| --- |
| language: awa |
| language_name: Awadhi |
| 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: 3.892 |
| - name: best_isotropy |
| type: isotropy |
| value: 0.7358 |
| - name: vocabulary_size |
| type: vocab |
| value: 0 |
| generated: 2026-01-03 |
| --- |
| |
| # Awadhi - Wikilangs Models |
| ## Comprehensive Research Report & Full Ablation Study |
|
|
| This repository contains NLP models trained and evaluated by Wikilangs, specifically on **Awadhi** 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** | 3.327x | 3.33 | 0.1230% | 131,731 | |
| | **16k** | 3.618x | 3.63 | 0.1337% | 121,145 | |
| | **32k** | 3.892x 🏆 | 3.90 | 0.1439% | 112,611 | |
|
|
| ### Tokenization Examples |
|
|
| Below are sample sentences tokenized with each vocabulary size: |
|
|
| **Sample 1:** `नीलम संजीव रेड्डी (२७ अक्तूबर - ९ नवंबर भारत कय छठवा राष्ट्रपति रहे। वनकय कार्यक...` |
|
|
| | Vocab | Tokens | Count | |
| |-------|--------|-------| |
| | 8k | `▁नीलम ▁सं जीव ▁रेड्डी ▁( २७ ▁अक्तूबर ▁- ▁९ ▁नवंबर ... (+16 more)` | 26 | |
| | 16k | `▁नीलम ▁संजीव ▁रेड्डी ▁( २७ ▁अक्तूबर ▁- ▁९ ▁नवंबर ▁भारत ... (+15 more)` | 25 | |
| | 32k | `▁नीलम ▁संजीव ▁रेड्डी ▁( २७ ▁अक्तूबर ▁- ▁९ ▁नवंबर ▁भारत ... (+15 more)` | 25 | |
|
|
| **Sample 2:** `नकुड, भारत देश के उत्तर प्रदेश प्रान्त के सहारनपुर जिला कय एक्ठु नगर पालिका परिष...` |
|
|
| | Vocab | Tokens | Count | |
| |-------|--------|-------| |
| | 8k | `▁न कु ड , ▁भारत ▁देश ▁के ▁उत्तर ▁प्रदेश ▁प्रान्त ... (+20 more)` | 30 | |
| | 16k | `▁न कु ड , ▁भारत ▁देश ▁के ▁उत्तर ▁प्रदेश ▁प्रान्त ... (+20 more)` | 30 | |
| | 32k | `▁नकुड , ▁भारत ▁देश ▁के ▁उत्तर ▁प्रदेश ▁प्रान्त ▁के ▁सहारनपुर ... (+18 more)` | 28 | |
|
|
| **Sample 3:** `नसीराबाद, भारत देश के उत्तर प्रदेश प्रान्त के रायबरेली जिला कय एक्ठु नगर पंचायत ...` |
|
|
| | Vocab | Tokens | Count | |
| |-------|--------|-------| |
| | 8k | `▁न सी राबाद , ▁भारत ▁देश ▁के ▁उत्तर ▁प्रदेश ▁प्रान्त ... (+18 more)` | 28 | |
| | 16k | `▁न सी राबाद , ▁भारत ▁देश ▁के ▁उत्तर ▁प्रदेश ▁प्रान्त ... (+18 more)` | 28 | |
| | 32k | `▁नसीराबाद , ▁भारत ▁देश ▁के ▁उत्तर ▁प्रदेश ▁प्रान्त ▁के ▁रायबरेली ... (+16 more)` | 26 | |
|
|
|
|
| ### Key Findings |
|
|
| - **Best Compression:** 32k achieves 3.892x compression |
| - **Lowest UNK Rate:** 8k with 0.1230% 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 | 2,396 | 11.23 | 5,750 | 28.4% | 58.2% | |
| | **2-gram** | Subword | 1,608 🏆 | 10.65 | 12,278 | 39.9% | 73.3% | |
| | **3-gram** | Word | 1,666 | 10.70 | 5,103 | 35.8% | 65.6% | |
| | **3-gram** | Subword | 10,335 | 13.34 | 44,364 | 17.1% | 41.3% | |
| | **4-gram** | Word | 4,269 | 12.06 | 12,850 | 27.4% | 49.6% | |
| | **4-gram** | Subword | 30,718 | 14.91 | 110,971 | 11.6% | 28.3% | |
| | **5-gram** | Word | 3,586 | 11.81 | 10,699 | 28.4% | 52.8% | |
| | **5-gram** | Subword | 44,082 | 15.43 | 123,963 | 10.3% | 23.7% | |
|
|
| ### Top 5 N-grams by Size |
|
|
| **2-grams (Word):** |
|
|
| | Rank | N-gram | Count | |
| |------|--------|-------| |
| | 1 | `प्रदेश कय` | 1,242 | |
| | 2 | `कय एक्ठु` | 1,217 | |
| | 3 | `नगर पंचायत` | 932 | |
| | 4 | `शहरी निकाय` | 837 | |
| | 5 | `उत्तर प्रदेश` | 774 | |
|
|
| **3-grams (Word):** |
|
|
| | Rank | N-gram | Count | |
| |------|--------|-------| |
| | 1 | `कय एक्ठु नगर` | 700 | |
| | 2 | `भारत देश के` | 696 | |
| | 3 | `जिला कय एक्ठु` | 680 | |
| | 4 | `कय शहरी निकाय` | 667 | |
| | 5 | `के उत्तर प्रदेश` | 586 | |
|
|
| **4-grams (Word):** |
|
|
| | Rank | N-gram | Count | |
| |------|--------|-------| |
