CoolFace
Modelpublic

wikilangs/kaa

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

Kara-Kalpak - Wikilangs Models

Comprehensive Research Report & Full Ablation Study

This repository contains NLP models trained and evaluated by Wikilangs, specifically on Kara-Kalpak 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
8k4.095x4.100.0535%1,035,724
16k4.571x4.570.0597%927,895
32k4.952x4.950.0647%856,500
64k5.231x 🏆5.230.0683%810,783

Tokenization Examples

Below are sample sentences tokenized with each vocabulary size:

Sample 1: Bobrovıtsâ () — Ukrainanıń Chernigov wálayatında jaylasqan qala. Bobrovıtsa rayo...

VocabTokensCount
8k▁bob r ov ıt s â ▁() ▁— ▁ukrain anıń ... (+29 more)39
16k▁bob rov ıt s â ▁() ▁— ▁ukrainanıń ▁chern ig ... (+26 more)36
32k▁bob rov ıt s â ▁() ▁— ▁ukrainanıń ▁chern ig ... (+26 more)36
64k▁bobrovıt s â ▁() ▁— ▁ukrainanıń ▁chern ig ov ▁wálayatında ... (+22 more)32

Sample 2: — Qırǵızstannıń Osh wálayatı Úlken-Alay rayonındaǵı awıl. Úlken-Alay APJ quramın...

VocabTokensCount
8k▁— ▁qırǵızstannıń ▁osh ▁wálayatı ▁úlken - alay ▁rayonındaǵı ▁awıl . ... (+19 more)29
16k▁— ▁qırǵızstannıń ▁osh ▁wálayatı ▁úlken - alay ▁rayonındaǵı ▁awıl . ... (+19 more)29
32k▁— ▁qırǵızstannıń ▁osh ▁wálayatı ▁úlken - alay ▁rayonındaǵı ▁awıl . ... (+19 more)29
64k▁— ▁qırǵızstannıń ▁osh ▁wálayatı ▁úlken - alay ▁rayonındaǵı ▁awıl . ... (+19 more)29

Sample 3: — Qırǵızstannıń Batken wálayatı Qadamjay rayonındaǵı awıl. Awıl Maydan awıl okru...

VocabTokensCount
8k▁— ▁qırǵızstannıń ▁batken ▁wálayatı ▁qadamjay ▁rayonındaǵı ▁awıl . ▁awıl ▁maydan ... (+19 more)29
16k▁— ▁qırǵızstannıń ▁batken ▁wálayatı ▁qadamjay ▁rayonındaǵı ▁awıl . ▁awıl ▁maydan ... (+19 more)29
32k▁— ▁qırǵızstannıń ▁batken ▁wálayatı ▁qadamjay ▁rayonındaǵı ▁awıl . ▁awıl ▁maydan ... (+19 more)29
64k▁— ▁qırǵızstannıń ▁batken ▁wálayatı ▁qadamjay ▁rayonındaǵı ▁awıl . ▁awıl ▁maydan ... (+19 more)29

Key Findings

  • Best Compression: 64k achieves 5.231x compression
  • Lowest UNK Rate: 8k with 0.0535% 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-gramWord23,27014.5154,70710.1%27.4%
2-gramSubword339 🏆8.414,78462.1%98.8%
3-gramWord20,25314.3146,47713.1%28.7%
3-gramSubword2,75911.4339,33521.9%68.2%
4-gramWord25,85814.6661,89314.2%28.0%
4-gramSubword13,67413.74197,35911.1%37.3%
5-gramWord14,23413.8037,06617.5%35.1%
5-gramSubword43,26015.40503,4956.5%24.7%

Top 5 N-grams by Size

2-grams (Word):

RankN-gramCount
1sonday aq3,034
2menen birge2,841
3bolıp tabıladı2,616
4sırtqı siltemeler2,295
5bir neshe2,269

3-grams (Word):

RankN-gramCount
1derekler sırtqı siltemeler1,685
2légales geografiyası jer1,398
3adampopulations légales geografiyası1,398
4geografiyası jer maydanı1,374
5sonıń menen birge1,344

4-grams (Word):

RankN-gramCount
1adampopulations légales geografiyası jer1,398
2légales geografiyası jer maydanı1,374
3jaylasqan kommuna xalqı xalqı1,319
4sırtqı siltemeler departamenti kommunaları1,319
5derekler sırtqı siltemeler departamenti1,318

5-grams (Word):

RankN-gramCount
1adampopulations légales geografiyası jer maydanı1,374
2departamentinde jaylasqan kommuna xalqı xalqı1,318
3derekler sırtqı siltemeler departamenti kommunaları1,318
4km2 derekler sırtqı siltemeler departamenti1,317
5franciyanıń seine maritime departamentinde jaylasqan707

