README.md

metadata

language: lv
language_name: Latvian
language_family: baltic
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-baltic
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: 4.859
  - name: best_isotropy
    type: isotropy
    value: 0.8084
  - name: vocabulary_size
    type: vocab
    value: 0
generated: 2026-01-10T00:00:00.000Z

Latvian - Wikilangs Models

Comprehensive Research Report & Full Ablation Study

This repository contains NLP models trained and evaluated by Wikilangs, specifically on Latvian 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
• 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	3.645x	3.65	0.1438%	1,511,025
16k	4.088x	4.09	0.1613%	1,347,208
32k	4.505x	4.51	0.1778%	1,222,479
64k	4.859x 🏆	4.86	0.1917%	1,133,428

Tokenization Examples

Below are sample sentences tokenized with each vocabulary size:

Sample 1: Vārniņas ir ciems Smiltenes novada Launkalnes pagastā. Atrodas pagasta dienvidau...

Vocab	Tokens	Count
8k	▁vār n iņas ▁ir ▁ciems ▁smiltenes ▁novada ▁lau n kalnes ... (+17 more)	27
16k	▁vār n iņas ▁ir ▁ciems ▁smiltenes ▁novada ▁laun kalnes ▁pagastā ... (+16 more)	26
32k	▁vār n iņas ▁ir ▁ciems ▁smiltenes ▁novada ▁laun kalnes ▁pagastā ... (+16 more)	26
64k	▁vārn iņas ▁ir ▁ciems ▁smiltenes ▁novada ▁launkalnes ▁pagastā . ▁atrodas ... (+14 more)	24

Sample 2: Oknupe ir ciems Vīksnas pagastā, Balvu novadā. Atrodas 235 km attālumā no Rīgas....

Vocab	Tokens	Count
8k	▁ok nu pe ▁ir ▁ciems ▁v īks nas ▁pagastā , ... (+28 more)	38
16k	▁ok nu pe ▁ir ▁ciems ▁vīks nas ▁pagastā , ▁balvu ... (+26 more)	36
32k	▁ok nu pe ▁ir ▁ciems ▁vīksnas ▁pagastā , ▁balvu ▁novadā ... (+25 more)	35
64k	▁ok nu pe ▁ir ▁ciems ▁vīksnas ▁pagastā , ▁balvu ▁novadā ... (+25 more)	35

Sample 3: Luķes ir ciems Gulbenes novada Rankas pagastā. Atrodas pagasta ziemeļu daļā. Apd...

Vocab	Tokens	Count
8k	▁lu ķes ▁ir ▁ciems ▁gulbenes ▁novada ▁ran kas ▁pagastā . ... (+16 more)	26
16k	▁lu ķes ▁ir ▁ciems ▁gulbenes ▁novada ▁ran kas ▁pagastā . ... (+16 more)	26
32k	▁lu ķes ▁ir ▁ciems ▁gulbenes ▁novada ▁rankas ▁pagastā . ▁atrodas ... (+15 more)	25
64k	▁lu ķes ▁ir ▁ciems ▁gulbenes ▁novada ▁rankas ▁pagastā . ▁atrodas ... (+15 more)	25

Key Findings

• Best Compression: 64k achieves 4.859x compression
• Lowest UNK Rate: 8k with 0.1438% 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	186,971	17.51	763,036	5.9%	15.6%
2-gram	Subword	377 🏆	8.56	13,410	58.1%	98.3%
3-gram	Word	376,228	18.52	1,082,562	4.6%	11.0%
3-gram	Subword	3,642	11.83	114,502	20.1%	61.2%
4-gram	Word	838,069	19.68	1,874,907	3.2%	7.7%
4-gram	Subword	22,176	14.44	679,251	9.2%	30.8%
5-gram	Word	716,017	19.45	1,422,304	3.0%	7.4%
5-gram	Subword	92,488	16.50	2,257,677	5.0%	18.1%

Top 5 N-grams by Size

2-grams (Word):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	ārējās saites	77,523
2	atsauces ārējās	46,856
3	kā arī	36,975
4	līdz gadam	31,268
5	gadā dzimušie	26,462

3-grams (Word):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	atsauces ārējās saites	46,815
2	no līdz gadam	19,254
3	ārējās saites gadā	14,728
4	saites gadā dzimušie	14,663
5	dzimušie gadā mirušie	9,849

4-grams (Word):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	ārējās saites gadā dzimušie	14,640
2	gadā dzimušie gadā mirušie	8,825
3	atsauces ārējās saites gadā	7,950
4	gada vasaras olimpiskajās spēlēs	6,960
5	gada vasaras olimpisko spēļu	5,942

5-grams (Word):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	atsauces ārējās saites gadā dzimušie	7,930
2	gada vasaras olimpisko spēļu dalībnieki	4,199
3	ārējās saites gadā dzimušie gadā	3,572
4	saites gadā dzimušie gadā mirušie	3,570
5	atsauces ārējās saites gada filmas	3,413

