Text Generation
fastText
Novial
wikilangs
nlp
tokenizer
embeddings
n-gram
markov
wikipedia
feature-extraction
sentence-similarity
tokenization
n-grams
markov-chain
text-mining
babelvec
vocabulous
vocabulary
monolingual
family-constructed_auxlang
Instructions to use wikilangs/nov with libraries, inference providers, notebooks, and local apps. Follow these links to get started.
- Libraries
- fastText
How to use wikilangs/nov with fastText:
from huggingface_hub import hf_hub_download import fasttext model = fasttext.load_model(hf_hub_download("wikilangs/nov", "model.bin")) - Notebooks
- Google Colab
- Kaggle
| language: nov | |
| language_name: Novial | |
| language_family: constructed_auxlang | |
| 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-constructed_auxlang | |
| 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: 4.293 | |
| - name: best_isotropy | |
| type: isotropy | |
| value: 0.1555 | |
| - name: vocabulary_size | |
| type: vocab | |
| value: 0 | |
| generated: 2026-01-10 | |
| # Novial - Wikilangs Models | |
| ## Comprehensive Research Report & Full Ablation Study | |
| This repository contains NLP models trained and evaluated by Wikilangs, specifically on **Novial** 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** | 3.864x | 3.87 | 0.0651% | 156,765 | | |
| | **16k** | 4.098x | 4.11 | 0.0690% | 147,789 | | |
| | **32k** | 4.293x 🏆 | 4.30 | 0.0723% | 141,092 | | |
| ### Tokenization Examples | |
| Below are sample sentences tokenized with each vocabulary size: | |
| **Sample 1:** `Li Isles Malukus (Moluccas) Es un archipelag in li orientale parte de Indonesia....` | |
| | Vocab | Tokens | Count | | |
| |-------|--------|-------| | |
| | 8k | `▁li ▁isles ▁mal uk us ▁( mol uc cas ) ... (+15 more)` | 25 | | |
| | 16k | `▁li ▁isles ▁mal uk us ▁( mol uc cas ) ... (+12 more)` | 22 | | |
| | 32k | `▁li ▁isles ▁malukus ▁( moluccas ) ▁es ▁un ▁archipelag ▁in ... (+7 more)` | 17 | | |
| **Sample 2:** `Little Rock es li maxim grandi urbe de Arkansas, Unionati States de Amerika.` | |
| | Vocab | Tokens | Count | | |
| |-------|--------|-------| | |
| | 8k | `▁little ▁rock ▁es ▁li ▁maxim ▁grandi ▁urbe ▁de ▁ar k ... (+7 more)` | 17 | | |
| | 16k | `▁little ▁rock ▁es ▁li ▁maxim ▁grandi ▁urbe ▁de ▁arkansas , ... (+5 more)` | 15 | | |
| | 32k | `▁little ▁rock ▁es ▁li ▁maxim ▁grandi ▁urbe ▁de ▁arkansas , ... (+5 more)` | 15 | | |
| **Sample 3:** `Eventes Naskos - George Gamow, rusi-usani fisikisto e skribiste de populari sien...` | |
| | Vocab | Tokens | Count | | |
| |-------|--------|-------| | |
| | 8k | `▁eventes ▁naskos ▁- ▁george ▁gamow , ▁rusi - usani ▁fisikisto ... (+7 more)` | 17 | | |
| | 16k | `▁eventes ▁naskos ▁- ▁george ▁gamow , ▁rusi - usani ▁fisikisto ... (+6 more)` | 16 | | |
| | 32k | `▁eventes ▁naskos ▁- ▁george ▁gamow , ▁rusi - usani ▁fisikisto ... (+6 more)` | 16 | | |
| ### Key Findings | |
| - **Best Compression:** 32k achieves 4.293x compression | |
| - **Lowest UNK Rate:** 8k with 0.0651% 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 | 1,178 | 10.20 | 3,283 | 41.9% | 75.7% | | |
