CoolFace
Modelpublic

wikilangs/an

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

Aragonese - Wikilangs Models

Comprehensive Research Report & Full Ablation Study

This repository contains NLP models trained and evaluated by Wikilangs, specifically on Aragonese 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
8k3.559x3.560.1247%1,207,427
16k3.854x3.850.1351%1,114,964
32k4.092x4.090.1434%1,050,138
64k4.275x 🏆4.280.1498%1,005,070

Tokenization Examples

Below are sample sentences tokenized with each vocabulary size:

Sample 1: Bobadilla puet estar: Bobadilla, un municipio de La Rioja. Bobadilla del Campo, ...

VocabTokensCount
8k▁bob ad illa ▁puet ▁estar : ▁bob ad illa , ... (+17 more)27
16k▁bob ad illa ▁puet ▁estar : ▁bob ad illa , ... (+17 more)27
32k▁bob ad illa ▁puet ▁estar : ▁bob ad illa , ... (+17 more)27
64k▁bobadilla ▁puet ▁estar : ▁bobadilla , ▁un ▁municipio ▁de ▁la ... (+11 more)21

Sample 2: Charleville-Mézières ye una localidat y comuna francesa, capital d'o departament...

VocabTokensCount
8k▁char le ville - m é zi ères ▁ye ▁una ... (+26 more)36
16k▁char le ville - mé zi ères ▁ye ▁una ▁localidat ... (+25 more)35
32k▁char le ville - mé zi ères ▁ye ▁una ▁localidat ... (+23 more)33
64k▁charleville - mézières ▁ye ▁una ▁localidat ▁y ▁comuna ▁francesa , ... (+19 more)29

Sample 3: Schöngeising (en bavaro Scheegeising) ye un municipio de Bavera, Alemanya. Se tr...

VocabTokensCount
8k▁sch ön ge is ing ▁( en ▁bavaro ▁s che ... (+29 more)39
16k▁schön ge is ing ▁( en ▁bavaro ▁sche e ge ... (+25 more)35
32k▁schön ge ising ▁( en ▁bavaro ▁sche e ge ising ... (+20 more)30
64k▁schön ge ising ▁( en ▁bavaro ▁sche e ge ising ... (+20 more)30

Key Findings

  • Best Compression: 64k achieves 4.275x compression
  • Lowest UNK Rate: 8k with 0.1247% 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-gramWord25,71214.65233,66916.7%37.4%
2-gramSubword257 🏆8.017,00068.7%99.3%
3-gramWord87,35716.41461,5628.3%23.0%
3-gramSubword2,15111.0752,72725.8%73.4%
4-gramWord209,67617.68900,5766.8%17.2%
4-gramSubword12,17013.57289,76812.6%39.7%
5-gramWord208,00717.67773,2136.3%16.4%
5-gramSubword46,66915.51901,2257.3%25.5%

Top 5 N-grams by Size

2-grams (Word):

RankN-gramCount
1d a107,208
2d o106,261
3en a60,798
4en o45,519
5de l37,458

3-grams (Word):

RankN-gramCount
1a provincia de17,480
2d a provincia13,447
3una superficie de12,736
4suya población ye12,405
5en una superficie12,352

4-grams (Word):

RankN-gramCount
1suya población ye de12,284
2en una superficie de12,148
3d a provincia de12,141
4habitants en una superficie11,275
5a suya población ye11,250

5-grams (Word):

RankN-gramCount
1a suya población ye de11,136
2habitants en una superficie de11,095
3una densidat de población de10,633
4km con una densidat de7,736
5con una densidat de población7,674

2-grams (Subword):

RankN-gramCount
1a _1,873,392
2_ d1,605,638
3e _1,544,207
4s _1,309,585
5n _1,215,896

3-grams (Subword):

RankN-gramCount
1_ d e891,253
2d e _772,067
3_ d '491,537
4e n _478,088
5_ e n454,282