2-grams (Subword):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	s _	7,415,857
2	a _	4,233,722
3	i e	3,834,903
4	a s	3,749,982
5	_ p	2,817,996

3-grams (Subword):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	a s _	2,663,220
2	i j a	1,092,354
3	_ g a	1,045,440
4	_ p a	969,042
5	e s _	927,955

4-grams (Subword):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	_ u n _	832,357
2	_ g a d	790,192
3	j a s _	651,311
4	i j a s	601,430
5	_ i r _	445,858

5-grams (Subword):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	i j a s _	555,973
2	_ g a d a	327,759
3	_ g a d ā	311,319
4	g a d a _	289,208
5	s _ u n _	258,875

Key Findings

• Best Perplexity: 2-gram (subword) with 377
• Entropy Trend: Decreases with larger n-grams (more predictable)
• Coverage: Top-1000 patterns cover ~18% 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	1.0564	2.080	11.08	1,076,401	0.0%
1	Subword	0.9798	1.972	6.86	5,866	2.0%
2	Word	0.3096	1.239	1.86	11,904,580	69.0%
2	Subword	0.8333	1.782	5.70	40,212	16.7%
3	Word	0.1014	1.073	1.19	22,093,035	89.9%
3	Subword	0.8282	1.775	4.78	229,319	17.2%
4	Word	0.0411 🏆	1.029	1.07	26,247,285	95.9%
4	Subword	0.7392	1.669	3.61	1,095,639	26.1%

Generated Text Samples (Word-based)

Below are text samples generated from each word-based Markov chain model:

Context Size 1:

1. un atsauces ārējās saites gadā par bruņutanku divīziju tā barojas ar un ietērps bija andris bērziņš
2. ir piešķirta labākajam debitantam šo gleznu to šķietamo retumu novērojumi bija reperis 9 kārta sešpa...
3. no divām spāņu izcelsmes azerbaidžānas robežas dažkārt piedēvēto dzīvo krievijā kalugas 14 gadsimtā ...

Context Size 2:

1. ārējās saites photographs of yamashita last words nr 99 miley cyrus dziesmu saraksts visu dziesmu mū...
2. atsauces ārējās saites kārļa blūma mājas gusevā kaļiņingradas apgabals krievijā bērnību aizvadījis l...
3. kā arī 24 šaha olimpiāde 2 galdiņš anna zatonskiha 3 galdiņš hiroko maeda japāna 6 no kopējās

Context Size 3:

1. atsauces ārējās saites salas okeāna salas okeāna salas okeāna salas sala un makdonalda salas daba vi...
2. no līdz gadam četras reizes pēc kārtas spēja kāpt uz goda pjedestāla pk posmā izcīnīja pokļukā ieņem...
3. ārējās saites gadā dzimušie futbolisti izlases futbolisti barcelona spēlētāji braga spēlētāji gada f...

Context Size 4:

1. ārējās saites gadā dzimušie dzimušie dziedātāji dziedātāji dzejnieki komponisti aktieri kas nosodīja...
2. gadā dzimušie gadā mirušie valodā rakstošie dzimušie filozofi
3. atsauces ārējās saites gadā dzimušie gadā mirušie šahisti dzimušie rakstnieki

Generated Text Samples (Subword-based)

Below are text samples generated from each subword-based Markov chain model:

Context Size 1:

1. _ga_—_v_tā_viero
2. ai_šas_pējeilstr
3. iskairbonsilieģe

Context Size 2:

1. s_ku_seviņa_(par_
2. a_dreglerfespiesm
3. iempielleines_atk

Context Size 3:

1. as_(bhk),_for_de_r
2. ija_resstan"_tika/
3. _gada_slēdzirnaziņ

Context Size 4:

1. _un_šķērso_valdīts_
2. _gadā._iedalīt_pašr
3. jas_kultāti_pat_hom

Key Findings

• Best Predictability: Context-4 (word) with 95.9% predictability
• Branching Factor: Decreases with context size (more deterministic)
• Memory Trade-off: Larger contexts require more storage (1,095,639 contexts)
• Recommendation: Context-3 or Context-4 for text generation

---

4. Vocabulary Analysis

Statistics

Metric	Value
Vocabulary Size	525,941
Total Tokens	31,646,239
Mean Frequency	60.17
Median Frequency	4
Frequency Std Dev	1858.77

Most Common Words

Rank	Word	Frequency
1	un	837,232
2	ir	448,994
3	no	329,310
4	ar	312,526
5	gadā	311,069
6	gada	295,620
7	par	232,587
8	bija	182,230
9	arī	168,500
10	1	160,323

Least Common Words (from vocabulary)

Rank	Word	Frequency
1	gesnēriju	2
2	oerst	2
3	feuillet	2
4	aizšauta	2
5	حمّص	2
6	saspaidot	2
7	levantiešu	2
8	bowsera	2
9	гайлите	2
10	kuckersiana	2

Zipf's Law Analysis

Metric	Value
Zipf Coefficient	0.9424
R² (Goodness of Fit)	0.995100
Adherence Quality	excellent