| | **2-gram** | Subword | 244 🏆 | 7.93 | 1,418 | 69.7% | 99.7% | | |
| | **3-gram** | Word | 1,168 | 10.19 | 4,001 | 45.5% | 73.4% | | |
| | **3-gram** | Subword | 1,771 | 10.79 | 10,056 | 28.4% | 76.4% | | |
| | **4-gram** | Word | 2,024 | 10.98 | 7,221 | 38.8% | 61.9% | | |
| | **4-gram** | Subword | 7,394 | 12.85 | 40,232 | 15.6% | 48.7% | | |
| | **5-gram** | Word | 1,593 | 10.64 | 5,612 | 40.6% | 64.9% | | |
| | **5-gram** | Subword | 16,261 | 13.99 | 72,530 | 11.2% | 38.1% | | |
| ### Top 5 N-grams by Size | |
| **2-grams (Word):** | |
| | Rank | N-gram | Count | | |
| |------|--------|-------| | |
| | 1 | `in li` | 946 | | |
| | 2 | `es li` | 745 | | |
| | 3 | `ek li` | 622 | | |
| | 4 | `de sud` | 594 | | |
| | 5 | `sud afrika` | 563 | | |
| **3-grams (Word):** | |
| | Rank | N-gram | Count | | |
| |------|--------|-------| | |
| | 1 | `de sud afrika` | 551 | | |
| | 2 | `kristiani demokrati partise` | 505 | | |
| | 3 | `un ek li` | 313 | | |
| | 4 | `es un ek` | 300 | | |
| | 5 | `provinse de sud` | 289 | | |
| **4-grams (Word):** | |
| | Rank | N-gram | Count | | |
| |------|--------|-------| | |
| | 1 | `es un ek li` | 296 | | |
| | 2 | `provinse de sud afrika` | 289 | | |
| | 3 | `es ek li nombro` | 278 | | |
| | 4 | `demarcation board stats sa` | 278 | | |
| | 5 | `li majoritate de lun` | 278 | | |
| **5-grams (Word):** | |
| | Rank | N-gram | Count | | |
| |------|--------|-------| | |
| | 1 | `statistikes es ek li nombro` | 278 | | |
| | 2 | `stats sa census page independent` | 278 | | |
| | 3 | `independent electoral commission election results` | 278 | | |
| | 4 | `page independent electoral commission election` | 278 | | |
| | 5 | `census page independent electoral commission` | 278 | | |
| **2-grams (Subword):** | |
| | Rank | N-gram | Count | | |
| |------|--------|-------| | |
| | 1 | `e _` | 34,143 | | |
| | 2 | `i _` | 21,509 | | |
| | 3 | `e s` | 19,756 | | |
| | 4 | `_ d` | 17,368 | | |
| | 5 | `d e` | 16,656 | | |
| **3-grams (Subword):** | |
| | Rank | N-gram | Count | | |
| |------|--------|-------| | |
| | 1 | `_ d e` | 12,988 | | |
| | 2 | `_ l i` | 10,620 | | |
| | 3 | `e s _` | 10,569 | | |
| | 4 | `l i _` | 9,707 | | |
| | 5 | `d e _` | 8,712 | | |
| **4-grams (Subword):** | |
| | Rank | N-gram | Count | | |
| |------|--------|-------| | |
| | 1 | `_ l i _` | 8,332 | | |
| | 2 | `_ d e _` | 7,798 | | |
| | 3 | `e _ d e` | 4,960 | | |
| | 4 | `t i o n` | 4,248 | | |
| | 5 | `_ e s _` | 4,034 | | |
| **5-grams (Subword):** | |
| | Rank | N-gram | Count | | |
| |------|--------|-------| | |
| | 1 | `e _ d e _` | 3,513 | | |
| | 2 | `a t i o n` | 2,270 | | |
| | 3 | `t i o n e` | 1,911 | | |
| | 4 | `_ d e l _` | 1,822 | | |
| | 5 | `_ p a r t` | 1,691 | | |
| ### Key Findings | |
| - **Best Perplexity:** 2-gram (subword) with 244 | |
| - **Entropy Trend:** Decreases with larger n-grams (more predictable) | |
| - **Coverage:** Top-1000 patterns cover ~38% 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 | 0.7087 | 1.634 | 3.73 | 23,001 | 29.1% | | |
| | **1** | Subword | 0.9408 | 1.920 | 6.71 | 573 | 5.9% | | |
