ary / COMPREHENSIVE_RESEARCH_REPORT.md
omarkamali's picture
Upload all models and assets for ary (20251201)
c3c01f8 verified

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

Tokenizer Compression

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 ๐Ÿ† 3.64 0.0555% 322,761

Tokenization Examples

Below are sample sentences tokenized with each vocabulary size:

Sample 1: `ู†ูŠู†ฺญ ุจุงูŠุฒูˆุฑุง ุจู†ุช ุงู„ุดูŠุฎ ุญู…ุฒุฉ ุฃูˆู„ุง ู†ูŠู†ฺญ ุจุงูŠุฒูˆุฑุง ู‡ูŠ ู…ูˆู…ุชูŠู„ุฉ ูˆู…ูˆุบู†ูŠุฉ ู…ุงู„ูŠุฒูŠุฉ.

ู…ุตุงุฏ...`

Vocab Tokens Count
8k โ–ู† ูŠู†ฺญ โ–ุจุงูŠ ุฒ ูˆุฑุง โ–ุจู†ุช โ–ุงู„ุดูŠุฎ โ–ุญู… ุฒุฉ โ–ุฃูˆู„ุง ... (+32 more) 42
16k โ–ู† ูŠู†ฺญ โ–ุจุงูŠ ุฒ ูˆุฑุง โ–ุจู†ุช โ–ุงู„ุดูŠุฎ โ–ุญู…ุฒุฉ โ–ุฃูˆู„ุง โ–ู† ... (+29 more) 39
32k โ–ู† ูŠู†ฺญ โ–ุจุงูŠ ุฒ ูˆุฑุง โ–ุจู†ุช โ–ุงู„ุดูŠุฎ โ–ุญู…ุฒุฉ โ–ุฃูˆู„ุง โ–ู† ... (+29 more) 39
64k โ–ู† ูŠู†ฺญ โ–ุจุงูŠ ุฒ ูˆุฑุง โ–ุจู†ุช โ–ุงู„ุดูŠุฎ โ–ุญู…ุฒุฉ โ–ุฃูˆู„ุง โ–ู† ... (+27 more) 37

Sample 2: `ู‡ุงุฏูŠ ุตูุญุฉ ุฏ ุงู„ุชูˆุถูŠุญุŒ ูƒู„ู…ุฉ ุจุฑูƒุงู† ูŠู…ูƒู† ูŠูƒูˆู†ูˆ ุนู†ุฏู‡ุง ู‡ุงุฏ ู„ู…ุนุงู†ูŠ:

ุจู’ุฑู’ูƒุงู†: ู…ุฏูŠู†ุฉ ู…ุบ...`

Vocab Tokens Count
8k โ–ู‡ุงุฏูŠ โ–ุตูุญุฉ โ–ุฏ โ–ุงู„ุชูˆุถูŠุญ ุŒ โ–ูƒู„ู…ุฉ โ–ุจุฑูƒุงู† โ–ูŠู…ูƒู† โ–ูŠูƒูˆู†ูˆ โ–ุนู†ุฏู‡ุง ... (+26 more) 36
16k โ–ู‡ุงุฏูŠ โ–ุตูุญุฉ โ–ุฏ โ–ุงู„ุชูˆุถูŠุญ ุŒ โ–ูƒู„ู…ุฉ โ–ุจุฑูƒุงู† โ–ูŠู…ูƒู† โ–ูŠูƒูˆู†ูˆ โ–ุนู†ุฏู‡ุง ... (+25 more) 35
32k โ–ู‡ุงุฏูŠ โ–ุตูุญุฉ โ–ุฏ โ–ุงู„ุชูˆุถูŠุญ ุŒ โ–ูƒู„ู…ุฉ โ–ุจุฑูƒุงู† โ–ูŠู…ูƒู† โ–ูŠูƒูˆู†ูˆ โ–ุนู†ุฏู‡ุง ... (+24 more) 34
64k โ–ู‡ุงุฏูŠ โ–ุตูุญุฉ โ–ุฏ โ–ุงู„ุชูˆุถูŠุญ ุŒ โ–ูƒู„ู…ุฉ โ–ุจุฑูƒุงู† โ–ูŠู…ูƒู† โ–ูŠูƒูˆู†ูˆ โ–ุนู†ุฏู‡ุง ... (+22 more) 32

Sample 3: `ุฃุณูŠู„ ุนู…ุฑุงู† (ู…ุฒูŠูˆุฏุฉ ู 1989) ู‡ูŠ ู…ุบู†ูŠุฉ ูˆ ู…ู…ุชู„ุฉ ุณุนูˆุฏูŠุฉ ูƒุชุนูŠุด ู ู„ุฅู…ุงุฑุงุช.

