CoolFace
Modelpublic

wikilangs/awa

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

Awadhi - Wikilangs Models

Comprehensive Research Report & Full Ablation Study

This repository contains NLP models trained and evaluated by Wikilangs, specifically on Awadhi 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
8k3.327x3.330.1230%131,731
16k3.618x3.630.1337%121,145
32k3.892x 🏆3.900.1439%112,611

Tokenization Examples

Below are sample sentences tokenized with each vocabulary size:

Sample 1: नीलम संजीव रेड्डी (२७ अक्तूबर - ९ नवंबर भारत कय छठवा राष्ट्रपति रहे। वनकय कार्यक...

VocabTokensCount
8k▁नीलम ▁सं जीव ▁रेड्डी ▁( २७ ▁अक्तूबर ▁- ▁९ ▁नवंबर ... (+16 more)26
16k▁नीलम ▁संजीव ▁रेड्डी ▁( २७ ▁अक्तूबर ▁- ▁९ ▁नवंबर ▁भारत ... (+15 more)25
32k▁नीलम ▁संजीव ▁रेड्डी ▁( २७ ▁अक्तूबर ▁- ▁९ ▁नवंबर ▁भारत ... (+15 more)25

Sample 2: नकुड, भारत देश के उत्तर प्रदेश प्रान्त के सहारनपुर जिला कय एक्ठु नगर पालिका परिष...

VocabTokensCount
8k▁न कु ड , ▁भारत ▁देश ▁के ▁उत्तर ▁प्रदेश ▁प्रान्त ... (+20 more)30
16k▁न कु ड , ▁भारत ▁देश ▁के ▁उत्तर ▁प्रदेश ▁प्रान्त ... (+20 more)30
32k▁नकुड , ▁भारत ▁देश ▁के ▁उत्तर ▁प्रदेश ▁प्रान्त ▁के ▁सहारनपुर ... (+18 more)28

Sample 3: नसीराबाद, भारत देश के उत्तर प्रदेश प्रान्त के रायबरेली जिला कय एक्ठु नगर पंचायत ...

VocabTokensCount
8k▁न सी राबाद , ▁भारत ▁देश ▁के ▁उत्तर ▁प्रदेश ▁प्रान्त ... (+18 more)28
16k▁न सी राबाद , ▁भारत ▁देश ▁के ▁उत्तर ▁प्रदेश ▁प्रान्त ... (+18 more)28
32k▁नसीराबाद , ▁भारत ▁देश ▁के ▁उत्तर ▁प्रदेश ▁प्रान्त ▁के ▁रायबरेली ... (+16 more)26

Key Findings

  • Best Compression: 32k achieves 3.892x compression
  • Lowest UNK Rate: 8k with 0.1230% 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-gramWord2,39611.235,75028.4%58.2%
2-gramSubword1,608 🏆10.6512,27839.9%73.3%
3-gramWord1,66610.705,10335.8%65.6%
3-gramSubword10,33513.3444,36417.1%41.3%
4-gramWord4,26912.0612,85027.4%49.6%
4-gramSubword30,71814.91110,97111.6%28.3%
5-gramWord3,58611.8110,69928.4%52.8%
5-gramSubword44,08215.43123,96310.3%23.7%

Top 5 N-grams by Size

2-grams (Word):

RankN-gramCount
1प्रदेश कय1,242
2कय एक्ठु1,217
3नगर पंचायत932
4शहरी निकाय837
5उत्तर प्रदेश774

3-grams (Word):

RankN-gramCount
1कय एक्ठु नगर700
2भारत देश के696
3जिला कय एक्ठु680
4कय शहरी निकाय667
5के उत्तर प्रदेश586

4-grams (Word):

RankN-gramCount
1जिला कय एक्ठु नगर661
2के उत्तर प्रदेश प्रान्त582
3प्रदेश कय शहरी निकाय581
4कय शहरी निकाय प्रदेश581
5शहरी निकाय प्रदेश कय581

