CoolFace
Modelpublic

wikilangs/alt

sourceHugging Facemitupdated 9mo agoView on Hugging Face
0likes
Model Card

Southern Altai - Wikilangs Models

Comprehensive Research Report & Full Ablation Study

This repository contains NLP models trained and evaluated by Wikilangs, specifically on Southern Altai 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

[image]

Analysis and Evaluation


1. Tokenizer Evaluation

[image]

[image]

[image]

[image]

Results

Vocab SizeCompressionAvg Token LenUNK RateTotal Tokens
8k3.486x3.490.3992%972,913
16k3.686x 🏆3.690.4221%920,240

Tokenization Examples

Below are sample sentences tokenized with each vocabulary size:

Sample 1: Оҥныут кошуун () — ӧвӧр моҥолдыҥ кошуун. Этимологиязы Оҥныут — (калка моҥолдоп о...

VocabTokensCount
8k▁оҥныут ▁кошуун ▁() ▁— ▁ӧвӧр ▁моҥолдыҥ ▁кошуун . ▁этимологиязы ▁оҥныут ... (+27 more)37
16k▁оҥныут ▁кошуун ▁() ▁— ▁ӧвӧр ▁моҥолдыҥ ▁кошуун . ▁этимологиязы ▁оҥныут ... (+25 more)35

Sample 2: Эски Чечкаб (, ) — јурт Россияда Татарстан Республиканыҥ Кайбыч аймагында кирет....

VocabTokensCount
8k▁эски ▁че ч ка б ▁(, ▁) ▁— ▁јурт ▁россияда ... (+12 more)22
16k▁эски ▁чечкаб ▁(, ▁) ▁— ▁јурт ▁россияда ▁татарстан ▁республиканыҥ ▁кайбыч ... (+7 more)17

Sample 3: Танк - темирле јабылган тебингиштерлӱ јуучыл машина.

VocabTokensCount
8k▁танк ▁- ▁темир ле ▁ја б ылган ▁тебин ги ш ... (+6 more)16
16k▁танк ▁- ▁темирле ▁јабылган ▁тебингиштерлӱ ▁јуучыл ▁машина .8

Key Findings

  • Best Compression: 16k achieves 3.686x compression
  • Lowest UNK Rate: 8k with 0.3992% 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

[image]

[image]

[image]

Results

N-gramVariantPerplexityEntropyUnique N-gramsTop-100 CoverageTop-1000 Coverage
2-gramWord4,42312.1111,97616.5%55.6%
2-gramSubword413 🏆8.692,70855.2%98.2%
3-gramWord5,47112.4216,25415.6%52.1%
3-gramSubword3,29211.6822,42819.5%62.9%
4-gramWord8,01012.9727,70215.3%46.3%
4-gramSubword14,00313.7796,46710.5%35.7%
5-gramWord7,31812.8424,54216.3%46.7%
5-gramSubword33,55915.03198,8947.1%25.2%

Top 5 N-grams by Size

2-grams (Word):

RankN-gramCount
1республики алтай1,479
2ј чык1,391
3горно алтайск1,246
4алтай республиканыҥ1,220
5ј бож1,072

3-grams (Word):

RankN-gramCount
1јылдыҥ ӱлӱрген айыныҥ755
2ӱлӱрген айыныҥ 15730
3алтайск ау ра511
4горно алтайск ау511
5јон јаткан јерлери503

4-grams (Word):

RankN-gramCount
1јылдыҥ ӱлӱрген айыныҥ 15730
2горно алтайск ау ра511
3болгон јылдыҥ ӱлӱрген айыныҥ367
4айыныҥ 15 кӱнине јетире365
5аайынча јылдыҥ ӱлӱрген айыныҥ365

5-grams (Word):

RankN-gramCount
1юлиан кӱнтизӱ аайынча јылдыҥ ӱлӱрген365
2кӱнтизӱ аайынча јылдыҥ ӱлӱрген айыныҥ365
3кӱнине јетире болгон јылдыҥ ӱлӱрген365
4юлиан кӱнтизӱни 13 кӱнге озолоп365
5кӱнтизӱ юлиан кӱнтизӱни 13 кӱнге365

