wikilangs/am
Amharic - Wikilangs Models
Comprehensive Research Report & Full Ablation Study
This repository contains NLP models trained and evaluated by Wikilangs, specifically on Amharic Wikipedia data. We analyze tokenizers, n-gram models, Markov chains, vocabulary statistics, and word embeddings.
๐ 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
Tokenization Examples
Below are sample sentences tokenized with each vocabulary size:
Sample 1: แแแฉ แ แฐแแแ แแ
แซแแต แจแแแ แฐแดแต แ แแญ แแแข แแ แจแฐแ แจแแแแฃ แตแแ แจแฐแ แแ แซแฌแ แแแข
Sample 2: แ แพแซ แจ277 แตแจ 240 แแญแแ . แตแจแต แจแแแต แ แแญ แแแญแซ แแแแฅแต แแแฅ แแ แญแข แ 271 แแญแแ . แแตแ แจแกแฒแตแ แฐแจแณแญ...
Sample 3: แแตแแแญแต (แฅแแแแแ: Netflix) แ แแตแแญ แแญ แแแแฝแ แฅแ แจแดแแชแฅแ แแฎแแซแแฝแ แแแแแจแต แจแแซแตแฝแ แจแฅแจแต แ แแ...
Key Findings
- Best Compression: 64k achieves 3.293x compression
- Lowest UNK Rate: 8k with 0.1566% 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
Top 5 N-grams by Size
2-grams (Word):
3-grams (Word):
4-grams (Word):
5-grams (Word):
2-grams (Subword):
3-grams (Subword):
4-grams (Subword):
5-grams (Subword):
Key Findings
- Best Perplexity: 2-gram (subword) with 2,069
- Entropy Trend: Decreases with larger n-grams (more predictable)
- Coverage: Top-1000 patterns cover ~14% of corpus
- Recommendation: 4-gram or 5-gram for best predictive performance
3. Markov Chain Evaluation
Results
Generated Text Samples (Word-based)
Below are text samples generated from each word-based Markov chain model:
Context Size 1:
แแ แซแฝแฑแ แแ แแญแแ แจแแแ แจแแแต แฅแฝแณแญแ แฅแญแณแณ แจแแแแต แแฅแฑ แจแฐแ แ แ แตแแแ แแฝแ แญแ แแ แแฌแ แณแญแ แตแแฅแ แขแฎแแแซแ แฅแ แ แแแซแจแถแฝแ แแแแแฝ แญแแณแ แจแแณแ แฝ แจแแ แแชแซแ แแแ แแ แซแแณแแ แณแแแแ แจแจแ แจแแ แจแแแญแฐแแแ แจแแ แตแญแแ แแซแณแฅแญแแญ แ แแแแแ แ แซแต แแฐแแแ แ แญแฝแแ แจแแแ แแ แ แฒแชแ แฐแแ แแจแฐแแซแฉ แ แ แแชแซ แแตแฅ แจแฐแจแแแ แญแแตแแ แจแแซแ แจแถแชแจแต
Context Size 2:
แ แ แ แแ แแแแต แแแณแต แแ แ แแ แแ แแญ แแแแ แญแแแแก แแฅแแแซ แแแถแฝ แญแ แจแแ แแแแซ แแฃแญแซแแณแ แแ แตแญแแ แแฐแฅ แซแแฐแฐแจแแ แแณแ แแฐแฅ แฐแจแตแ แแณแ แแฐแฅ แฐแจแตแ แแณแ แแฐแฅ แฐแจแตแ แแณแ แแแแฃแตแ แจแคแจแ แแญแ แแณแ แแ แตแญแแ แแตแฅแญ แ แญแฐแ แ แญแแตแแ แตแญแแ แแฐแฅ แฐแจแตแ แแณแ แแฐแฅ แฐแจแตแ แแณแ แแฐแฅ แฐแจแตแ แแณแ
Context Size 3:
แจแ แแญแ แแณแ แแ แตแญแแ แแฐแฅ แซแแฐแฐแจแแ แแณแ แแฐแฅ แฐแจแตแ แแณแ แแแฃแญ แณแญแแญ แตแ แฅแแฐแแแต แแแฅ แค แ แจแฅแแแแ แซแแแฐแญ แแปแปแซ แฐแจแตแ แจแแแฅแฒแฑแ แแต แแแแแฅ แจแฐแแแฐ แขแแแ แฅแแแแ แแแขแต 25 แแ แแแต แแแแณแ แแ แตแญแแ แจแฐแซแซแ แแแฎแฝแ แแแแจแต แจแแซแแแแ แแแฅ แแฐแฅ แฐแจแตแ แแณแ แแณแ
Context Size 4:
แจแ แแญแ แแณแ แแ แตแญแแ แแฐแฅ แฐแจแตแ แแณแ แ แฌ แซแซแ แญแแแแแณแ แแ แตแญแแ แแฐแฅ แซแแฐแฐแจแแ แแณแ แแฐแฅ แฐแจแตแ แแณแ แแฐแฅ แซแแฐแฐแจแแ แแณแแแ แตแญแแ แแฐแฅ แซแแฐแฐแจแแ แแณแ แแฐแฅ แฐแจแตแ แแณแ แดแต แแแ แปแญ แแต
Generated Text Samples (Subword-based)
Below are text samples generated from each subword-based Markov chain model:
Context Size 1:
_แ แญแแแแกแขแขแตแญ_แจแฐแ แแ_แฅแแแฎแฝแต_crcue_แแต_แ_แแญแแตแญแ_แ แต_po
Context Size 2:
_แจแขแตแฎแตแซ_แแ_แณแญแแต_แฐแต_แแแข_แฅแแแฅแณแต_แแญแตแต_แ แแซ_แ แฅแจ_แจแณแแ_แแญ_
Context Size 3:
_แฅแแฒแ แกแแแญ_แแแ_แแแ__แแแข_แฅแแฒแ แแกแ แแก_แฐแแ_แฅแ_แจแฐแซแ_แฅแแฒแธแจแแ แธแ
Context Size 4:
_แฅแ_แแณแ_แแแฅแณแต_แแฝแ_แต_แแแข_แจแแฅแฝ_แแแต_แญแแ_แแแแข_แแแ_แจแฐแแณ_แ แแแ_แซ
Key Findings
- Best Predictability: Context-4 (word) with 98.4% predictability
- Branching Factor: Decreases with context size (more deterministic)
- Memory Trade-off: Larger contexts require more storage (1,173,222 contexts)
- Recommendation: Context-3 or Context-4 for text generation
4. Vocabulary Analysis
Statistics
Most Common Words
Least Common Words (from vocabulary)
Zipf's Law Analysis
Coverage Analysis
Key Findings
- Zipf Compliance: Rยฒ=0.9952 indicates excellent adherence to Zipf's law
- High Frequency Dominance: Top 100 words cover 22.7% of corpus
- Long Tail: 90,186 words needed for remaining 25.1% coverage
5. Word Embeddings Evaluation
5.1 Cross-Lingual Alignment
5.2 Model Comparison
Key Findings
- Best Isotropy: mono_64d with 0.9137 (more uniform distribution)