| | 1 | `जिला कय एक्ठु नगर` | 661 | |
| | 2 | `के उत्तर प्रदेश प्रान्त` | 582 | |
| | 3 | `प्रदेश कय शहरी निकाय` | 581 | |
| | 4 | `कय शहरी निकाय प्रदेश` | 581 | |
| | 5 | `शहरी निकाय प्रदेश कय` | 581 | |
|
|
| **5-grams (Word):** |
|
|
| | Rank | N-gram | Count | |
| |------|--------|-------| |
| | 1 | `शहरी निकाय प्रदेश कय नगर` | 581 | |
| | 2 | `कय शहरी निकाय प्रदेश कय` | 581 | |
| | 3 | `प्रदेश कय शहरी निकाय प्रदेश` | 581 | |
| | 4 | `देश के उत्तर प्रदेश प्रान्त` | 580 | |
| | 5 | `भारत देश के उत्तर प्रदेश` | 580 | |
|
|
| **2-grams (Subword):** |
|
|
| | Rank | N-gram | Count | |
| |------|--------|-------| |
| | 1 | `र _` | 19,312 | |
| | 2 | `य _` | 17,947 | |
| | 3 | `_ क` | 16,677 | |
| | 4 | `न _` | 14,033 | |
| | 5 | `। _` | 12,197 | |
|
|
| **3-grams (Subword):** |
|
|
| | Rank | N-gram | Count | |
| |------|--------|-------| |
| | 1 | `क य _` | 10,878 | |
| | 2 | `_ क य` | 10,634 | |
| | 3 | `_ के _` | 7,599 | |
| | 4 | `_ से _` | 4,267 | |
| | 5 | `_ में _` | 4,065 | |
|
|
| **4-grams (Subword):** |
|
|
| | Rank | N-gram | Count | |
| |------|--------|-------| |
| | 1 | `_ क य _` | 10,589 | |
| | 2 | `_ प्र दे श` | 2,239 | |
| | 3 | `प्र दे श _` | 2,188 | |
| | 4 | `_ है । _` | 2,147 | |
| | 5 | `भा र त _` | 2,022 | |
|
|
| **5-grams (Subword):** |
|
|
| | Rank | N-gram | Count | |
| |------|--------|-------| |
| | 1 | `_ प्र दे श _` | 2,171 | |
| | 2 | `_ भा र त _` | 1,826 | |
| | 3 | `_ न ग र _` | 1,779 | |
| | 4 | `_ क य _ ए` | 1,494 | |
| | 5 | `_ अ उ र _` | 1,449 | |
|
|
|
|
| ### Key Findings |
|
|
| - **Best Perplexity:** 2-gram (subword) with 1,608 |
| - **Entropy Trend:** Decreases with larger n-grams (more predictable) |
| - **Coverage:** Top-1000 patterns cover ~24% 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 | 0.7360 | 1.666 | 4.24 | 38,944 | 26.4% | |
| | **1** | Subword | 1.0397 | 2.056 | 10.73 | 3,744 | 0.0% | |
| | **2** | Word | 0.1950 | 1.145 | 1.36 | 164,372 | 80.5% | |
| | **2** | Subword | 0.5443 | 1.458 | 3.48 | 40,149 | 45.6% | |
| | **3** | Word | 0.0479 | 1.034 | 1.07 | 222,536 | 95.2% | |
| | **3** | Subword | 0.4540 | 1.370 | 2.32 | 139,753 | 54.6% | |
| | **4** | Word | 0.0142 🏆 | 1.010 | 1.02 | 236,208 | 98.6% | |
| | **4** | Subword | 0.2417 | 1.182 | 1.52 | 323,693 | 75.8% | |
|
|
| ### Generated Text Samples (Word-based) |
|
|
| Below are text samples generated from each word-based Markov chain model: |
|
|
| **Context Size 1:** |
|
|
| 1. `कय सुविधाजनक बनावेक अन्तर्राष्ट्रीय हवाईगिरान फाप्लु भोजपुर फर्रुखाबाद 195 कासगंज जिला आवत हैं मेघाल...` |
| 2. `के उत्तर भारतीय रुपया लेख आसानी से खेले रहें घरेलू क्रिकेट रहें आदित्यनाथ कय राजनीति में` |
| 3. `से दक्षिण दिल्ली मेट्रो फ़िल्मफ़ेयर सर्वश्रेष्ठ तमिल तेलुगू వికారాబాదు జిల్లా अंग्रेज़ी में गंगा नदी...` |
|
|
| **Context Size 2:** |
|
|
| 1. `प्रदेश कय शहरी निकाय प्रदेश कय नगर पंचायत होय संदर्भ प्रदेश कय शहरी निकाय प्रदेश कय नगर` |
| 2. `कय एक्ठु भाषा होय ई ईलेक्ट्रोन प्रोटोन अव न्युट्रोन से बना है हिमालय क्षेत्र में मनुष्यों का` |
| 3. `उत्तर प्रदेश प्रान्त के शामली जिला कय एक्ठु नगर पालिका परिषद कय शहरी निकाय प्रदेश कय नगर` |
|
|
| **Context Size 3:** |
|
|
| 1. `कय एक्ठु नगर पंचायत होय संदर्भ प्रदेश कय शहरी निकाय प्रदेश कय नगर पंचायत पंचायत कय शहरी निकाय` |
| 2. `भारत देश के उत्तर प्रदेश प्रान्त कय एक्ठु जिला होय इहौ देखैं कामारेड्डी तेलंगाना तेलंगाना कय जिला सन...` |
| 3. `जिला कय एक्ठु नगर पालिका परिषद होय संदर्भ 1 उत्तराखंड के सगरौ शहरी निकाय कय सूची 2 उत्तराखंड` |
|
|
| **Context Size 4:** |
|
|