2-grams (Subword):

RankN-gramCount
1_ к74,208
2, _64,571
3_ ј55,512
4а _55,147
5ҥ _53,924

3-grams (Subword):

RankN-gramCount
1ы ҥ _34,158
2д а _16,990
3_ — _16,847
4н ы ҥ15,805
5_ к а15,039

4-grams (Subword):

RankN-gramCount
1н ы ҥ _15,207
2д ы ҥ _13,173
3_ к ӱ н11,135
4а л т а9,624
5_ ј ы л9,304

5-grams (Subword):

RankN-gramCount
1а л т а й8,736
2_ ј ы л д7,756
3с к и й _7,663
4_ а л т а6,748
5й д ы ҥ _5,904

Key Findings

  • Best Perplexity: 2-gram (subword) with 413
  • Entropy Trend: Decreases with larger n-grams (more predictable)
  • Coverage: Top-1000 patterns cover ~25% of corpus
  • Recommendation: 4-gram or 5-gram for best predictive performance

3. Markov Chain Evaluation

[image]

[image]

[image]

Results

ContextVariantAvg EntropyPerplexityBranching FactorUnique ContextsPredictability
1Word0.72651.6554.2364,26027.4%
1Subword1.63763.11216.043010.0%
2Word0.16761.1231.34271,92883.2%
2Subword1.31522.4888.044,8280.0%
3Word0.05511.0391.10364,49694.5%
3Subword0.88371.8454.1638,82511.6%
4Word0.0265 🏆1.0191.05400,42897.3%
4Subword0.60471.5212.55161,52839.5%

Generated Text Samples (Word-based)

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

Context Size 1:

  1. 1.ла ӧскӧ кижиниҥ адын масс системы но строеніемъ мерзокъ всё спишет вермахт понёс 90 км јаш
  2. 2.ле јолдоры јуртта 9 кӱнинде москвада в в ломоносова јылда гаагада переплётчик бичиктер берестяная гр...
  3. 3.алтай республика хакасия монголия горно алтайск гагу ныҥ јарымјылдык курстарына аткарылган оныҥ адыл...

Context Size 2:

  1. 1.республики алтай от 3 марта года n 9 6 о языках народов проживающих на территории республики алтай
  2. 2.ј чык совет ле россий орнитолог јурукчы анималист бу кӱнде божогондор ајарулар 27 айдыҥ 27 кӱни юлиа...
  3. 3.горно алтайск алтайдыҥ бичиктер чыгарар изд возы 1 эл опт диск cd rom на алт яз б

Context Size 3:

  1. 1.јылдыҥ ӱлӱрген айыныҥ 15 кӱнинеҥ ала тулаан айдыҥ 29 кӱнинде артист россияныҥ театрал ишчилериниҥ би...
  2. 2.ӱлӱрген айыныҥ 15 кӱнинеҥ ала кандык айдыҥ 15 кӱни юлиан кӱнтизӱ аайынча јылдыҥ ӱлӱрген айыныҥ 15 кӱ...
  3. 3.алтайск ау ра литературно издательский дом алтын туу сууда балык кезем астаган да болзо корулу јерле...

Context Size 4:

  1. 1.јылдыҥ ӱлӱрген айыныҥ 15 кӱнине јетире болгон јылдыҥ ӱлӱрген айыныҥ 15 кӱнине јетире болгон јылдыҥ ӱ...
  2. 2.горно алтайск ау ра литературно издательский дом алтын туу јайдыҥ бойында аркалары койу ла бийик ӧлӧ...
  3. 3.болгон јылдыҥ ӱлӱрген айыныҥ 15 кӱнинеҥ ала кӱӱк айдыҥ 6 кӱни григориан кӱнтизӱде јылдыҥ 360 кӱни ви...