Coverage Analysis

Top N Words	Coverage
Top 100	24.5%
Top 1,000	46.0%
Top 5,000	65.1%
Top 10,000	73.1%

Key Findings

• Zipf Compliance: R²=0.9951 indicates excellent adherence to Zipf's law
• High Frequency Dominance: Top 100 words cover 24.5% of corpus
• Long Tail: 515,941 words needed for remaining 26.9% 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	0.8084 🏆	0.3574	N/A	N/A
mono_64d	64	0.7789	0.2822	N/A	N/A
mono_128d	128	0.7122	0.2116	N/A	N/A
aligned_32d	32	0.8084	0.3676	0.1900	0.5080
aligned_64d	64	0.7789	0.2789	0.2640	0.6700
aligned_128d	128	0.7122	0.2124	0.3740	0.7500

Key Findings

• Best Isotropy: mono_32d with 0.8084 (more uniform distribution)
• Semantic Density: Average pairwise similarity of 0.2850. Lower values indicate better semantic separation.
• Alignment Quality: Aligned models achieve up to 37.4% 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	-0.593	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
-s	skatījumus, selēku, saucietis
-a	antwone, antociānus, atkritēju
-k	kemalisms, kuģu, korporatīvajām
-ma	makrofaunā, materiālzinātnes, maksillas
-p	peculiarities, pilsoņtiesību, pūpēžu
-b	beijing, blīvējumiem, bbva
-m	metālopera, makrofaunā, městec
-d	daiļkrāsotāja, džungļus, definēja

Productive Suffixes

Suffix	Examples
-s	cuspidatus, skatījumus, informatics
-a	daiļkrāsotāja, leontīna, definēja
-as	lielsusējas, lentas, elektrizācijas
-u	ofenbergu, imulu, pilsoņtiesību
-i	šakarniai, zonai, oviši
-m	stūrētājam, korporatīvajām, reliktām
-e	antwone, zvirgzdupe, edamame
-em	blīvējumiem, frančiem, briesmoņiem

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
pēlē	2.56x	98 contexts	spēlē, spēlēj, spēlēt
spēl	2.22x	107 contexts	spēlē, spēlu, spēle
akst	1.65x	272 contexts	bakst, aksts, aksta
veid	1.57x	278 contexts	veidu, veida, veidi
tisk	1.45x	327 contexts	ētiskā, ētiska, ētiski
dzīv	1.65x	122 contexts	dzīve, dzīva, dzīvi
tsau	2.39x	25 contexts	atsauc, atsauce, atsauks
iskā	1.55x	134 contexts	diskā, riskā, ētiskā
alst	1.49x	144 contexts	valst, salst, aalst
eido	1.58x	108 contexts	eidos, feido, veido
ācij	1.53x	117 contexts	ācija, nācija, mācija
ības	1.83x	49 contexts	lības, rības, čības

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	-s	248 words	skurass, schildts
-p	-s	235 words	pogačarsričards, praxis
-a	-s	210 words	aments, abdelazīzs
-k	-s	172 words	krūzes, kodzas
-b	-s	139 words	bekingemšīras, beringovskas
-s	-a	112 words	skolvadība, sēretika
-d	-s	111 words	dedalus, dauders
-p	-a	100 words	pārraidija, patnema
-k	-a	94 words	koldhārbora, kairiša
-m	-s	92 words	mazjaudīgus, micromys

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
aprīlīdžeks	aprīlīdž-e-ks	7.5	e
trusēniem	trusēn-i-em	7.5	i
skābputras	skābput-ra-s	7.5	ra
pilsoniski	pilsoni-s-ki	7.5	s
asinssālim	asinssāl-i-m	7.5	i
gūstekņiem	gūstekņ-i-em	7.5	i
uzņēmīgiem	uzņēmīg-i-em	7.5	i
pieraduma	pieradu-m-a	7.5	m
prikumsku	prikum-s-ku	7.5	s
kērklīsas	kērklī-s-as	7.5	s
acantosis	acanto-s-is	7.5	s
miecēšana	miecēš-a-na	7.5	a
kapranoss	kaprano-s-s	7.5	s
veinštrāses	veinštrā-s-es	7.5	s
ūdenssuņiem	ūdenssuņ-i-em	7.5	i

6.6 Linguistic Interpretation

Automated Insight: The language Latvian 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 (4.86x)
N-gram	2-gram	Lowest perplexity (377)
Markov	Context-4	Highest predictability (95.9%)
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 - a monthly snapshot of Wikipedia articles across 300+ languages.

Project

A project by Wikilangs - Open-source NLP models for every Wikipedia language.

Maintainer

Omar Kamali - Omneity Labs

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

• 🌐 Website: wikilangs.org
• 🤗 Models: huggingface.co/wikilangs
• 📊 Data: wikipedia-monthly
• 👤 Author: Omar Kamali
• 🤝 Sponsor: Featherless AI

---

Generated by Wikilangs Models Pipeline

Report Date: 2026-01-10 15:10:38