| 1. `जिला कय एक्ठु नगर पंचायत होय संदर्भ प्रदेश कय शहरी निकाय प्रदेश कय नगर पंचायत noinclude` |
| 2. `के उत्तर प्रदेश प्रान्त के सीतापुर जिला कय एक्ठु नगर पालिका परिषद होय संदर्भ प्रदेश कय शहरी निकाय प्...` |
| 3. `निकाय प्रदेश कय नगर पंचायत देहात` |
|
|
|
|
| ### Generated Text Samples (Subword-based) |
|
|
| Below are text samples generated from each subword-based Markov chain model: |
|
|
| **Context Size 1:** |
|
|
| 1. `_के_हंयन_ह_सहइ_पालव` |
| 2. `रतह_रें।_केर_प_10_प्रा` |
| 3. `कय_की।_के_इति_-atem` |
|
|
| **Context Size 2:** |
|
|
| 1. `र_हरा_गांव_परिषद_पार्टी_(` |
| 2. `य_संगीत-होल्सटीन,_आंध्रप्रदेश` |
| 3. `_कय_जन्म_३_मद्रास)_शिक्षा_` |
|
|
| **Context Size 3:** |
|
|
| 1. `कय_निकोसिया_का_यश_चोपड़ा_आ` |
| 2. `_कय_शहर_सिरसा_16_44_` |
| 3. `_के_भेस_अनुवादित_तब_ओका_` |
|
|
| **Context Size 4:** |
|
|
| 1. `_कय_१५वाँ_राष्ट्रपति_रहे।_यह` |
| 2. `_प्रदेश_कय_भी_अविवाहित_भाई_` |
| 3. `प्रदेश_प्रान्त_के_गाजियाबाद_जिला_क` |
|
|
|
|
| ### Key Findings |
|
|
| - **Best Predictability:** Context-4 (word) with 98.6% predictability |
| - **Branching Factor:** Decreases with context size (more deterministic) |
| - **Memory Trade-off:** Larger contexts require more storage (323,693 contexts) |
| - **Recommendation:** Context-3 or Context-4 for text generation |
|
|
| --- |
| ## 4. Vocabulary Analysis |
|
|
|  |
|
|
|  |
|
|
|  |
|
|
| ### Statistics |
|
|
| | Metric | Value | |
| |--------|-------| |
| | Vocabulary Size | 16,641 | |
| | Total Tokens | 263,395 | |
| | Mean Frequency | 15.83 | |
| | Median Frequency | 3 | |
| | Frequency Std Dev | 138.02 | |
|
|
| ### Most Common Words |
|
|
| | Rank | Word | Frequency | |
| |------|------|-----------| |
| | 1 | कय | 10,633 | |
| | 2 | के | 7,622 | |
| | 3 | से | 4,333 | |
| | 4 | में | 4,224 | |
| | 5 | है | 3,954 | |
| | 6 | मा | 3,849 | |
| | 7 | होय | 2,668 | |
| | 8 | का | 2,628 | |
| | 9 | प्रदेश | 2,217 | |
| | 10 | भारत | 1,996 | |
|
|
| ### Least Common Words (from vocabulary) |
|
|
| | Rank | Word | Frequency | |
| |------|------|-----------| |
| | 1 | मोड़ा | 2 | |
| | 2 | कीमा | 2 | |
| | 3 | चौकोरन | 2 | |
| | 4 | दर्रे | 2 | |
| | 5 | गिजर | 2 | |
| | 6 | तड़हुंग | 2 | |
| | 7 | कलाकृति | 2 | |
| | 8 | स्टेपी | 2 | |
| | 9 | ओलेक्सान्ड्रोविच | 2 | |
| | 10 | टीएसएन | 2 | |
|
|
| ### Zipf's Law Analysis |
|
|
| | Metric | Value | |
| |--------|-------| |
| | Zipf Coefficient | 1.0518 | |
| | R² (Goodness of Fit) | 0.990696 | |
| | Adherence Quality | **excellent** | |
|
|
| ### Coverage Analysis |
|
|
| | Top N Words | Coverage | |
| |-------------|----------| |
| | Top 100 | 38.1% | |
| | Top 1,000 | 66.2% | |
| | Top 5,000 | 87.3% | |
| | Top 10,000 | 94.8% | |
|
|
| ### Key Findings |
|
|
| - **Zipf Compliance:** R²=0.9907 indicates excellent adherence to Zipf's law |
| - **High Frequency Dominance:** Top 100 words cover 38.1% of corpus |
| - **Long Tail:** 6,641 words needed for remaining 5.2% 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 | 0.7358 | 0.3755 | N/A | N/A | |
| | **mono_64d** | 64 | 0.3489 | 0.3581 | N/A | N/A | |
| | **mono_128d** | 128 | 0.0808 | 0.3463 | N/A | N/A | |
| | **aligned_32d** | 32 | 0.7358 🏆 | 0.3759 | 0.0299 | 0.1549 | |
| | **aligned_64d** | 64 | 0.3489 | 0.3500 | 0.0245 | 0.1848 | |
| | **aligned_128d** | 128 | 0.0808 | 0.3480 | 0.0571 | 0.2636 | |
|
|
| ### Key Findings |
|
|
| - **Best Isotropy:** aligned_32d with 0.7358 (more uniform distribution) |
