ’Χ¨ |
1,502 |
4-grams (Word):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Χ ΧΧΧ Χ€ΧΧ ΧΧ¨Χ |
1,309 |
| 2 | ΧΧ ΧΧΧΧΧ Χ€ΧΧ Χ¨ΧΧ |
1,223 |
| 3 | ΧΧ ΧΧΧΧΧ Χ€ΧΧ ΧΧ¨Χ |
967 |
| 4 | Χ ΧΧΧΧΧ’Χ¨ Χ€ΧΧ ΧΧ¨Χ |
935 |
| 5 | ΧΧΧ ΧΧ’ΧΧΧΧ¨Χ ΧΧ’ΧΧΧΧ¨Χ ΧΧΧ |
602 |
5-grams (Word):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | ΧΧ Χ¦ΧΧ§ΧΧΧ€ΧΧΧ ΧΧΧΧΧ ΧΧΧΧ¦ΧΧ ΧΧΧΧ¨ ΧΧΧ ΧΧ¨ |
383 |
| 2 | ΧΧΧ Χ¦ΧΧ Χ‘ΧΧ£ ΧΧΧ¨ ΧΧΧΧΧΧ |
365 |
| 3 | Χ¦ΧΧ Χ‘ΧΧ£ ΧΧΧ¨ ΧΧΧΧΧΧ Χ ΧΧ |
364 |
| 4 | ΧΧΧ Χ¦Χ ΧΧΧΧ ΧΧΧΧ’Χ¨ ΧΧ¨Χͺ |
357 |
| 5 | ΧΧΧ Χ’Χ ΧΧ¨Χ’ΧΧΧ¨ΧΧΧ ΧΧ©Χ Χ§ΧΧΧ’Χ ΧΧΧ¨ ΧΧΧ Χ¦ΧΧ |
336 |
2-grams (Subword):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Χ _ |
767,030 |
| 2 | _ Χ |
671,834 |
| 3 | Χ’ Χ¨ |
443,218 |
| 4 | Χ¨ _ |
336,097 |
| 5 | Χ _ |
319,572 |
3-grams (Subword):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | _ Χ Χ |
258,659 |
| 2 | Χ’ Χ¨ _ |
253,758 |
| 3 | Χ Χ _ |
215,735 |
| 4 | _ Χ Χ |
163,745 |
| 5 | Χ _ Χ |
160,680 |
4-grams (Subword):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | _ Χ Χ _ |
111,007 |
| 2 | Χ€ Χ Χ _ |
108,221 |
| 3 | _ Χ€ Χ Χ |
105,513 |
| 4 | Χ Χ Χ _ |
97,976 |
| 5 | _ Χ Χ Χ |
97,190 |
5-grams (Subword):
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | _ Χ€ Χ Χ _ |
105,410 |
| 2 | _ Χ Χ Χ _ |
97,087 |
| 3 | _ Χ Χ Χ _ |
88,981 |
| 4 | _ Χ Χ Χ _ |
80,703 |
| 5 | _ Χ Χ’ Χ¨ _ |
61,940 |
Key Findings
- Best Perplexity: 2-gram (subword) with 275
- Entropy Trend: Decreases with larger n-grams (more predictable)
- Coverage: Top-1000 patterns cover ~29% 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 | 0.8935 | 1.858 | 7.14 | 157,053 | 10.6% |