5-grams (Word):

RankN-gramCount
1शहरी निकाय प्रदेश कय नगर581
2कय शहरी निकाय प्रदेश कय581
3प्रदेश कय शहरी निकाय प्रदेश581
4देश के उत्तर प्रदेश प्रान्त580
5भारत देश के उत्तर प्रदेश580

2-grams (Subword):

RankN-gramCount
1र _19,312
2य _17,947
3_ क16,677
4न _14,033
5। _12,197

3-grams (Subword):

RankN-gramCount
1क य _10,878
2_ क य10,634
3_ के _7,599
4_ से _4,267
5_ में _4,065

4-grams (Subword):

RankN-gramCount
1_ क य _10,589
2_ प्र दे श2,239
3प्र दे श _2,188
4_ है । _2,147
5भा र त _2,022

5-grams (Subword):

RankN-gramCount
1_ प्र दे श _2,171
2_ भा र त _1,826
3_ न ग र _1,779
4_ क य _ ए1,494
5_ अ उ र _1,449

Key Findings

  • Best Perplexity: 2-gram (subword) with 1,608
  • Entropy Trend: Decreases with larger n-grams (more predictable)
  • Coverage: Top-1000 patterns cover ~24% of corpus
  • Recommendation: 4-gram or 5-gram for best predictive performance

3. Markov Chain Evaluation

[image]

[image]

[image]

Results

ContextVariantAvg EntropyPerplexityBranching FactorUnique ContextsPredictability
1Word0.73601.6664.2438,94426.4%
1Subword1.03972.05610.733,7440.0%
2Word0.19501.1451.36164,37280.5%
2Subword0.54431.4583.4840,14945.6%
3Word0.04791.0341.07222,53695.2%
3Subword0.45401.3702.32139,75354.6%
4Word0.0142 🏆1.0101.02236,20898.6%
4Subword0.24171.1821.52323,69375.8%

Generated Text Samples (Word-based)

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

Context Size 1:

  1. 1.कय सुविधाजनक बनावेक अन्तर्राष्ट्रीय हवाईगिरान फाप्लु भोजपुर फर्रुखाबाद 195 कासगंज जिला आवत हैं मेघाल...
  2. 2.के उत्तर भारतीय रुपया लेख आसानी से खेले रहें घरेलू क्रिकेट रहें आदित्यनाथ कय राजनीति में
  3. 3.से दक्षिण दिल्ली मेट्रो फ़िल्मफ़ेयर सर्वश्रेष्ठ तमिल तेलुगू వికారాబాదు జిల్లా अंग्रेज़ी में गंगा नदी...

Context Size 2:

  1. 1.प्रदेश कय शहरी निकाय प्रदेश कय नगर पंचायत होय संदर्भ प्रदेश कय शहरी निकाय प्रदेश कय नगर
  2. 2.कय एक्ठु भाषा होय ई ईलेक्ट्रोन प्रोटोन अव न्युट्रोन से बना है हिमालय क्षेत्र में मनुष्यों का
  3. 3.उत्तर प्रदेश प्रान्त के शामली जिला कय एक्ठु नगर पालिका परिषद कय शहरी निकाय प्रदेश कय नगर

Context Size 3:

  1. 1.कय एक्ठु नगर पंचायत होय संदर्भ प्रदेश कय शहरी निकाय प्रदेश कय नगर पंचायत पंचायत कय शहरी निकाय
  2. 2.भारत देश के उत्तर प्रदेश प्रान्त कय एक्ठु जिला होय इहौ देखैं कामारेड्डी तेलंगाना तेलंगाना कय जिला सन...
  3. 3.जिला कय एक्ठु नगर पालिका परिषद होय संदर्भ 1 उत्तराखंड के सगरौ शहरी निकाय कय सूची 2 उत्तराखंड

Context Size 4:

  1. 1.जिला कय एक्ठु नगर पंचायत होय संदर्भ प्रदेश कय शहरी निकाय प्रदेश कय नगर पंचायत noinclude
  2. 2.के उत्तर प्रदेश प्रान्त के सीतापुर जिला कय एक्ठु नगर पालिका परिषद होय संदर्भ प्रदेश कय शहरी निकाय प्...
  3. 3.निकाय प्रदेश कय नगर पंचायत देहात

Generated Text Samples (Subword-based)

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

Context Size 1:

  1. 1._के_हंयन_ह_सहइ_पालव
  2. 2.रतह_रें।_केर_प_10_प्रा
  3. 3.कय_की।_के_इति_-atem

Context Size 2:

  1. 1.र_हरा_गांव_परिषद_पार्टी_(
  2. 2.य_संगीत-होल्सटीन,_आंध्रप्रदेश
  3. 3._कय_जन्म_३_मद्रास)_शिक्षा_

Context Size 3:

  1. 1.कय_निकोसिया_का_यश_चोपड़ा_आ
  2. 2._कय_शहर_सिरसा_16_44_
  3. 3._के_भेस_अनुवादित_तब_ओका_

Context Size 4:

  1. 1._कय_१५वाँ_राष्ट्रपति_रहे।_यह
  2. 2._प्रदेश_कय_भी_अविवाहित_भाई_
  3. 3.प्रदेश_प्रान्त_के_गाजियाबाद_जिला_क

Key Findings

  • Best Predictability: Context-4 (word) with 98.6% predictability
  • Branching Factor: Decreases with context size (more deterministic)
  • Memory Trade-off: Larger contexts require more storage (323,693 contexts)
  • Recommendation: Context-3 or Context-4 for text generation

4. Vocabulary Analysis

[image]

[image]

[image]

Statistics

MetricValue
Vocabulary Size16,641
Total Tokens263,395
Mean Frequency15.83
Median Frequency3
Frequency Std Dev138.02

Most Common Words

RankWordFrequency
1कय10,633
2के7,622
3से4,333
4में4,224
5है3,954
6मा3,849
7होय2,668
8का2,628
9प्रदेश2,217
10भारत1,996

Least Common Words (from vocabulary)

RankWordFrequency
1मोड़ा2
2कीमा2
3चौकोरन2
4दर्रे2
5गिजर2
6तड़हुंग2
7कलाकृति2
8स्टेपी2
9ओलेक्सान्ड्रोविच2
10टीएसएन2

Zipf's Law Analysis

MetricValue
Zipf Coefficient1.0518
R² (Goodness of Fit)0.990696
Adherence Qualityexcellent

Coverage Analysis

Top N WordsCoverage
Top 10038.1%
Top 1,00066.2%
Top 5,00087.3%
Top 10,00094.8%

Key Findings

  • Zipf Compliance: R²=0.9907 indicates excellent adherence to Zipf's law
  • High Frequency Dominance: Top 100 words cover 38.1% of corpus
  • Long Tail: 6,641 words needed for remaining 5.2% 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_32d320.73580.3755N/AN/A
mono_64d640.34890.3581N/AN/A
mono_128d1280.08080.3463N/AN/A
aligned_32d320.7358 🏆0.37590.02990.1549
aligned_64d640.34890.35000.02450.1848
aligned_128d1280.08080.34800.05710.2636

Key Findings

  • Best Isotropy: aligned_32d with 0.7358 (more uniform distribution)
  • Semantic Density: Average pairwise similarity of 0.3590. Lower values indicate better semantic separation.
  • Alignment Quality: Aligned models achieve up to 5.7% 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 Gap1.225High 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.

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.

No significant bound stems detected.

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 Awadhi 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
Tokenizer32k BPEBest compression (3.89x)
N-gram2-gramLowest perplexity (1,608)
MarkovContext-4Highest predictability (98.6%)
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 17:51:14