Generated Text Samples (Subword-based)

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

Context Size 1:

  1. 1._гатӱли»)_јектич
  2. 2.аканамикет_јыхих
  3. 3.ртакклан_онла_бь

Context Size 2:

  1. 1._кыл,_баснов_кылг
  2. 2.,_29_21,97_малтал
  3. 3._јуртиреспублик_а

Context Size 3:

  1. 1.ыҥ_кодондо_инфранс
  2. 2.да_православ_башка
  3. 3._—_titus_liefs_asb

Context Size 4:

  1. 1.ныҥ_кандыра_агып_ба
  2. 2.дыҥ_физиканыҥ_ӱӱрел
  3. 3._кӱнтизӱле_кӱни_гри

Key Findings

  • Best Predictability: Context-4 (word) with 97.3% predictability
  • Branching Factor: Decreases with context size (more deterministic)
  • Memory Trade-off: Larger contexts require more storage (161,528 contexts)
  • Recommendation: Context-3 or Context-4 for text generation

4. Vocabulary Analysis

[image]

[image]

[image]

Statistics

MetricValue
Vocabulary Size26,328
Total Tokens565,164
Mean Frequency21.47
Median Frequency3
Frequency Std Dev124.45

Most Common Words

RankWordFrequency
1ла6,601
2ле4,964
3алтай4,646
4деп3,903
5с3,881
6јылда3,745
7айдыҥ3,441
8болгон3,230
9км3,151
10јурт3,140

Least Common Words (from vocabulary)

RankWordFrequency
1таскадуларды2
2туузаланат2
3узаныш2
4эрессейде2
5метеметике2
6јеткилдери2
7кӧмпӱтерлик2
8чоотош2
9кошлык2
10програмалары2

Zipf's Law Analysis

MetricValue
Zipf Coefficient1.1627
R² (Goodness of Fit)0.985919
Adherence Qualityexcellent

Coverage Analysis

Top N WordsCoverage
Top 10027.1%
Top 1,00065.7%
Top 5,00085.9%
Top 10,00092.4%

Key Findings

  • Zipf Compliance: R²=0.9859 indicates excellent adherence to Zipf's law
  • High Frequency Dominance: Top 100 words cover 27.1% of corpus
  • Long Tail: 16,328 words needed for remaining 7.6% coverage

5. Word Embeddings Evaluation

[image]

[image]

[image]

[image]

5.1 Cross-Lingual Alignment

[image]

[image]

5.2 Model Comparison

ModelDimensionIsotropySemantic DensityAlignment R@1Alignment R@10
mono_32d320.84190.3607N/AN/A
mono_64d640.73750.3054N/AN/A
mono_128d1280.36030.2810N/AN/A
aligned_32d320.8419 🏆0.35540.02600.1460
aligned_64d640.73750.29990.06600.2980
aligned_128d1280.36030.28230.15800.4340

Key Findings

  • Best Isotropy: aligned_32d with 0.8419 (more uniform distribution)
  • Semantic Density: Average pairwise similarity of 0.3141. Lower values indicate better semantic separation.
  • Alignment Quality: Aligned models achieve up to 15.8% 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

MetricValueInterpretationRecommendation
Productivity Index5.000High morphological productivityReliable analysis
Idiomaticity Gap0.854High 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
PrefixExamples
-какалькутта, калба, кацукава
-коконтр, козерёкова, кожондоп
Productive Suffixes
SuffixExamples
-ыҥфилармонияныҥ, транспорттыҥ, британияныҥ
-ийбелорусский, макарьевский, исетский
-кийбелорусский, макарьевский, исетский
-скийбелорусский, макарьевский, исетский
-ныҥфилармонияныҥ, британияныҥ, наралканыҥ
-иҥјеезезиниҥ, изӱзиниҥ, ӱренчиктердиҥ
-даордында, совхозында, садуда
-ыйгосударственный, музейный, тёплый

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.

StemCohesionSubstitutabilityExamples
ский2.17x43 contextsомский, окский, юрский
ында1.53x51 contextsмында, айында, сындар
ыныҥ1.68x30 contextsмыныҥ, зыныҥ, угыныҥ
лтай1.85x21 contextsалтай, шылтай, алтайды
лгон2.21x12 contextsтолгон, болгон, болгонм
лган1.70x23 contextsалган, калган, салган
осси2.03x13 contextsроссия, россию, россии
аныҥ1.67x23 contextsоканыҥ, сшаныҥ, эраныҥ
олго1.66x22 contextsколго, волго, голго
алта1.49x26 contextsалтай, алтан, алтам
јылд1.77x15 contextsјылда, јылды, јылдын
ылда1.63x19 contextsтылда, дылда, јылда

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.