| 1 | Subword | 1.0780 | 2.111 | 9.14 | 1,976 | 0.0% |
| 2 | Word | 0.3611 | 1.284 | 2.03 | 1,117,409 | 63.9% |
| 2 | Subword | 0.8485 | 1.801 | 5.31 | 18,020 | 15.1% |
| 3 | Word | 0.1429 | 1.104 | 1.26 | 2,254,596 | 85.7% |
| 3 | Subword | 0.7997 | 1.741 | 3.95 | 95,571 | 20.0% |
| 4 | Word | 0.0521 π | 1.037 | 1.08 | 2,835,381 | 94.8% |
| 4 | Subword | 0.6110 | 1.527 | 2.70 | 377,001 | 38.9% |
Generated Text Samples (Word-based)
Below are text samples generated from each word-based Markov chain model:
Context Size 1:
ΧΧ Χ©ΧΧΧΧΧ ΧΧΧ ΧΧ’Χ¨ ΧΧΧ ΧΧΧΧΧ¨Χ’Χ¨ Χ¨Χ ΧΧΧΧ’Χ¨ 400 ΧΧΧ’Χ Χ’Χ¨ ΧΧΧ Χ¨ΧΧΧ Χ€ΧΧ Χ§ΧΦ΄Χ’ΧΧ ΧΧΧ¨ ΧΧ’Χ¨Χ€ΧΧ Χ‘Χ’Χ¨Χ’Χ ΧΧΧΧΧ©Χ ΧΧ₯ ΧΧ¨Χ Χ©ΧΧΧ ΧΧ’ΧΧΧΧΧ’Χ¨ Χ¨ΧΧ ΧΧΧΧ Χ€ΧΧ ΧΧ ΧΧΧΧΧ ΧΧ’Χ¨ΧΧΧ ΧΧ’ Χ€Χ¨ΧΧΧΧ§ΧΧ Χ€ΧΧ¨ Χ Χ©Χ’Χ Χ§ΧΧΧΧΧΧ ΧΧ ΧΧ’ΧΧ Χ ΧΧΧ ΧΧΧ Χ’Χ ΧΧΧΧ Χ€ΧΧ¨ΧΧ’Χ‘Χ’Χ¨Χ ΧΧΧ¨Χ’ Χ¦ΧΧΧΧ ΧΧΧ¨ Χ ΧΧΧ ΧΧΧΧ ΧΧΧ ΧΧΧ’Χ ΧΧΧ’ ΧΧΧΧ¨
Context Size 2:
Χ€ΧΧ ΧΧ Χ€ΧΧ¨Χ ΧΧ’Χ Χ’Χ ΧΧ’Χ¨ ΧΧ ΧΧΧͺ ΧΧΧ ΧΧΧ ΧΧΧΧ Χ‘Χ’Χ ΧΧ’Χ¨ Χ€ΧΧ Χ¨ ΧΧΧ¨ΧΧ Χ€Χ¨ΧΧΧΧΧ ΧΧΧ Χ¨ΧΧΧΧΧ ΧΧ’ΧΧΧ’Χ ΧΧ’Χ¨ ΧΧΧΧ Χ¦ΧΧΧ’Χ¨ ΧΧΧ Χ¦Χ ΧΧΧΧ Χ€ΧΧΧ’Χ¨ ΧΧΧ ΧΧ’Χ¨ Χ¦ΧΧΧΧΧΧ’Χ¨ ΧΧ©ΧΧΧ Χ¨ΧΧ ΧΧΧΧ¨ ΧΧΧ Χ Χ€ΧΧ¨ ΧΧ’ΧΧΧΧ¨ΧΧΧΧ ΧΧ Χ©Χ€ΧΧ₯ Χ©Χ’Χ Χ Χ€ΧΧ ΧΧΧ ΧΧΧ ΧΧΧ Χ¦Χ’ Χ€Χ’Χ§ΧΧ’Χ ΧΧΧΧΧΧΧΧ’ Χ€ΧΧΧΧ‘ ΧΧΧΧ‘ΧΧ’Χ©Χ€Χ¨ΧΧΧ ΧΧΧΧ£ 5 604 Χ€ΧΧ‘
Context Size 3:
ΧΧΧ ΧΧ’ΧΧΧ’Χ Χ Χ©ΧΧΧ¨Χ§Χ’ ΧΧΧΧΧ§Χ‘ ΧΧΧ Χ§ΧΧΧΧ Χ’ ΧΧΧΧ Χ’Χ‘Χ’Χ¨ Χ¦Χ ΧΧΧ’ΧΧΧ’ ΧΧ Χ‘Χ§ΧΧΧΧ©Χ’ ΧΧΧΧ ΧΧΧ’Χ¨ ΧΧ’Χ§Χ¨ΧΧΧ ΧΧΧ ΧΧ Χ ΧΧΧΧ ΧΧΧΧΧ Χ€ΧΧ Χ¨ΧΧ ΧΧΧ ΧΧΧΧ Χ’ Χ‘Χ€Χ¨ΧΧ Χ©Χ Χ ΧΧΧΧΧ¨ΧΧͺ Χ¨ΧΧ Χ©ΧΧͺΧ Χ€ΧΧ Χ¨ΧΧ©Χ§ΧΧ Χ€ΧΧ ΧΧ ΧΧΧ¨ΧΧ Χ§ΧΧΧ©Χ Χ€ΧΧΧ ΧΧΧ Χ€ΧΧ ΧΧ’Χ ΧΧΧ ΧΧ ΧΧ¨Χ ΧΧΧΧ©Χ’ Χ ΧΧΧ Χ€ΧΧ Χ¨ ΧΧ¨ΧΧΧ Χ¦ΧΧ ΧΧ’Χ¨ ΧΧ’Χ ΧΧ’ΧΧΧΧ ΧΧΧΧ ΧΧΧ
Context Size 4:
Χ ΧΧΧ Χ€ΧΧ ΧΧ¨Χ ΧΧΧΧ’ΧΧ¨ ΧΧΧ¨ΧΧΧΧ₯ Χ¨Χ ΧΧΧ Χ¨ΧΧΧΧΧ₯ ΧΧΧ Χ‘ΧΧΧ©ΧΧΧ Χ ΧΧΧ Χ€ΧΧ ΧΧ¨Χ ΧΧ ΧΧ ΧΧ’Χ ΧΧΧ ΧΧΧΧ’Χ¨ ΧΧΧ ΧΧΧΧΧ Χ€ΧΧ Χ¨ΧΧ ΧΧΧ¨ΧΧ ΧΧ’Χ§Χ Χ€Χ¨ΧΧΧΧΧ Χ ΧΧΧΧ Χ ΧͺΧ¨Χ€ Χ Χ Χ ΧΧΧͺ ΧͺΧ©Χ’ Χ Χ‘ΧΧΧΧΧΧ¨Χ’Χ¨ Χ¨ΧΧΧΧ ΧΧΧΧΧ Χ€ΧΧ ΧΧ¨Χ ΧΧΧ Χ©Χ€ΧΧ¨Χ Χ€ΧΧ Χ‘ΧΧ ΧΧ§ Χ¨ΧΧ ΧΧΧ Χ©Χ€ΧΧ¨Χ Χ Χ©ΧΧ Χ ΧͺΧ¨Χ Χ Χ Χ Χ‘ΧΧΧ
Generated Text Samples (Subword-based)
Below are text samples generated from each subword-based Markov chain model:
Context Size 1:
_ΧΧ’Χ¨_Χ’"Χ Χ’Χ¨Χ’Χ_ΧΧ_ΧΧΧ²Φ·_ΧΧ ΧΧ¨Χ’Χ¨_ΧΧ¦ΧΧ_ΧΧΧ’Χ¨_Χ¨Χ‘_Χ‘_ΧΧ¨Χ§Χ¨Χ_
Context Size 2:
Χ_Χ©Χ€Χ¨ΧΧ©ΧΧ_ΧΧΧ¦ΧΧ,__ΧΧΧΧ©Χ’Χ_ΧΧΧ_ΧΧΧΧ_Χ’Χ¨_ΧΧ_Χ‘ΧΧ©ΧΧΧΧΧ_ΧΧ’
Context Size 3:
_ΧΧΧ_ΧΧΧΧ£_ΧΧ’Χ¨_ΧΧΧΧΧ’Χ¨_Χ€ΧΧΧΧ’Χ:_piel_(Χ§ΧΧ_Χ¨Χ€ΧΧ_Χ ΧΧ Χ¦ΧΧ’Χ‘Χ_Χ
Context Size 4:
_ΧΧ_ΧΧΧΧ Χ_ΧΧΧΧΧ’Χ_ΧΧ¨Χ€ΧΧ_Χ‘ΧΧ’ΧΧ_Χ ΧΧ_ΧΧ’ΧΧΧ_Χ€ΧΧ_ΧͺΧΧ¨Χ_ΧΧΧΧ_ΧΧ"Χ’
Key Findings
- Best Predictability: Context-4 (word) with 94.8% predictability
- Branching Factor: Decreases with context size (more deterministic)
- Memory Trade-off: Larger contexts require more storage (377,001 contexts)
- Recommendation: Context-3 or Context-4 for text generation
4. Vocabulary Analysis
Statistics
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Vocabulary Size | 69,606 |
| Total Tokens | 3,320,646 |
| Mean Frequency | 47.71 |
| Median Frequency | 4 |
| Frequency Std Dev | 1020.60 |
Most Common Words
| Rank | Word | Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | ΧΧ | 112,921 |
| 2 | Χ€ΧΧ | 105,938 |
| 3 | ΧΧΧ | 97,977 |
| 4 | ΧΧΧ | 89,450 |
| 5 | ΧΧΧ | 81,968 |
| 6 | Χ | 72,112 |
| 7 | ΧΧ’Χ¨ | 63,946 |
| 8 | ΧΧΧ | 50,599 |
| 9 | Χ’Χ¨ | 32,997 |
| 10 | Χ¦Χ | 30,909 |
Least Common Words (from vocabulary)