| | **2** | Word | 0.2002 | 1.149 | 1.39 | 85,181 | 80.0% | | |
| | **2** | Subword | 0.9000 | 1.866 | 5.14 | 3,839 | 10.0% | | |
| | **3** | Word | 0.0646 | 1.046 | 1.10 | 117,051 | 93.5% | | |
| | **3** | Subword | 0.8231 | 1.769 | 3.63 | 19,730 | 17.7% | | |
| | **4** | Word | 0.0276 🏆 | 1.019 | 1.05 | 128,096 | 97.2% | | |
| | **4** | Subword | 0.5739 | 1.488 | 2.29 | 71,462 | 42.6% | | |
| ### Generated Text Samples (Word-based) | |
| Below are text samples generated from each word-based Markov chain model: | |
| **Context Size 1:** | |
| 1. `li ekonomia de vietnam binh vietnam kum y z z li traktate de sinema kino bioskop` | |
| 2. `de kwazulu natal provinse de basal supositione provisorim akseptat kel bli jeta plu tardim plu natur...` | |
| 3. `es li nombro demografie li rego de bbc news last kingdom de lingues sexu etnikiso politike` | |
| **Context Size 2:** | |
| 1. `in li sud afrikal general elektione total votes 4 803 31 de total populatione partisevotes inkatha l...` | |
| 2. `es li chef urbe es durban li majoritate de lun 193 766 homes parla zulum nombro geografia` | |
| 3. `ek li komunies de karu distrikte de nord amerika li nederlandani antilles konsista ek tri asertiones...` | |
| **Context Size 3:** | |
| 1. `kristiani demokrati partise unionati demokrati movemente 1 demokrati alianse pac libereso fronte afr...` | |
| 2. `un ek li komunies de metsweding distrikte de gauteng provinse de sud afrika li majoritate de lun 92` | |
| 3. `de sud afrika fro 14 de june in unionati regia es lande de sud amerika de chile` | |
| **Context Size 4:** | |
| 1. `es un ek li distriktes de kwazulu natal provinse de sud afrika li majoritate de lun 32 279 homes` | |
| 2. `provinse de sud afrika li chef urbe es li urbe de saitama referos de japan` | |
| 3. `sa census page independent electoral commission election results de sud afrika` | |
| ### Generated Text Samples (Subword-based) | |
| Below are text samples generated from each subword-based Markov chain model: | |
| **Context Size 1:** | |
| 1. `_(ri_nkis_1"_]_7` | |
| 2. `ese_kan_u_le_enu` | |
| 3. `iari_fomesmbete_` | |
| **Context Size 2:** | |
| 1. `e_sop_79,09li_nom` | |
| 2. `i_go_prolemokre_o` | |
| 3. `es_etteoli_pronal` | |
| **Context Size 3:** | |
| 1. `_de_esentarabatal_` | |
| 2. `_li_yares_de_es_ek` | |
| 3. `es_un_spani_isaje_` | |
| **Context Size 4:** | |
| 1. `_li_nur:_ove_you._l` | |
| 2. `_de_plu_tardim_tenn` | |
| 3. `e_de_sami_demokrati` | |
| ### Key Findings | |
| - **Best Predictability:** Context-4 (word) with 97.2% predictability | |
| - **Branching Factor:** Decreases with context size (more deterministic) | |
| - **Memory Trade-off:** Larger contexts require more storage (71,462 contexts) | |
| - **Recommendation:** Context-3 or Context-4 for text generation | |
| --- | |
| ## 4. Vocabulary Analysis | |
|  | |
|  | |
|  | |
| ### Statistics | |
| | Metric | Value | | |
| |--------|-------| | |
| | Vocabulary Size | 9,838 | | |
| | Total Tokens | 152,199 | | |
| | Mean Frequency | 15.47 | | |
| | Median Frequency | 3 | | |
| | Frequency Std Dev | 140.97 | | |
