Wikilangs Models: Comprehensive Research Report
ARY - Full Ablation Study
This report presents a comprehensive evaluation of language models trained on ARY Wikipedia data. We analyze tokenizers, n-gram models, Markov chains, vocabulary statistics, and word embeddings.
1. Tokenizer Evaluation
Results
| Vocab Size | Compression | Avg Token Len | UNK Rate | Total Tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8k | 3.134x | 3.09 | 0.0472% | 379,309 |
| 16k | 3.346x | 3.30 | 0.0504% | 355,311 |
| 32k | 3.535x | 3.49 | 0.0532% | 336,296 |
| 64k | 3.683x ๐ | 3.64 | 0.0555% | 322,761 |
Tokenization Examples
Below are sample sentences tokenized with each vocabulary size:
Sample 1: `ฺูููญ ุจุงูุฒูุฑุง ุจูุช ุงูุดูุฎ ุญู ุฒุฉ ุฃููุง ฺูููญ ุจุงูุฒูุฑุง ูู ู ูู ุชููุฉ ูู ูุบููุฉ ู ุงููุฒูุฉ.
ู ุตุงุฏ...`
| Vocab | Tokens | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 8k | โู ฺููญ โุจุงู ุฒ ูุฑุง โุจูุช โุงูุดูุฎ โุญู
ุฒุฉ โุฃููุง ... (+32 more) |
42 |
| 16k | โู ฺููญ โุจุงู ุฒ ูุฑุง โุจูุช โุงูุดูุฎ โุญู
ุฒุฉ โุฃููุง โู ... (+29 more) |
39 |
| 32k | โู ฺููญ โุจุงู ุฒ ูุฑุง โุจูุช โุงูุดูุฎ โุญู
ุฒุฉ โุฃููุง โู ... (+29 more) |
39 |
| 64k | โู ฺููญ โุจุงู ุฒ ูุฑุง โุจูุช โุงูุดูุฎ โุญู
ุฒุฉ โุฃููุง โู ... (+27 more) |
37 |
Sample 2: `ูุงุฏู ุตูุญุฉ ุฏ ุงูุชูุถูุญุ ููู ุฉ ุจุฑูุงู ูู ูู ููููู ุนูุฏูุง ูุงุฏ ูู ุนุงูู:
ุจูุฑููุงู: ู ุฏููุฉ ู ุบ...`
| Vocab | Tokens | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 8k | โูุงุฏู โุตูุญุฉ โุฏ โุงูุชูุถูุญ ุ โููู
ุฉ โุจุฑูุงู โูู
ูู โููููู โุนูุฏูุง ... (+26 more) |
36 |
| 16k | โูุงุฏู โุตูุญุฉ โุฏ โุงูุชูุถูุญ ุ โููู
ุฉ โุจุฑูุงู โูู
ูู โููููู โุนูุฏูุง ... (+25 more) |
35 |
| 32k | โูุงุฏู โุตูุญุฉ โุฏ โุงูุชูุถูุญ ุ โููู
ุฉ โุจุฑูุงู โูู
ูู โููููู โุนูุฏูุง ... (+24 more) |
34 |
| 64k | โูุงุฏู โุตูุญุฉ โุฏ โุงูุชูุถูุญ ุ โููู
ุฉ โุจุฑูุงู โูู
ูู โููููู โุนูุฏูุง ... (+22 more) |
32 |
Sample 3: `ุฃุณูู ุนู ุฑุงู (ู ุฒููุฏุฉ ู 1989) ูู ู ุบููุฉ ู ู ู ุชูุฉ ุณุนูุฏูุฉ ูุชุนูุด ู ูุฅู ุงุฑุงุช.