| Rank | Word | Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | ΧΧ¨ΧΦ·ΧΧΧΧΧΦ·Χ Χ’Χ¨ | 2 |
| 2 | Χ¨ΧΧ§ΧΧΦΈΧΧΧ | 2 |
| 3 | ΧΦ·Χ¨ΧΦΈΧ€ΦΌΧΧ’ΧΧΧΦΈΧ¨Χ€Χ | 2 |
| 4 | xai | 2 |
| 5 | ΧΧ¨ΧΦΈΧ§ | 2 |
| 6 | ΧΧΦ·Χ Χ Χ’Χ‘ | 2 |
| 7 | ΧΧΦΈΧΧΦΈΧ¨Χ‘Χ€ΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨Χ | 2 |
| 8 | Χ‘Χ€ΦΌΧΧ¨ | 2 |
| 9 | ΧΧΧ§Χ’Χ¨ | 2 |
| 10 | ΧΧΧ©ΧΧΧΧ¨Χ | 2 |
Zipf's Law Analysis
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Zipf Coefficient | 1.1137 |
| RΒ² (Goodness of Fit) | 0.995903 |
| Adherence Quality | excellent |
Coverage Analysis
| Top N Words | Coverage |
|---|---|
| Top 100 | 44.7% |
| Top 1,000 | 69.3% |
| Top 5,000 | 85.0% |
| Top 10,000 | 90.4% |
Key Findings
- Zipf Compliance: RΒ²=0.9959 indicates excellent adherence to Zipf's law
- High Frequency Dominance: Top 100 words cover 44.7% of corpus
- Long Tail: 59,606 words needed for remaining 9.6% coverage
5. Word Embeddings Evaluation
5.1 Cross-Lingual Alignment
5.2 Model Comparison
| Model | Dimension | Isotropy | Semantic Density | Alignment R@1 | Alignment R@10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| mono_32d | 32 | 0.8392 | 0.3748 | N/A | N/A |
| mono_64d | 64 | 0.8430 | 0.2765 | N/A | N/A |
| mono_128d | 128 | 0.7897 | 0.1920 | N/A | N/A |
| aligned_32d | 32 | 0.8392 | 0.3531 | 0.0140 | 0.1620 |
| aligned_64d | 64 | 0.8430 π | 0.2622 | 0.0220 | 0.2260 |
| aligned_128d | 128 | 0.7897 | 0.1928 | 0.0940 | 0.3060 |
Key Findings
- Best Isotropy: aligned_64d with 0.8430 (more uniform distribution)
- Semantic Density: Average pairwise similarity of 0.2752. Lower values indicate better semantic separation.