2-grams (Subword):

RankN-gramCount
1a r340,214
2l a332,558
3a n303,317
4n _291,907
5a _281,704

3-grams (Subword):

RankN-gramCount
1l a r145,814
2a n _91,773
3l e r91,522
4i y a90,612
5_ h á90,529

4-grams (Subword):

RankN-gramCount
1_ h á m74,987
2h á m _73,954
3l a r ı52,831
4ı n d a52,080
5l ı q _47,017

5-grams (Subword):

RankN-gramCount
1_ h á m _73,759
2ı n d a _37,981
3a l ı q _26,249
4a d ı . _25,896
5e n e n _25,107

Key Findings

  • Best Perplexity: 2-gram (subword) with 339
  • 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
1Word0.94751.9287.14215,3805.3%
1Subword0.94831.9308.431,3715.2%
2Word0.22491.1691.491,535,31477.5%
2Subword1.00522.0076.5911,5380.0%
3Word0.05631.0401.092,281,85794.4%
3Subword0.86031.8154.4375,96914.0%
4Word0.0154 🏆1.0111.022,476,99498.5%
4Subword0.66401.5842.96336,42833.6%

Generated Text Samples (Word-based)

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

Context Size 1:

  1. 1.hám oqıw orınları la capital hám jazıwdı buyırıw sistemasınan wear os 1 1 sıyaqlı uluwmalıq yamasa
  2. 2.menen baylanıs kanalların usınǵan sorawları jiberiletuǵın reklamalardı alıp keledi generikler c php ...
  3. 3.ushın paydalanıladı óytkeni biraq bul kompilyatorǵa tán juwap beriw jolı qol menen qatnasqan hám mád...

Context Size 2:

  1. 1.sonday aq aldıńǵı qosıqlarınıń tariyxın izertley aladı internet protokolı 4 versiyası ipv4 ip adresi...
  2. 2.menen birge orınlanatuǵın programma kerek óytkeni ájiniyazǵa shekemgi qaraqalpaq shayırlarında bul f...
  3. 3.bolıp tabıladı bes juldız berip dosınıń mına sózlerin keltiredi windows api sonshelli keń tarqaldı b...

Context Size 3:

  1. 1.derekler sırtqı siltemeler departamenti kommunaları
  2. 2.légales geografiyası jer maydanı 20 49 km2 derekler sırtqı siltemeler departamenti kommunaları
  3. 3.adampopulations légales geografiyası jer maydanı 19 09 km2 derekler sırtqı siltemeler departamenti k...

Context Size 4:

  1. 1.adampopulations légales geografiyası jer maydanı 14 37 km2 derekler sırtqı siltemeler departamenti k...
  2. 2.légales geografiyası jer maydanı 5 55 km2 derekler sırtqı siltemeler departamenti kommunaları
  3. 3.jaylasqan kommuna xalqı xalqı 2 635 adampopulations légales geografiyası jer maydanı 17 47 km2 derek...

Generated Text Samples (Subword-based)

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

Context Size 1:

  1. 1._qın_ticenendaya
  2. 2.a_1460_deberoliy
  3. 3.idayamgi_—_p_tia

Context Size 2:

  1. 1.arın_dáwilladı_do
  2. 2.lar_twajları_dá_s
  3. 3.anlatınǵan_ionıń_

Context Size 3:

  1. 1.lar_bazlıq_derek,_
  2. 2.an_ashqada_basında
  3. 3.iyatlar_bolıwı_anı

Context Size 4:

  1. 1._hám_ol_hası_qatnas
  2. 2.hám_g_sui_skepti_de
  3. 3.ında_kóterilgerisiw

Key Findings

  • Best Predictability: Context-4 (word) with 98.5% predictability
  • Branching Factor: Decreases with context size (more deterministic)
  • Memory Trade-off: Larger contexts require more storage (336,428 contexts)
  • Recommendation: Context-3 or Context-4 for text generation

4. Vocabulary Analysis

[image]

[image]

[image]

Statistics

MetricValue
Vocabulary Size94,344
Total Tokens2,550,053
Mean Frequency27.03
Median Frequency4
Frequency Std Dev320.88

Most Common Words

RankWordFrequency
1hám74,114
2menen22,644
3ushın19,490
4bul18,802
5bir13,691
6ol12,270
7bolıp9,798
8yamasa8,778
9bolǵan8,505
10dep8,012

Least Common Words (from vocabulary)