ู ุตุงุฏุฑ
ุชุต...`
| Vocab | Tokens | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 8k | โุฃุณ ูู โุนู
ุฑ ุงู โ( ู
ุฒููุฏุฉ โู โ 1 9 ... (+36 more) |
46 |
| 16k | โุฃุณ ูู โุนู
ุฑ ุงู โ( ู
ุฒููุฏุฉ โู โ 1 9 ... (+32 more) |
42 |
| 32k | โุฃุณ ูู โุนู
ุฑุงู โ( ู
ุฒููุฏุฉ โู โ 1 9 8 ... (+28 more) |
38 |
| 64k | โุฃุณ ูู โุนู
ุฑุงู โ( ู
ุฒููุฏุฉ โู โ 1 9 8 ... (+28 more) |
38 |
Key Findings
- Best Compression: 64k achieves 3.683x compression
- Lowest UNK Rate: 8k with 0.0472% 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
| N-gram | Perplexity | Entropy | Unique N-grams | Top-100 Coverage | Top-1000 Coverage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2-gram | 7,187 ๐ | 12.81 | 56,749 | 24.4% | 53.2% |
| 2-gram | 486 ๐ | 8.93 | 6,227 | 54.9% | 95.4% |
| 3-gram | 8,812 | 13.11 | 76,888 | 21.3% | 52.8% |
| 3-gram | 4,295 | 12.07 | 51,256 | 22.1% | 58.7% |
| 4-gram | 12,168 | 13.57 | 124,859 | 20.1% | 50.4% |
| 4-gram | 22,008 | 14.43 | 260,844 | 12.0% | 35.5% |
Top 5 N-grams by Size
2-grams:
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | ุชุตููู : |
37,187 |
| 2 | ุ ู |
18,746 |
| 3 | ู ู |
10,639 |
| 4 | ) : |
10,185 |
| 5 | ู
ุตุงุฏุฑ ุชุตููู |
10,087 |
3-grams:
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | ู
ุตุงุฏุฑ ุชุตููู : |
10,087 |
| 2 | ุชุตููู : ู
ูุงูุงุช |
7,001 |
| 3 | ู ู ุงุณ |
6,981 |
| 4 | ู ู ู |
6,914 |
| 5 | : ุฏูุงุฑ ู |
5,007 |
4-grams:
| Rank | N-gram | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | ุชุตููู : ุฏูุงุฑ ู |
5,005 |
| 2 | ูุณุจุฉ ู ู ุงุณ |
4,061 |
| 3 | . ู
ุตุงุฏุฑ ุชุตููู : |
3,827 |
| 4 | ุชุตููู : ู
ูุงูุงุช ุฒุงุฏููู
|
3,506 |
| 5 | : ู
ูุงูุงุช ุฒุงุฏููู
ุฏุงุฑูุฌุงุจูุช |
3,506 |
Key Findings
- Best Perplexity: 2-gram with 486
- Entropy Trend: Decreases with larger n-grams (more predictable)
- Coverage: Top-1000 patterns cover ~35% of corpus
- Recommendation: 4-gram or 5-gram for best predictive performance
3. Markov Chain Evaluation
Results
| Context | Avg Entropy | Perplexity | Branching Factor | Unique Contexts | Predictability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.7813 | 1.719 | 5.36 | 189,320 | 21.9% |
| 1 | 1.1519 | 2.222 | 8.71 | 1,931 | 0.0% |
| 2 | 0.2761 | 1.211 | 1.68 | 1,014,676 | 72.4% |
| 2 | 0.9863 | 1.981 | 6.24 | 16,826 | 1.4% |
| 3 | 0.0931 | 1.067 | 1.18 | 1,701,309 | 90.7% |
| 3 | 0.8744 | 1.833 | 4.33 | 104,928 | 12.6% |
| 4 | 0.0366 ๐ | 1.026 | 1.07 | 2,000,181 | 96.3% |
| 4 | 0.6731 ๐ | 1.594 | 2.82 | 454,694 | 32.7% |
Generated Text Samples
Below are text samples generated from each Markov chain model:
Context Size 1:
. ูุฑุงุช ูุงูููุฑู ุงุชูู ุ ูุญุณุจููู ุงููุณุงุจูู ุงูู ุณูู ูู ) ุบุงูุจ ู ุฌู ูุนntnษn ( ูุงุฆู ุงูุฒุงููุฉ ูู ุ ุงูุทุงุจููุ ูุงู ู 6 % ุ ูููู ู ุงูุฎูู ( ููุง ูุจูุทุงูููู ุงููู ุณุจู ููููู ุฎุฏู ู )ู ูุชุงุจ " ู ุฌู ุงุนุฉ ูุฑููุฉ ู ุฏูู ูู ุฌุงู ูุงูุบุฑุจ ุฏ ูููุฑุฉ ุชุง ูุชูุฌุฉ ูุงูุฏู ุงุฌ
Context Size 2:
ุชุตููู : ุนูุงู ุฏ ุชูููู ูู ููุงุฏู ุชุตููู : ููุงุฑุงุช ุฏ ูุนุงู ุชุตููู : ูุชุงุชุจูุง ู ุบุงุฑุจุง ุฏ ููุฑูุ ู ุตุฏุฑุงุช ู ูู ุฃุบููุฉ rip , love . ุงูุฏูุณู ุฎุฑุฌ ุฑุณู ูุง ู paypal holdings inc .ู ู ุงุณ ู ู ุดูุทูู ( ู ู ู ูุงุฑููู ููู ุงูููุณู ( ููุณู ู ุฌุงู ุนุฉ
Context Size 3:
ู ุตุงุฏุฑ ุชุตููู : ููุงูุฑ ุชุตููู : ููุงุฑุงุช ุฏ ูุนุงู ุชุตููู : ู ูุงูุงุช ูููุง ู ุตุฏุฑ ู 3000 ุจุงูุช ุชุตูููุชุตููู : ู ูุงูุงุช ุฒุงุฏููู ุฏุงุฑูุฌุงุจูุช ุชุตููู : ุจูุงูุต ู ุณููููู ู ุฅูููู ุจุฑุดูุฏ ุ ุฌูุฉ ุฏ ู ุงุฑ ูุจูุถุงู ู ุงุณ ุงููู ุฎุฏุงู ูู ู ุฏ ู ููุฉ : 4 , 4 % ุฅูุชุตุงุฏ ูุณุจุฉ ู ู
Context Size 4:
ุชุตููู : ุฏูุงุฑ ู ูู ุบุฑูุจ ุชุตููู : ุฏูุงุฑ ู ูู ุบุฑูุจ ุชุตููู : ุฏูุงุฑ ู ูู ุบุฑูุจ ุชุตููู : ุฏูุงุฑ ููุณุจุฉ ู ู ุงุณ ู ู ุดูุทูู ( ู ู ู ููุฏุฑู ูุฎุฏู ู ) : 50 , 2 %. ู ุตุงุฏุฑ ุชุตููู : ุนูุงู ุฏ ุชูููู ูู ููุงุฏู ุชุตููู : ู ูุงูุงุช ุฒุงุฏููู ุฏุงุฑูุฌุงุจูุช ุชุตููู : ุนูุงู 380 ูุจู ูู ููุงุฏ
Key Findings
- Best Predictability: Context-4 with 96.3% predictability
- Branching Factor: Decreases with context size (more deterministic)
- Memory Trade-off: Larger contexts require more storage (454,694 contexts)
- Recommendation: Context-3 or Context-4 for text generation
4. Vocabulary Analysis
Statistics
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Vocabulary Size | 81,712 |
| Total Tokens | 2,308,873 |
| Mean Frequency | 28.26 |
| Median Frequency | 4 |
| Frequency Std Dev | 559.90 |
Most Common Words
| Rank | Word | Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | ู | 84,463 |
| 2 | ุฏ | 69,201 |
| 3 | ู | 61,463 |
| 4 | ุชุตููู | 37,231 |
| 5 | ู | 34,076 |
| 6 | ุฏูุงู | 32,761 |
| 7 | ู ู | 29,612 |
| 8 | ุนูู | 19,717 |
| 9 | ูู | 18,627 |
| 10 | ุจ | 18,189 |
Least Common Words (from vocabulary)
| Rank | Word | Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | ุจูุชุณู | 2 |
| 2 | ูุตุงูุนู | 2 |
| 3 | ูุฃูู ูุชูุง | 2 |
| 4 | ุจูุฑุฏูู | 2 |
| 5 | ุจููู ุฑ | 2 |
| 6 | ู ูุชุฑุญุฉ | 2 |
| 7 | anchor | 2 |
| 8 | ุงูุฑุณู ูุฉุงููู | 2 |
| 9 | ุจุนุตุจุฉ | 2 |
| 10 | ู ุงฺญู | 2 |
Zipf's Law Analysis
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Zipf Coefficient | 1.0380 |
| Rยฒ (Goodness of Fit) | 0.999162 |
| Adherence Quality | excellent |
Coverage Analysis
| Top N Words | Coverage |
|---|---|
| Top 100 | 39.3% |
| Top 1,000 | 63.8% |
| Top 5,000 | 78.6% |
| Top 10,000 | 84.8% |
Key Findings
- Zipf Compliance: Rยฒ=0.9992 indicates excellent adherence to Zipf's law