- Alignment Quality: Aligned models achieve up to 9.4% 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 | -0.653 | 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 |
|---|---|
-Χ |
ΧΧΦΏΧΧͺ, ΧΧΧΧ€ΧΧ’Χ§ΧΧ’Χ¨ΧΧ’, ΧΧΧΧ‘Χ¦ΧΧ©Χ€Χ¨ΧΧΧΧ |
-Χ |
ΧΧ’ΧΧ, ΧΧ’ΧΧΧ¦Χ’Χ£, ΧΧΧ’ΧΧΧΧ |
-Χ |
ΧΧΧ‘ΧΧ§ΧΧΧ, ΧΧΧΧΧ©, ΧΧΧΧΧΧΧͺ |
-Χ |
ΧΧΧΧΧ ΧΧ, ΧΧ€Χ, ΧΧΧΧ |
-Χ€ |
Χ€ΧΧΧ’Χ‘ΧΧ’, Χ€ΧΦΈΧ¨ΧΧΧ‘, Χ€Χ¨ΧΧ Χ¦ΧΧ€Χ |
-Χ§Χ |
Χ§ΧΧ¨ΧΧ§ΧΧΧ¨, Χ§ΧΧΧΧ, Χ§ΧΧΧΧΧ ΧΧΧ |
-ΧΧ |
ΧΧΧΧΧ ΧΧ, ΧΧΦ·ΧΧ²Φ·Χ, ΧΧΦ·ΧΧΧ ΧΧ’Χ¨Χ’ |
-ΧΧ’ |
ΧΧ’ΧΧΧΧ¨Χ’Χ Χ’, ΧΧ’Χ©Χ’Χ, ΧΧ’ΧΧ¨ΧΧ |
Productive Suffixes
| Suffix | Examples |
|---|---|
-Χ |
ΧΧΧΧ, ΧΧ’ΧΧ’Χ€ΧΦΈΧ, Χ¨Χ’Χ§ΧΧΧΧ¨Χ |
-Χ’Χ¨ |
93Χ‘ΧΧ’Χ¨, Χ©Χ’Χ€Χ’ΧΧΧΧΧ§Χ’Χ¨, ΧΧΧ¨ΧΧ§ΧΧ’Χ¨ |
-Χ¨ |
93Χ‘ΧΧ’Χ¨, Χ§ΧΧ¨ΧΧ§ΧΧΧ¨, Χ©Χ’Χ€Χ’ΧΧΧΧΧ§Χ’Χ¨ |
-Χ’ |
Χ€ΧΧΧ’Χ‘ΧΧ’, Χ‘ΧΧΧΧΧΧΧΧΧ’, ΧΧΧΧ€ΧΧ’Χ§ΧΧ’Χ¨ΧΧ’ |
-Χ |
ΧΧ’Χ¨ΧΧΧΧ€ΦΌΧ, ΧΧ Χ©ΧΧΧΧ, ΧΧ¨ΧΧΧ’Χ¨ΧΧ’ΧΧΧΧ©Χ |
-Χ’Χ |
Χ¦ΧΧ¨ΧΧ§ΧΧ’ΧΧΧΧ Χ’Χ, Χ€ΧΧΧΧ€ΧΧ ΧΧ’Χ, ΧΧ¨ΧΧΧ Χ¦ΧΧ Χ’ΧΧ’Χ |
-Χ‘ |
Χ‘Χ’Χ Χ‘ΧΧ¨Χ‘, Χ€ΧΦΈΧ¨ΧΧΧ‘, ΧΧΦΈΧΧΧ€ΦΏΧΧ§ΧΦ·Χ¦ΧΧ’Χ‘ |
-Χ |
ΧΧΧΧΧ ΧΧ, Χ‘ΧΧΦ·Χ¨ΧΧΧ Χ, Χ€Χ¨ΧΧΧΧ¨Χ ΧΧΧ |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
ΧΧ ΧΧ’ |
1.82x | 57 contexts | ΧΧΧ ΧΧ’, ΧΧΧ ΧΧ’, ΧΧ ΧΧ’Χ |
Χ©Χ¨ΧΧ |
2.40x | 18 contexts | ΧΧ©Χ¨ΧΧ, ΧΧ©Χ¨ΧΧΧ, ΧΧΧ©Χ¨ΧΧ |
Χ’ΧΧΧ’ |
1.59x | 84 contexts | ΧΧ’ΧΧΧ’, ΧΧ’ΧΧΧ’, Χ‘ΧΧ’ΧΧΧ’ |
ΧΧΧ’Χ¨ |
1.49x | 102 contexts | ΧΧΧΧ’Χ¨, ΧΧΧΧ’Χ¨, Χ¦ΧΧΧ’Χ¨ |
ΧΧ’ΧΧ |
1.57x | 62 contexts | ΧΧ’ΧΧΧ’, ΧΧ’ΧΧΧ, ΧΧ’ΧΧΧΧ‘ |
ΧΧΧ©Χ’ |
1.67x | 47 contexts | ΧΧΧΧ©Χ’, Χ²ΧΧΧ©Χ’, ΧΧΧΧΧ©Χ’ |
ΧΧΧΧ© |
1.80x | 33 contexts | ΧΧΧΧΧ©, ΧΧΧΧ©Χ’, ΧΧΧΧΧ© |
ΧΧΧ’Χ¨ |
1.53x | 62 contexts | ΧΧΧΧ’Χ¨, Χ€ΧΧΧ’Χ¨, ΧΧΧΧ’Χ¨ |
Χ ΧΧ’Χ¨ |
1.33x | 94 contexts | ΧΧ ΧΧ’Χ¨, Χ’Χ ΧΧ’Χ¨, ΧΧ ΧΧ’Χ¨Χ |
ΧΧΧ Χ’ |
1.41x | 70 contexts | Χ¨ΧΧΧ Χ’, ΧΧΧΧ Χ’, Χ ΧΧΧ Χ’ |
Χ ΧΧ’Χ |
1.74x | 26 contexts | ΧΧ’Χ ΧΧ’Χ, ΧΧΧ ΧΧ’Χ, Χ©Χ’Χ ΧΧ’Χ |
Χ§ΧΧΧ’ |
1.62x | 27 contexts | Χ§ΧΧΧ’Χ, Χ§ΧΧΧ’Χ, ΧΧΧ§ΧΧΧ’ |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
-Χ |
-Χ |
361 words | ΧΧ Χ¦ΧΧΧΧ’Χ Χ’Χ, ΧΧΧΧ‘ΧΧ’Χ©Χ¨ΧΧΧ |
-Χ€ |
-Χ |
176 words | Χ€ΧΧ§ΧΧ‘ΧΧ¨Χ, Χ€Χ§ΧΧΧ |
-Χ |