| - **Semantic Density:** Average pairwise similarity of 0.3590. Lower values indicate better semantic separation. |
| - **Alignment Quality:** Aligned models achieve up to 5.7% 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 | **1.225** | High formulaic/idiomatic content | - | |
| |
| ### 6.2 Affix Inventory (Productive Units) |
| |
| These are the most productive prefixes and suffixes identified by sampling the vocabulary for global substitutability patterns. A unit is considered an affix if stripping it leaves a valid stem that appears in other contexts. |
| |
| *No productive affixes detected.* |
| |
| |
| ### 6.3 Bound Stems (Lexical Roots) |
| |
| Bound stems are high-frequency subword units that are semantically cohesive but rarely appear as standalone words. These often correspond to the 'core' of a word that requires inflection or derivation to be valid. |
| |
| *No significant bound stems detected.* |
| |
| |
| ### 6.4 Affix Compatibility (Co-occurrence) |
| |
| This table shows which prefixes and suffixes most frequently co-occur on the same stems, revealing the 'stacking' rules of the language's morphology. |
| |
| *No significant affix co-occurrences detected.* |
| |
| |
| ### 6.5 Recursive Morpheme Segmentation |
| |
| Using **Recursive Hierarchical Substitutability**, we decompose complex words into their constituent morphemes. This approach handles nested affixes (e.g., `prefix-prefix-root-suffix`). |
| |
| *Insufficient data for recursive segmentation.* |
| |
| |
| ### 6.6 Linguistic Interpretation |
| |
| > **Automated Insight:** |
| The language Awadhi shows high morphological productivity. The subword models are significantly more efficient than word models, suggesting a rich system of affixation or compounding. |
| |
| > **Note on Idiomaticity:** The high Idiomaticity Gap suggests a large number of frequent multi-word expressions or formulaic sequences that are statistically distinct from their component parts. |
| |
| --- |
| ## 7. Summary & Recommendations |
| |
|  |
| |
| ### Production Recommendations |
| |
| | Component | Recommended | Rationale | |
| |-----------|-------------|-----------| |
| | Tokenizer | **32k BPE** | Best compression (3.89x) | |
| | N-gram | **2-gram** | Lowest perplexity (1,608) | |
| | Markov | **Context-4** | Highest predictability (98.6%) | |
| | Embeddings | **100d** | Balanced semantic capture and isotropy | |
| |
| |
| --- |
| ## Appendix: Metrics Glossary & Interpretation Guide |
| |
| This section provides definitions, intuitions, and guidance for interpreting the metrics used throughout this report. |
| |
| ### Tokenizer Metrics |
| |
| **Compression Ratio** |
| > *Definition:* The ratio of characters to tokens (chars/token). Measures how efficiently the tokenizer represents text. |
| > |
| > *Intuition:* Higher compression means fewer tokens needed to represent the same text, reducing sequence lengths for downstream models. A 3x compression means ~3 characters per token on average. |
| > |
| > *What to seek:* Higher is generally better for efficiency, but extremely high compression may indicate overly aggressive merging that loses morphological information. |
| |
| **Average Token Length (Fertility)** |
| > *Definition:* Mean number of characters per token produced by the tokenizer. |
| > |
| > *Intuition:* Reflects the granularity of tokenization. Longer tokens capture more context but may struggle with rare words; shorter tokens are more flexible but increase sequence length. |
| > |