PrefixSuffixFrequencyExamples
-ка-ыҥ21 wordsказакстанныҥ, кайырлыктыҥ
-ко-ыҥ20 wordsконституцияныҥ, конкурстардыҥ
-ка-ий14 wordsкадетский, карский
-ко-ый13 wordsконсалтинговый, командный
-ка-ныҥ11 wordsказакстанныҥ, канаданыҥ
-ко-ныҥ11 wordsконституцияныҥ, колхозыныҥ
-ко-ий10 wordsкомментарий, ковалевский
-ка-кий10 wordsкадетский, карский
-ка-ский10 wordsкадетский, карский
-ко-да9 wordsкосметологияда, коруда

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).

WordSuggested SplitConfidenceStem
планеталарында`планеталарын-да`4.5планеталарын
актуруныҥ`актуру-ныҥ`4.5актуру
покровский`покров-ский`4.5покров
искусствоныҥ`искусство-ныҥ`4.5искусство
думазыныҥ`думазы-ныҥ`4.5думазы
медицинада`медицина-да`4.5медицина
балдарыныҥ`балдары-ныҥ`4.5балдары
португалияда`португалия-да`4.5португалия
программада`программа-да`4.5программа
аймагыныҥ`аймагы-ныҥ`4.5аймагы
академияда`академия-да`4.5академия
авиацияныҥ`авиация-ныҥ`4.5авиация
шотландский`шотланд-ский`4.5шотланд
киргизияныҥ`киргизия-ныҥ`4.5киргизия
регрессияныҥ`регрессия-ныҥ`4.5регрессия

6.6 Linguistic Interpretation

Automated Insight:

The language Southern Altai 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

[image]

Production Recommendations

ComponentRecommendedRationale
Tokenizer16k BPEBest compression (3.69x)
N-gram2-gramLowest perplexity (413)
MarkovContext-4Highest predictability (97.3%)
Embeddings100dBalanced 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. 1.Compare within model families: Metrics are most meaningful when comparing models of the same type (e.g., 8k vs 64k tokenizer).
  2. 2.Consider trade-offs: Better performance on one metric often comes at the cost of another (e.g., compression vs. OOV rate).
  3. 3.Context matters: Optimal values depend on downstream tasks. Text generation may prioritize different metrics than classification.
  4. 4.Corpus influence: All metrics are influenced by corpus characteristics. Wikipedia text differs from social media or literature.
  5. 5.Language-specific patterns: Morphologically rich languages (like Arabic) may show different optimal ranges than analytic languages.

Visualizations Index

VisualizationDescription
Tokenizer CompressionCompression ratios by vocabulary size
Tokenizer FertilityAverage token length by vocabulary
Tokenizer OOVUnknown token rates
Tokenizer Total TokensTotal tokens by vocabulary
N-gram PerplexityPerplexity by n-gram size
N-gram EntropyEntropy by n-gram size
N-gram CoverageTop pattern coverage
N-gram UniqueUnique n-gram counts
Markov EntropyEntropy by context size
Markov BranchingBranching factor by context
Markov ContextsUnique context counts
Zipf's LawFrequency-rank distribution with fit
Vocab FrequencyWord frequency distribution
Top 20 WordsMost frequent words
Vocab CoverageCumulative coverage curve
Embedding IsotropyVector space uniformity
Embedding NormsVector magnitude distribution
Embedding SimilarityWord similarity heatmap
Nearest NeighborsSimilar words for key terms
t-SNE Words2D word embedding visualization
t-SNE Sentences2D sentence embedding visualization
Position EncodingEncoding method comparison
Model SizesStorage requirements
Performance DashboardComprehensive 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](https://wikilangs.org) - Open-source NLP models for every Wikipedia language.

Maintainer

Omar Kamali - Omneity Labs

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

Report Date: 2026-01-03 16:17:03