| ### Most Common Words | |
| | Rank | Word | Frequency | | |
| |------|------|-----------| | |
| | 1 | li | 8,569 | | |
| | 2 | de | 7,823 | | |
| | 3 | es | 4,132 | | |
| | 4 | e | 3,243 | | |
| | 5 | in | 2,500 | | |
| | 6 | del | 1,826 | | |
| | 7 | partise | 1,098 | | |
| | 8 | sud | 1,043 | | |
| | 9 | demokrati | 1,042 | | |
| | 10 | en | 921 | | |
| ### Least Common Words (from vocabulary) | |
| | Rank | Word | Frequency | | |
| |------|------|-----------| | |
| | 1 | markant | 2 | | |
| | 2 | hosta | 2 | | |
| | 3 | pompidou | 2 | | |
| | 4 | jános | 2 | | |
| | 5 | monet | 2 | | |
| | 6 | impresionisme | 2 | | |
| | 7 | orkestres | 2 | | |
| | 8 | brahms | 2 | | |
| | 9 | operas | 2 | | |
| | 10 | match | 2 | | |
| ### Zipf's Law Analysis | |
| | Metric | Value | | |
| |--------|-------| | |
| | Zipf Coefficient | 1.0314 | | |
| | R² (Goodness of Fit) | 0.989703 | | |
| | Adherence Quality | **excellent** | | |
| ### Coverage Analysis | |
| | Top N Words | Coverage | | |
| |-------------|----------| | |
| | Top 100 | 45.2% | | |
| | Top 1,000 | 75.4% | | |
| | Top 5,000 | 92.8% | | |
| | Top 10,000 | 0.0% | | |
| ### Key Findings | |
| - **Zipf Compliance:** R²=0.9897 indicates excellent adherence to Zipf's law | |
| - **High Frequency Dominance:** Top 100 words cover 45.2% of corpus | |
| - **Long Tail:** -162 words needed for remaining 100.0% 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 | 0.1555 🏆 | 0.4672 | N/A | N/A | | |
| | **mono_64d** | 64 | 0.0258 | 0.4629 | N/A | N/A | | |
| | **mono_128d** | 128 | 0.0036 | 0.4758 | N/A | N/A | | |
| | **aligned_32d** | 32 | 0.1555 | 0.4481 | 0.0160 | 0.1600 | | |
| | **aligned_64d** | 64 | 0.0258 | 0.4683 | 0.0300 | 0.1780 | | |
| | **aligned_128d** | 128 | 0.0036 | 0.4627 | 0.0280 | 0.1860 | | |
| ### Key Findings | |
| - **Best Isotropy:** mono_32d with 0.1555 (more uniform distribution) | |
| - **Semantic Density:** Average pairwise similarity of 0.4642. Lower values indicate better semantic separation. | |
| - **Alignment Quality:** Aligned models achieve up to 3.0% 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 | **0.702** | High formulaic/idiomatic content | - | | |
| ### 6.2 Affix Inventory (Productive Units) | |
| These are the most productive prefixes and suffixes identified by sampling the vocabulary for global substitutability patterns. A unit is considered an affix if stripping it leaves a valid stem that appears in other contexts. | |
| #### Productive Prefixes | |
| | Prefix | Examples | | |
| |--------|----------| | |
| | `-s` | sidney, states, strukture | | |
| | `-a` | arrhenius, alpes, autonoma | | |
| | `-m` | minutes, multes, morocco | | |
| | `-p` | paleontologia, prendit, plural | | |
| | `-k` | kolpa, kampionate, kolpes | | |
| | `-b` | bulbizarre, biofisike, bloemfontein | | |
| | `-d` | damajes, delon, dôme | | |
| | `-t` | tipes, tekte, taiwan | | |
| #### Productive Suffixes | |
| | Suffix | Examples | | |
| |--------|----------| | |
| | `-e` | bulbizarre, biofisike, kampionate | | |
| | `-s` | racontas, damajes, arrhenius | | |