| > *What to seek:* Balance between 2-5 characters for most languages. Arabic/morphologically-rich languages may benefit from slightly longer tokens. |
| |
| **Unknown Token Rate (OOV Rate)** |
| > *Definition:* Percentage of tokens that map to the unknown/UNK token, indicating words the tokenizer cannot represent. |
| > |
| > *Intuition:* Lower OOV means better vocabulary coverage. High OOV indicates the tokenizer encounters many unseen character sequences. |
| > |
| > *What to seek:* Below 1% is excellent; below 5% is acceptable. BPE tokenizers typically achieve very low OOV due to subword fallback. |
| |
| ### N-gram Model Metrics |
| |
| **Perplexity** |
| > *Definition:* Measures how "surprised" the model is by test data. Mathematically: 2^(cross-entropy). Lower values indicate better prediction. |
| > |
| > *Intuition:* If perplexity is 100, the model is as uncertain as if choosing uniformly among 100 options at each step. A perplexity of 10 means effectively choosing among 10 equally likely options. |
| > |
| > *What to seek:* Lower is better. Perplexity decreases with larger n-grams (more context). Values vary widely by language and corpus size. |
| |
| **Entropy** |
| > *Definition:* Average information content (in bits) needed to encode the next token given the context. Related to perplexity: perplexity = 2^entropy. |
| > |
| > *Intuition:* High entropy means high uncertainty/randomness; low entropy means predictable patterns. Natural language typically has entropy between 1-4 bits per character. |
| > |
| > *What to seek:* Lower entropy indicates more predictable text patterns. Entropy should decrease as n-gram size increases. |
| |
| **Coverage (Top-K)** |
| > *Definition:* Percentage of corpus occurrences explained by the top K most frequent n-grams. |
| > |
| > *Intuition:* High coverage with few patterns indicates repetitive/formulaic text; low coverage suggests diverse vocabulary usage. |
| > |
| > *What to seek:* Depends on use case. For language modeling, moderate coverage (40-60% with top-1000) is typical for natural text. |
| |
| ### Markov Chain Metrics |
| |
| **Average Entropy** |
| > *Definition:* Mean entropy across all contexts, measuring average uncertainty in next-word prediction. |
| > |
| > *Intuition:* Lower entropy means the model is more confident about what comes next. Context-1 has high entropy (many possible next words); Context-4 has low entropy (few likely continuations). |
| > |
| > *What to seek:* Decreasing entropy with larger context sizes. Very low entropy (<0.1) indicates highly deterministic transitions. |
| |
| **Branching Factor** |
| > *Definition:* Average number of unique next tokens observed for each context. |
| > |
| > *Intuition:* High branching = many possible continuations (flexible but uncertain); low branching = few options (predictable but potentially repetitive). |
| > |
| > *What to seek:* Branching factor should decrease with context size. Values near 1.0 indicate nearly deterministic chains. |
| |
| **Predictability** |
| > *Definition:* Derived metric: (1 - normalized_entropy) × 100%. Indicates how deterministic the model's predictions are. |
| > |
| > *Intuition:* 100% predictability means the next word is always certain; 0% means completely random. Real text falls between these extremes. |
| > |
| > *What to seek:* Higher predictability for text generation quality, but too high (>98%) may produce repetitive output. |
|
|
| ### Vocabulary & Zipf's Law Metrics |