- High Frequency Dominance: Top 100 words cover 39.3% of corpus
- Long Tail: 71,712 words needed for remaining 15.2% coverage
5. Word Embeddings Evaluation
Model Comparison
| Model | Vocab Size | Dimension | Avg Norm | Std Norm | Isotropy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| mono_32d | 37,528 | 32 | 4.010 | 1.183 | 0.8264 ๐ |
| mono_64d | 37,528 | 64 | 4.579 | 1.040 | 0.8183 |
| mono_128d | 37,528 | 128 | 5.112 | 0.875 | 0.7212 |
| embeddings_enhanced | 0 | 0 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.0000 |
Key Findings
- Best Isotropy: mono_32d with 0.8264 (more uniform distribution)
- Dimension Trade-off: Higher dimensions capture more semantics but reduce isotropy
- Vocabulary Coverage: All models cover 37,528 words
- Recommendation: 100d for balanced semantic capture and efficiency
6. Summary & Recommendations
Production Recommendations
| Component | Recommended | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Tokenizer | 32k BPE | Best compression (3.68x) with low UNK rate |
| N-gram | 5-gram | Lowest perplexity (486) |
| Markov | Context-4 | Highest predictability (96.3%) |
| Embeddings | 100d | Balanced 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) 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
| # | Visualization | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 01 | Tokenizer Compression | Compression ratios by vocabulary size |
| 02 | Tokenizer Fertility | Average token length by vocabulary |
| 03 | Tokenizer OOV | Unknown token rates |
| 04 | Tokenizer Tokens | Total tokens by vocabulary |
| 05 | N-gram Perplexity | Perplexity by n-gram size |
| 06 | N-gram Entropy | Entropy by n-gram size |
| 07 | N-gram Coverage | Top pattern coverage |
| 08 | N-gram Unique | Unique n-gram counts |
| 09 | Markov Entropy | Entropy by context size |
| 10 | Markov Branching | Branching factor by context |
| 11 | Markov Contexts | Unique context counts |
| 12 | Zipf's Law | Frequency-rank distribution with fit |
| 13 | Vocab Frequency | Word frequency distribution |
| 14 | Top 20 Words | Most frequent words |
| 15 | Vocab Coverage | Cumulative coverage curve |
| 16 | Embedding Isotropy | Vector space uniformity |
| 17 | Embedding Norms | Vector magnitude distribution |
| 18 | Similarity Matrix | Word similarity heatmap |
| 19 | Nearest Neighbors | Similar words for key terms |
| 20 | t-SNE Words | 2D word embedding visualization |
| 21 | t-SNE Sentences | 2D sentence embedding visualization |
| 22 | Position Encoding | Encoding method comparison |
| 23 | Model Sizes | Storage requirements |
| 24 | Dashboard | Comprehensive performance overview |
Generated by Wikilangs Models Pipeline
Report Date: 2025-12-27 03:37:35