RankWordFrequency
1allaxabad2
2shaqapshasına2
3pondar2
4shechen2
5álimsultanov2
6alimsultanovtıń2
7xasavyurt2
8şebinkarahisar2
90422
10i̇zel2

Zipf's Law Analysis

MetricValue
Zipf Coefficient0.9824
R² (Goodness of Fit)0.989215
Adherence Qualityexcellent

Coverage Analysis

Top N WordsCoverage
Top 10021.4%
Top 1,00049.2%
Top 5,00071.8%
Top 10,00080.5%

Key Findings

  • Zipf Compliance: R²=0.9892 indicates excellent adherence to Zipf's law
  • High Frequency Dominance: Top 100 words cover 21.4% of corpus
  • Long Tail: 84,344 words needed for remaining 19.5% 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_32d320.8596 🏆0.3821N/AN/A
mono_64d640.83570.2373N/AN/A
mono_128d1280.83930.1678N/AN/A
aligned_32d320.85960.37580.06400.2900
aligned_64d640.83570.22920.13200.4080
aligned_128d1280.83930.16970.15600.4740

Key Findings

  • Best Isotropy: mono_32d with 0.8596 (more uniform distribution)
  • Semantic Density: Average pairwise similarity of 0.2603. Lower values indicate better semantic separation.
  • Alignment Quality: Aligned models achieve up to 15.6% 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 Gap0.422High 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
-ssovxozı, sibirdiń, shakuriy
-aarturo, adewir, aǵası
-ttoplaydı, talantın, túsiminiń
-bbesten, barri, bahalı
-kkomandiriniń, kaliforniyada, komponentleri
-mmamanlıǵı, mellanox, materigin
-mamamanlıǵı, materigin, makbet
-shshakuriy, shıǵır, shtatı
Productive Suffixes
SuffixExamples
-ndawamın, daǵdarısın, besten
-akaliforniyada, ıqlımına, evropaǵa
mamanlıǵı, toplaydı, sovxozı
komandiriniń, sibirdiń, oppengeymernıń
-ıńoppengeymernıń, dárwazamanlardıń, klarustıń
-irsetti, komponentleri, xarakterlewshi
-anaspan, gúmannan, saban
-rpopulyar, ústinler, adewir

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
lard1.63x167 contextslarda, lardı, alardı
atla1.64x122 contextsatlas, atlan, atlar
tler1.65x98 contextsetler, bitler, pátler
asın1.45x170 contextsbasın, pasın, tasın
ardı1.86x47 contextsyardı, bardı, lardı
ayla1.45x107 contextslayla, aylar, zayla
shıl1.74x47 contextsaqshıl, shılım, oyshıl
alıq1.41x104 contextsxalıq, salıq, balıq
tuǵı2.22x18 contextstuǵın, atatuǵın, ótetuǵın
wshı1.85x30 contextssuwshı, oyıwshı, oqıwshı
ciya1.76x34 contextsraciya, akciya, faciya
ladı1.61x47 contextsaladı, oyladı, aqladı

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
-s-a140 wordssozılıwǵa, samaveda
-s-n123 wordssportın, sedan
-a109 wordsalındı, aleksandriyalı
-k-i104 wordskúndizgi, keńeytpeni
-a-n97 wordsańlatpaytuǵının, australian
-b-n95 wordsbáhárinen, baylanısıwınan
-s94 wordssırtqı, sawatlı
-t94 wordstartısıwlardı, tulı
-t-n92 wordstalqılaǵan, turatuǵının
-a-a88 wordsalbina, auditoriyasına

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
vetnamnıń`vetnam-n-ıń`7.5n
raketalardı`raketal-ar-dı`7.5ar
bruklindaǵı`bruklin-da-ǵı`7.5da
waqıyadan`waqıya-da-n`7.5da
freymvorkları`freymvorkl-ar-ı`7.5ar
galitsina`galitsi-n-a`7.5n
futbolshılardı`futbolshıl-ar-dı`7.5ar
kolonnası`kolon-na-sı`7.5na
redaktorlarda`redaktorl-ar-da`7.5ar
sanktgallendaǵı`sanktgallen-da-ǵı`7.5da
abdujalil`abdujal-i-l`7.5i
singlların`singll-ar-ın`7.5ar
zanjibarda`zanjib-ar-da`7.5ar
kóringenindey`kóringenin-de-y`7.5de
nuqsanların`nuqsanl-ar-ın`7.5ar

6.6 Linguistic Interpretation

Automated Insight:

The language Kara-Kalpak 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
Tokenizer64k BPEBest compression (5.23x)
N-gram2-gramLowest perplexity (339)
MarkovContext-4Highest predictability (98.5%)
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: 2026-01-10 07:05:40