|
|
| **Zipf's Coefficient** |
| > *Definition:* The slope of the log-log plot of word frequency vs. rank. Zipf's law predicts this should be approximately -1. |
| > |
| > *Intuition:* A coefficient near -1 indicates the corpus follows natural language patterns where a few words are very common and most words are rare. |
| > |
| > *What to seek:* Values between -0.8 and -1.2 indicate healthy natural language distribution. Deviations may suggest domain-specific or artificial text. |
|
|
| **R² (Coefficient of Determination)** |
| > *Definition:* Measures how well the linear fit explains the frequency-rank relationship. Ranges from 0 to 1. |
| > |
| > *Intuition:* R² near 1.0 means the data closely follows Zipf's law; lower values indicate deviation from expected word frequency patterns. |
| > |
| > *What to seek:* R² > 0.95 is excellent; > 0.99 indicates near-perfect Zipf adherence typical of large natural corpora. |
|
|
| **Vocabulary Coverage** |
| > *Definition:* Cumulative percentage of corpus tokens accounted for by the top N words. |
| > |
| > *Intuition:* Shows how concentrated word usage is. If top-100 words cover 50% of text, the corpus relies heavily on common words. |
| > |
| > *What to seek:* Top-100 covering 30-50% is typical. Higher coverage indicates more repetitive text; lower suggests richer vocabulary. |
|
|
| ### Word Embedding Metrics |
|
|
| **Isotropy** |
| > *Definition:* Measures how uniformly distributed vectors are in the embedding space. Computed as the ratio of minimum to maximum singular values. |
| > |
| > *Intuition:* High isotropy (near 1.0) means vectors spread evenly in all directions; low isotropy means vectors cluster in certain directions, reducing expressiveness. |
| > |
| > *What to seek:* Higher isotropy generally indicates better-quality embeddings. Values > 0.1 are reasonable; > 0.3 is good. Lower-dimensional embeddings tend to have higher isotropy. |
|
|
| **Average Norm** |
| > *Definition:* Mean magnitude (L2 norm) of word vectors in the embedding space. |
| > |
| > *Intuition:* Indicates the typical "length" of vectors. Consistent norms suggest stable training; high variance may indicate some words are undertrained. |
| > |
| > *What to seek:* Relatively consistent norms across models. The absolute value matters less than consistency (low std deviation). |
|
|
| **Cosine Similarity** |
| > *Definition:* Measures angular similarity between vectors, ranging from -1 (opposite) to 1 (identical direction). |
| > |
| > *Intuition:* Words with similar meanings should have high cosine similarity. This is the standard metric for semantic relatedness in embeddings. |
| > |
| > *What to seek:* Semantically related words should score > 0.5; unrelated words should be near 0. Synonyms often score > 0.7. |
|
|
| **t-SNE Visualization** |
| > *Definition:* t-Distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding - a dimensionality reduction technique that preserves local structure for visualization. |
| > |
| > *Intuition:* Clusters in t-SNE plots indicate groups of semantically related words. Spread indicates vocabulary diversity; tight clusters suggest semantic coherence. |
| > |
| > *What to seek:* Meaningful clusters (e.g., numbers together, verbs together). Avoid over-interpreting distances - t-SNE preserves local, not global, structure. |
|
|
| ### General Interpretation Guidelines |
|
|