4-grams (Subword):

RankN-gramCount
1_ d e _737,370
2_ e n _397,348
3_ d ' a234,868
4a _ d e184,900
5_ c o n179,093

5-grams (Subword):

RankN-gramCount
1a _ d e _147,074
2_ q u e _125,472
3c i ó n _124,436
4o _ d e _123,146
5_ d ' a _106,742

Key Findings

  • Best Perplexity: 2-gram (subword) with 257
  • 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
1Word0.97531.9667.59368,5492.5%
1Subword0.78341.7215.753,67221.7%
2Word0.34151.2672.012,791,62665.9%
2Subword0.81761.7635.2321,12318.2%
3Word0.15481.1131.335,610,00484.5%
3Subword0.76951.7054.30110,48623.0%
4Word0.0739 🏆1.0531.147,469,36692.6%
4Subword0.71291.6393.37474,96128.7%

Generated Text Samples (Word-based)

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

Context Size 1:

  1. 1.de las neveras y rfef aprebó a pachina web oficial d afers son asociadas con os
  2. 2.d elba antiparte la provincia d as que se veiga torda collerada rafel vidaller tricas libro
  3. 3.a rendición de sattler torna ta partecipar en ifriquiya y cariño homenage vasallage en aragonés vinc...

Context Size 2:

  1. 1.d a ciudat de zaragoza tomo i de castiella y leyón espanya o escritor de lausbubengeschichte ye
  2. 2.d o reino se consolida la influyencia de l exercito estatounitesne en europa s extiende dende os
  3. 3.en a provincia de teruel d o cual en fan parte 4 cantons y 129 comunas lista

Context Size 3:

  1. 1.a provincia de zaragoza en a provincia de concepción y d as tres serols estando dimpués enamplato a
  2. 2.d a provincia de guipuzcua ta atros usos se veiga carlos ix carlos ix 27 de chunio de
  3. 3.una superficie de 158 60 km y una densidat de población de 346 35 hab km a suya

Context Size 4:

  1. 1.suya población ye de 81 habitants en una superficie de 194 49 km con una densidat de población de
  2. 2.en una superficie de 64 16 km con una densidat de población de 43 44 hab km demografía administració...
  3. 3.d a provincia de burgos ta atros usos se veiga fort yuma desambigación fort yuma títol orichinal en ...

Generated Text Samples (Subword-based)

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

Context Size 1:

  1. 1._un_der_dent_ckm
  2. 2.as_en_as_2_tacla
  3. 3.en_lern_don_vitr

Context Size 2:

  1. 1.a_saus_dabinascer
  2. 2._derfica_sublosti
  3. 3.e_manaisitau_suyo

Context Size 3:

  1. 1._dens._val_novant,
  2. 2.de_319_de_fuel,_qu
  3. 3._d'o_primetada_cic

Context Size 4:

  1. 1._de_jean-jose_(naix
  2. 2._en_sido_per_bueno,
  3. 3._d'anglés_jean_sabi

Key Findings

  • Best Predictability: Context-4 (word) with 92.6% predictability
  • Branching Factor: Decreases with context size (more deterministic)
  • Memory Trade-off: Larger contexts require more storage (474,961 contexts)
  • Recommendation: Context-3 or Context-4 for text generation

4. Vocabulary Analysis

[image]

[image]

[image]

Statistics

MetricValue
Vocabulary Size183,928
Total Tokens11,661,736
Mean Frequency63.40
Median Frequency4
Frequency Std Dev2823.00

Most Common Words

RankWordFrequency
1de741,521
2d497,145
3a440,622
4en410,893
5o301,627
6y247,568
7que127,976
8l109,848
9ye109,774
10una105,502

Least Common Words (from vocabulary)

RankWordFrequency
1beljakova2
2méchaly2
3wiedemann2
4limotte2
5wlodkowski2
6taos2
7slovis2
8samaha2
9seros2
10cookeville2