| | `-es` | damajes, alpes, minutes | | |
| | `-a` | paleontologia, kolpa, resista | | |
| | `-i` | ri, landunionati, religiosi | | |
| | `-ne` | anione, natione, opinione | | |
| | `-o` | cargo, morocco, romejko | | |
| | `-n` | roman, omnen, an | | |
| ### 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 | | |
| |------|----------|------------------|----------| | |
| | `tion` | 1.51x | 31 contexts | nation, lation, action | | |
| | `arti` | 1.59x | 22 contexts | partie, martin, partim | | |
| | `lekt` | 1.56x | 20 contexts | lekte, elekte, elekta | | |
| | `atio` | 1.48x | 22 contexts | nation, lation, natione | | |
| | `ekti` | 1.75x | 13 contexts | korekti, direkti, efektivi | | |
| | `ktio` | 1.74x | 12 contexts | aktione, fiktione, funktione | | |
| | `ling` | 1.67x | 12 contexts | lingo, lingua, lingue | | |
| | `ente` | 1.33x | 23 contexts | enter, mente, vente | | |
| | `onte` | 1.58x | 13 contexts | monte, fonte, ponte | | |
| | `nter` | 1.35x | 17 contexts | inter, enter, konter | | |
| | `iona` | 1.49x | 12 contexts | fiona, optional, rational | | |
| | `ntes` | 1.38x | 14 contexts | entes, fontes, dentes | | |
| ### 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 | | |
| |--------|--------|-----------|----------| | |
| | `-s` | `-e` | 114 words | strukture, suksese | | |
| | `-p` | `-e` | 105 words | politike, pasaje | | |
| | `-k` | `-e` | 97 words | kampionate, kable | | |
| | `-a` | `-e` | 81 words | anione, amerikaante | | |
| | `-m` | `-e` | 79 words | mute, mamifere | | |
| | `-d` | `-e` | 78 words | dôme, desisione | | |
| | `-p` | `-s` | 76 words | paketes, probos | | |
| | `-s` | `-s` | 70 words | states, studies | | |
| | `-p` | `-es` | 59 words | paketes, partisevotes | | |
| | `-p` | `-a` | 57 words | paleontologia, poza | | |
| ### 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 | | |
| |------|-----------------|------------|------| | |
| | praktisad | **`prakti-s-ad`** | 7.5 | `s` | | |
| | kompletisat | **`kompleti-s-at`** | 7.5 | `s` | | |
| | transfera | **`transf-e-ra`** | 7.5 | `e` | | |
| | diferensa | **`diferen-s-a`** | 7.5 | `s` | | |
| | medievali | **`mediev-al-i`** | 7.5 | `al` | | |
| | religiosi | **`religio-s-i`** | 7.5 | `s` | | |
| | skriptero | **`skript-e-ro`** | 7.5 | `e` | | |
| | interretal | **`interre-t-al`** | 7.5 | `t` | | |
| | development | **`develop-me-nt`** | 7.5 | `me` | | |
| | skripteti | **`skript-e-ti`** | 7.5 | `e` | | |
| | politikalim | **`politik-al-im`** | 7.5 | `al` | | |
| | fisikalim | **`fisik-al-im`** | 7.5 | `al` | | |
| | afrikansum | **`afrikan-s-um`** | 7.5 | `s` | | |
| | kontenanti | **`konten-an-ti`** | 7.5 | `an` | | |
| | periodale | **`period-al-e`** | 7.5 | `al` | | |
| ### 6.6 Linguistic Interpretation | |
| > **Automated Insight:** | |
| The language Novial 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 (4.29x) | | |
| | N-gram | **2-gram** | Lowest perplexity (244) | | |
| | Markov | **Context-4** | Highest predictability (97.2%) | | |
| | 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: 2026-01-10 15:52:59* | |