-Χ |
176 words | ΧΧΧ ΧΧΧΧ’Χ¨ΧΧ‘ΧΧ’Χ, ΧΧΧΧΧΧΧ¨Χ |
-Χ |
-Χ’ |
135 words | ΧΧ¨ΧΧΧΧ©Χ’, ΧΧ¨ΧΧΧΧ§Χ’ |
-Χ |
-Χ¨ |
105 words | ΧΧΧ¨, ΧΧΧ¨ΧΧ§ΧΧΧΧΧ¨Χ’Χ¨ |
-Χ€ |
-Χ’ |
99 words | Χ€ΧΧ¨ΧΧΧΧΧ’, Χ€Χ¨ΧΧΧΧΧΧ‘ΧΧ’ |
-Χ€ |
-Χ |
93 words | Χ€ΧΦΈΧ¨ΧΧΦ·Χ, Χ€ΧΧΧΧΧ¦ΧΧ¨Χ |
-Χ€ |
-Χ¨ |
91 words | Χ€ΧΧ¨ΧΧΧ’ΧΧΧ§Χ’Χ¨, Χ€ΧΧ ΧΧ’Χ¨ |
-Χ |
-Χ’Χ¨ |
91 words | ΧΧΧ¨ΧΧ§ΧΧΧΧΧ¨Χ’Χ¨, ΧΧΧ ΧΧ’Χ¨ΧΧΧΧΧ’Χ¨ |
-Χ |
-Χ’Χ |
90 words | ΧΧ Χ¦ΧΧΧΧ’Χ Χ’Χ, ΧΧ¨ΧΧΧ’Χ¨Χ¦ΧΧ’Χ |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ΧΧΧΧΧΧΧΧ ΧΧ‘ΧΧ’ | ΧΧΧΧΧΧΧΧ Χ-Χ‘-ΧΧ’ |
7.5 | Χ‘ |
| ΧΧΧΧ‘ΧΧ’ΧΧΧ‘Χ | ΧΧΧΧ‘ΧΧ’ΧΧ-Χ‘-Χ |
7.5 | Χ‘ |
| ΧΧ¨ΧΧΧ‘Χ ΧΧΧ§Χ‘ΧΧ’ | ΧΧ¨ΧΧΧ‘Χ ΧΧΧ§-Χ‘-ΧΧ’ |
7.5 | Χ‘ |
| ΧΧΧ’ΧΧΧΧΧΧ | ΧΧΧ’ΧΧΧΧ-Χ-Χ |
7.5 | Χ |
| ΧΧΧΧΧΧ‘ΧΧΧΧΧ | ΧΧΧΧΧΧ‘ΧΧ-Χ-ΧΧ |
7.5 | Χ |
| ΧΧΦ·ΧΧΧΦΌΧ‘Χ | ΧΧΦ·ΧΧΧΦΌ-Χ‘-Χ |
7.5 | Χ‘ |
| ΧΧΧΧΧ¨Χ©ΧΧ’Χ | ΧΧΧΧΧ¨Χ©-Χ-Χ’Χ |
7.5 | Χ |
| ΧΧ’Χ‘ΧΧ’ΧΧ¨Χ’Χ© | ΧΧ’Χ‘ΧΧ’ΧΧ¨-Χ’-Χ© |
7.5 | Χ’ |
| ΧΧΧΧΧΧ ΧΧΧ© | ΧΧ-ΧΧΧ-Χ ΧΧΧ© |
6.0 | Χ ΧΧΧ© |
| ΧΧΧΧΦ·Χ¨ΧΧ’ΧΧ’Χ¨Χ‘ | ΧΧΧΧΦ·Χ¨ΧΧ’Χ-Χ’Χ¨-Χ‘ |
6.0 | ΧΧΧΧΦ·Χ¨ΧΧ’Χ |
| ΧΧ¨ΧΧΧΧΧ’Χ¨Χ‘ | ΧΧ¨ΧΧΧΧ-Χ’Χ¨-Χ‘ |
6.0 | ΧΧ¨ΧΧΧΧ |
| ΧΧ’ΧΧΧΧ‘ΧΧΧ§Χ’Χ¨ | ΧΧ’ΧΧΧΧ‘Χ-ΧΧ§-Χ’Χ¨ |
6.0 | ΧΧ’ΧΧΧΧ‘Χ |
| ΧΧΧΧΧΧ ΧΧΧ§ | ΧΧΧΧΧ-Χ Χ-ΧΧ§ |
6.0 | ΧΧΧΧΧ |
| ΧΧΧΧΧΧ ΧΧΧ | ΧΧΧΧΧ-Χ Χ-ΧΧ |
6.0 | ΧΧΧΧΧ |
| Χ©Χ¨ΧΧΧΧ ΧΧΧ§ | Χ©Χ¨ΧΧΧ-Χ Χ-ΧΧ§ |
6.0 | Χ©Χ¨ΧΧΧ |
6.6 Linguistic Interpretation
Automated Insight: The language Yiddish 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 (4.55x) |
| N-gram | 2-gram | Lowest perplexity (275) |
| Markov | Context-4 | Highest predictability (94.8%) |
| Embeddings | 100d | Balanced semantic capture and isotropy |
Appendix: Metrics Glossary & Interpretation Guide
This section provides definitions, intuitions, and guidance for interpreting the metrics used throughout this report.
Tokenizer Metrics
Compression Ratio
Definition: The ratio of characters to tokens (chars/token). Measures how efficiently the tokenizer represents text.