| 1. **Compare within model families:** Metrics are most meaningful when comparing models of the same type (e.g., 8k vs 64k tokenizer). |
| 2. **Consider trade-offs:** Better performance on one metric often comes at the cost of another (e.g., compression vs. OOV rate). |
| 3. **Context matters:** Optimal values depend on downstream tasks. Text generation may prioritize different metrics than classification. |
| 4. **Corpus influence:** All metrics are influenced by corpus characteristics. Wikipedia text differs from social media or literature. |
| 5. **Language-specific patterns:** Morphologically rich languages (like Arabic) may show different optimal ranges than analytic languages. |
|
|
|
|
| ### Visualizations Index |
|
|
| | Visualization | Description | |
| |---------------|-------------| |
| | Tokenizer Compression | Compression ratios by vocabulary size | |
| | Tokenizer Fertility | Average token length by vocabulary | |
| | Tokenizer OOV | Unknown token rates | |
| | Tokenizer Total Tokens | Total tokens by vocabulary | |
| | N-gram Perplexity | Perplexity by n-gram size | |
| | N-gram Entropy | Entropy by n-gram size | |
| | N-gram Coverage | Top pattern coverage | |
| | N-gram Unique | Unique n-gram counts | |
| | Markov Entropy | Entropy by context size | |
| | Markov Branching | Branching factor by context | |
| | Markov Contexts | Unique context counts | |
| | Zipf's Law | Frequency-rank distribution with fit | |
| | Vocab Frequency | Word frequency distribution | |
| | Top 20 Words | Most frequent words | |
| | Vocab Coverage | Cumulative coverage curve | |
| | Embedding Isotropy | Vector space uniformity | |
| | Embedding Norms | Vector magnitude distribution | |
| | Embedding Similarity | Word similarity heatmap | |
| | Nearest Neighbors | Similar words for key terms | |
| | t-SNE Words | 2D word embedding visualization | |
| | t-SNE Sentences | 2D sentence embedding visualization | |
| | Position Encoding | Encoding method comparison | |
| | Model Sizes | Storage requirements | |
| | Performance Dashboard | Comprehensive performance overview | |
|
|
| --- |
| ## About This Project |
|
|
| ### Data Source |
|
|
| Models trained on [wikipedia-monthly](https://huggingface.co/datasets/omarkamali/wikipedia-monthly) - a monthly snapshot of Wikipedia articles across 300+ languages. |
|
|
| ### Project |
|
|
| A project by **[Wikilangs](https://wikilangs.org)** - Open-source NLP models for every Wikipedia language. |
|
|
| ### Maintainer |
|
|
| [Omar Kamali](https://omarkamali.com) - [Omneity Labs](https://omneitylabs.com) |
|
|
| ### Citation |
|
|
| If you use these models in your research, please cite: |
|
|
| ```bibtex |
| @misc{wikilangs2025, |
| author = {Kamali, Omar}, |
| title = {Wikilangs: Open NLP Models for Wikipedia Languages}, |
| year = {2025}, |
| doi = {10.5281/zenodo.18073153}, |
| publisher = {Zenodo}, |
| url = {https://huggingface.co/wikilangs} |
| institution = {Omneity Labs} |
| } |
| ``` |
|
|
| ### License |
|
|
| MIT License - Free for academic and commercial use. |
|
|
| ### Links |
|
|
| - 🌐 Website: [wikilangs.org](https://wikilangs.org) |
| - 🤗 Models: [huggingface.co/wikilangs](https://huggingface.co/wikilangs) |
| - 📊 Data: [wikipedia-monthly](https://huggingface.co/datasets/omarkamali/wikipedia-monthly) |
| - 👤 Author: [Omar Kamali](https://huggingface.co/omarkamali) |
| - 🤝 Sponsor: [Featherless AI](https://featherless.ai) |
| --- |
| *Generated by Wikilangs Models Pipeline* |
|
|
| *Report Date: 2026-01-03 17:51:14* |
|
|