- Semantic Density: Average pairwise similarity of 0.2439. Lower values indicate better semantic separation.
- Alignment Quality: Aligned models achieve up to 8.4% 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
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.
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 Amharic 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
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) ร 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.
Rยฒ (Coefficient of Determination)
Definition: Measures how well the linear fit explains the frequency-rank relationship. Ranges from 0 to 1. Intuition: Rยฒ near 1.0 means the data closely follows Zipf's law; lower values indicate deviation from expected word frequency patterns. What to seek: Rยฒ > 0.95 is excellent; > 0.99 indicates near-perfect Zipf adherence typical of large natural corpora.
Vocabulary Coverage
Definition: Cumulative percentage of corpus tokens accounted for by the top N words. Intuition: Shows how concentrated word usage is. If top-100 words cover 50% of text, the corpus relies heavily on common words. What to seek: Top-100 covering 30-50% is typical. Higher coverage indicates more repetitive text; lower suggests richer vocabulary.
Word Embedding Metrics
Isotropy
Definition: Measures how uniformly distributed vectors are in the embedding space. Computed as the ratio of minimum to maximum singular values. Intuition: High isotropy (near 1.0) means vectors spread evenly in all directions; low isotropy means vectors cluster in certain directions, reducing expressiveness. What to seek: Higher isotropy generally indicates better-quality embeddings. Values > 0.1 are reasonable; > 0.3 is good. Lower-dimensional embeddings tend to have higher isotropy.
Average Norm
Definition: Mean magnitude (L2 norm) of word vectors in the embedding space. Intuition: Indicates the typical "length" of vectors. Consistent norms suggest stable training; high variance may indicate some words are undertrained. What to seek: Relatively consistent norms across models. The absolute value matters less than consistency (low std deviation).
Cosine Similarity
Definition: Measures angular similarity between vectors, ranging from -1 (opposite) to 1 (identical direction). Intuition: Words with similar meanings should have high cosine similarity. This is the standard metric for semantic relatedness in embeddings. What to seek: Semantically related words should score > 0.5; unrelated words should be near 0. Synonyms often score > 0.7.
t-SNE Visualization
Definition: t-Distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding - a dimensionality reduction technique that preserves local structure for visualization. Intuition: Clusters in t-SNE plots indicate groups of semantically related words. Spread indicates vocabulary diversity; tight clusters suggest semantic coherence. What to seek: Meaningful clusters (e.g., numbers together, verbs together). Avoid over-interpreting distances - t-SNE preserves local, not global, structure.
General Interpretation Guidelines
- Compare within model families: Metrics are most meaningful when comparing models of the same type (e.g., 8k vs 64k tokenizer).
- Consider trade-offs: Better performance on one metric often comes at the cost of another (e.g., compression vs. OOV rate).
- Context matters: Optimal values depend on downstream tasks. Text generation may prioritize different metrics than classification.
- Corpus influence: All metrics are influenced by corpus characteristics. Wikipedia text differs from social media or literature.
- Language-specific patterns: Morphologically rich languages (like Arabic) may show different optimal ranges than analytic languages.
Visualizations Index
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
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
- ๐ Website: wikilangs.org
- ๐ค Models: huggingface.co/wikilangs
- ๐ Data: wikipedia-monthly
- ๐ค Author: Omar Kamali
- ๐ค Sponsor: Featherless AI --- Generated by Wikilangs Models Pipeline
Report Date: 2026-01-03 16:28:42