Intuition: Higher compression means fewer tokens needed to represent the same text, reducing sequence lengths for downstream models. A 3x compression means ~3 characters per token on average.
What to seek: Higher is generally better for efficiency, but extremely high compression may indicate overly aggressive merging that loses morphological information.
Average Token Length (Fertility)
Definition: Mean number of characters per token produced by the tokenizer.
Intuition: Reflects the granularity of tokenization. Longer tokens capture more context but may struggle with rare words; shorter tokens are more flexible but increase sequence length.
What to seek: Balance between 2-5 characters for most languages. Arabic/morphologically-rich languages may benefit from slightly longer tokens.
Unknown Token Rate (OOV Rate)
Definition: Percentage of tokens that map to the unknown/UNK token, indicating words the tokenizer cannot represent.
Intuition: Lower OOV means better vocabulary coverage. High OOV indicates the tokenizer encounters many unseen character sequences.
What to seek: Below 1% is excellent; below 5% is acceptable. BPE tokenizers typically achieve very low OOV due to subword fallback.
N-gram Model Metrics
Perplexity
Definition: Measures how "surprised" the model is by test data. Mathematically: 2^(cross-entropy). Lower values indicate better prediction.
Intuition: If perplexity is 100, the model is as uncertain as if choosing uniformly among 100 options at each step. A perplexity of 10 means effectively choosing among 10 equally likely options.
What to seek: Lower is better. Perplexity decreases with larger n-grams (more context). Values vary widely by language and corpus size.
Entropy
Definition: Average information content (in bits) needed to encode the next token given the context. Related to perplexity: perplexity = 2^entropy.
Intuition: High entropy means high uncertainty/randomness; low entropy means predictable patterns. Natural language typically has entropy between 1-4 bits per character.