Zipf's Law Analysis

MetricValue
Zipf Coefficient1.0690
R² (Goodness of Fit)0.998251
Adherence Qualityexcellent

Coverage Analysis

Top N WordsCoverage
Top 10044.8%
Top 1,00066.8%
Top 5,00080.7%
Top 10,00085.9%

Key Findings

  • Zipf Compliance: R²=0.9983 indicates excellent adherence to Zipf's law
  • High Frequency Dominance: Top 100 words cover 44.8% of corpus
  • Long Tail: 173,928 words needed for remaining 14.1% 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_32d320.81680.3517N/AN/A
mono_64d640.8232 🏆0.2779N/AN/A
mono_128d1280.80440.2016N/AN/A
aligned_32d320.81680.35240.15200.4840
aligned_64d640.82320.27730.24800.6340
aligned_128d1280.80440.20340.37400.7380

Key Findings

  • Best Isotropy: mono_64d with 0.8232 (more uniform distribution)
  • Semantic Density: Average pairwise similarity of 0.2774. 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

MetricValueInterpretationRecommendation
Productivity Index5.000High morphological productivityReliable analysis
Idiomaticity Gap-0.358Low 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
PrefixExamples
-coconfrontatos, conchecturau, coluche
-cacasartelli, camprodón, canthus
-rereitzenstein, reformata, reinando
-dedestruyir, denasalizadas, debucourt
-mamarktes, matosinhos, marciac
Productive Suffixes
SuffixExamples
-smourvilles, iliricas, mylonas
-acingüenda, lecinyena, reformata
-asiliricas, mylonas, aeneas
-osconfrontatos, agnatos, estranios
-esmourvilles, marktes, forbes

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
ient1.70x176 contextscient, oient, dient
ento1.74x126 contextssento, bento, cento
rago2.03x58 contextsarago, trago, ragot
ranc1.64x141 contextsfranc, rance, ranca
ació2.09x47 contextsnació, ación, fació
enci1.53x164 contextsencia, renci, oencia
obla1.90x56 contextsrobla, pobla, nobla
nter1.50x146 contextsanter, enter, inter
ncia1.72x61 contextsencia, uncia, oencia
cion1.50x110 contextsscion, nacion, accion
idat2.00x28 contextsunidat, deidat, humidat
mbre1.55x75 contextsambre, ombre, umbre

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
-co-s71 wordsconcilios, comenges
-ca-s53 wordscabrinos, caracteres
-ca-a49 wordscafeína, caixera
-co-a49 wordscosida, conquiolina
-ma-s41 wordsmauriscus, mandos
-ma-a36 wordsmainila, mamma
-re-s34 wordsreprimius, rechiradors
-re-a33 wordsrelochería, renacentista
-de-a30 wordsdesidia, dentada
-de-s30 wordsdemograficos, deverbativos

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
repoblatos`re-poblat-os`6.0poblat
altoaragonesas`altoaragon-es-as`6.0altoaragon
recullindo`re-cullindo`4.5cullindo
reorganizar`re-organizar`4.5organizar
romanticos`romantic-os`4.5romantic
casellato`ca-sellato`4.5sellato
discapacitatos`discapacitat-os`4.5discapacitat
lexicales`lexical-es`4.5lexical
monetarias`monetari-as`4.5monetari
reprodución`re-produción`4.5produción
deportaban`de-portaban`4.5portaban
desconoixitas`de-sconoixit-as`3.0sconoixit
caspolinas`ca-spolin-as`3.0spolin
conservaderas`co-nservader-as`3.0nservader
decimetros`de-cimetr-os`3.0cimetr

6.6 Linguistic Interpretation

Automated Insight:

The language Aragonese 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

[image]

Production Recommendations

ComponentRecommendedRationale
Tokenizer64k BPEBest compression (4.28x)
N-gram2-gramLowest perplexity (257)
MarkovContext-4Highest predictability (92.6%)
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 17:05:39