What to seek: Lower entropy indicates more predictable text patterns. Entropy should decrease as n-gram size increases.
Coverage (Top-K)
Definition: Percentage of corpus occurrences explained by the top K most frequent n-grams.
Intuition: High coverage with few patterns indicates repetitive/formulaic text; low coverage suggests diverse vocabulary usage.
What to seek: Depends on use case. For language modeling, moderate coverage (40-60% with top-1000) is typical for natural text.
Markov Chain Metrics
Average Entropy
Definition: Mean entropy across all contexts, measuring average uncertainty in next-word prediction.
Intuition: Lower entropy means the model is more confident about what comes next. Context-1 has high entropy (many possible next words); Context-4 has low entropy (few likely continuations).
What to seek: Decreasing entropy with larger context sizes. Very low entropy (<0.1) indicates highly deterministic transitions.
Branching Factor
Definition: Average number of unique next tokens observed for each context.
Intuition: High branching = many possible continuations (flexible but uncertain); low branching = few options (predictable but potentially repetitive).
What to seek: Branching factor should decrease with context size. Values near 1.0 indicate nearly deterministic chains.
Predictability
Definition: Derived metric: (1 - normalized_entropy) Γ 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.
RΒ² (Coefficient of Determination)
Definition: Measures how well the linear fit explains the frequency-rank relationship. Ranges from 0 to 1.
Intuition: RΒ² near 1.0 means the data closely follows Zipf's law; lower values indicate deviation from expected word frequency patterns.
What to seek: RΒ² > 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
- Compare within model families: Metrics are most meaningful when comparing models of the same type (e.g., 8k vs 64k tokenizer).
- Consider trade-offs: Better performance on one metric often comes at the cost of another (e.g., compression vs. OOV rate).
- Context matters: Optimal values depend on downstream tasks. Text generation may prioritize different metrics than classification.
- Corpus influence: All metrics are influenced by corpus characteristics. Wikipedia text differs from social media or literature.
- Language-specific patterns: Morphologically rich languages (like Arabic) may show different optimal ranges than analytic languages.
Visualizations Index
| Visualization | Description |
|---|---|
| Tokenizer Compression | Compression ratios by vocabulary size |
| Tokenizer Fertility | Average token length by vocabulary |
| Tokenizer OOV | Unknown token rates |
| Tokenizer Total Tokens | Total tokens by vocabulary |
| N-gram Perplexity | Perplexity by n-gram size |
| N-gram Entropy | Entropy by n-gram size |
| N-gram Coverage | Top pattern coverage |
| N-gram Unique | Unique n-gram counts |
| Markov Entropy | Entropy by context size |
| Markov Branching | Branching factor by context |
| Markov Contexts | Unique context counts |
| Zipf's Law | Frequency-rank distribution with fit |
| Vocab Frequency | Word frequency distribution |
| Top 20 Words | Most frequent words |
| Vocab Coverage | Cumulative coverage curve |
| Embedding Isotropy | Vector space uniformity |
| Embedding Norms | Vector magnitude distribution |
| Embedding Similarity | Word similarity heatmap |
| Nearest Neighbors | Similar words for key terms |
| t-SNE Words | 2D word embedding visualization |
| t-SNE Sentences | 2D sentence embedding visualization |
| Position Encoding | Encoding method comparison |
| Model Sizes | Storage requirements |
| Performance Dashboard | Comprehensive performance overview |
About This Project
Data Source
Models trained on wikipedia-monthly - a monthly snapshot of Wikipedia articles across 300+ languages.
Project
A project by Wikilangs - Open-source NLP models for every Wikipedia language.
Maintainer
Citation
If you use these models in your research, please cite:
@misc{wikilangs2025,
author = {Kamali, Omar},
title = {Wikilangs: Open NLP Models for Wikipedia Languages},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.5281/zenodo.18073153},
publisher = {Zenodo},
url = {https://huggingface.co/wikilangs}
institution = {Omneity Labs}
}
License
MIT License - Free for academic and commercial use.
Links
- π Website: wikilangs.org
- π€ Models: huggingface.co/wikilangs
- π Data: wikipedia-monthly
- π€ Author: Omar Kamali
- π€ Sponsor: Featherless AI
Generated by Wikilangs Models Pipeline
Report Date: 2026-01-11 05:37:12



