ู…ุตุงุฏุฑ

ุชุต...`

Vocab Tokens Count
8k โ–ุฃุณ ูŠู„ โ–ุนู…ุฑ ุงู† โ–( ู…ุฒูŠูˆุฏุฉ โ–ู โ– 1 9 ... (+36 more) 46
16k โ–ุฃุณ ูŠู„ โ–ุนู…ุฑ ุงู† โ–( ู…ุฒูŠูˆุฏุฉ โ–ู โ– 1 9 ... (+32 more) 42
32k โ–ุฃุณ ูŠู„ โ–ุนู…ุฑุงู† โ–( ู…ุฒูŠูˆุฏุฉ โ–ู โ– 1 9 8 ... (+28 more) 38
64k โ–ุฃุณ ูŠู„ โ–ุนู…ุฑุงู† โ–( ู…ุฒูŠูˆุฏุฉ โ–ู 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

N-gram Perplexity

N-gram Coverage

Results

N-gram Perplexity Entropy Unique N-grams Top-100 Coverage Top-1000 Coverage
2-gram 7,187 ๐Ÿ† 12.81 56,749 24.4% 53.2%
2-gram 486 ๐Ÿ† 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 ุชุตู†ูŠู : 37,187
2 ุŒ ูˆ 18,746
3 ู† ู‘ 10,639
4 ) : 10,185
5 ู…ุตุงุฏุฑ ุชุตู†ูŠู 10,087

3-grams:

Rank N-gram Count
1 ู…ุตุงุฏุฑ ุชุตู†ูŠู : 10,087
2 ุชุตู†ูŠู : ู…ู‚ุงู„ุงุช 7,001
3 ู† ู‘ ุงุณ 6,981
4 ู„ ู‘ ูŠ 6,914
5 : ุฏูˆุงุฑ ู 5,007

4-grams:

Rank N-gram Count
1 ุชุตู†ูŠู : ุฏูˆุงุฑ ู 5,005
2 ู†ุณุจุฉ ู† ู‘ ุงุณ 4,061
3 . ู…ุตุงุฏุฑ ุชุตู†ูŠู : 3,827
4 ุชุตู†ูŠู : ู…ู‚ุงู„ุงุช ุฒุงุฏู‡ูˆู… 3,506
5 : ู…ู‚ุงู„ุงุช ุฒุงุฏู‡ูˆู… ุฏุงุฑูŠุฌุงุจูˆุช 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

Markov Entropy

Markov Branching

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 ๐Ÿ† 1.026 1.07 2,000,181 96.3%
4 0.6731 ๐Ÿ† 1.594 2.82 454,694 32.7%

Generated Text Samples

Below are text samples generated from each Markov chain model:

Context Size 1:

  1. . ู‚ุฑุงุช ู„ุงู†ููˆุฑู…ุงุชูŠูƒ ุŒ ูˆุญุณุจูˆู‡ู… ุงู„ู†ุณุงุจูˆู† ุงู„ู…ุณู„ู…ูŠู† ) ุบุงูŠุจ ู…ุฌู…ูˆุนntnษ™n ( ู‚ุงุฆู… ุงู„ุฒุงูˆูŠุฉ ู‡ูˆ ุŒ ุงู„ุทุงุจู„ูˆ
  2. ุŒ ูƒุงู† ู„ 6 % ุŒ ูˆู„ูƒู† ู…ุงูƒุฎูˆู† ( ูˆู„ุง ู„ุจูŠุทุงู„ูŠูŠู† ุงู„ู„ูŠ ุณุจู‚ ู„ูŠู‡ูˆู… ุฎุฏู…ูˆ )
  3. ู ูƒุชุงุจ " ู ุฌู…ุงุนุฉ ู‚ุฑูˆูŠุฉ ู ุฏูˆูƒ ู„ูŠ ุฌุงูˆ ูุงู„ุบุฑุจ ุฏ ู„ูƒูˆุฑุฉ ุชุง ู†ุชูŠุฌุฉ ู„ุงู†ุฏู…ุงุฌ

Context Size 2:

  1. ุชุตู†ูŠู : ุนูˆุงู… ุฏ ุชู‚ูˆูŠู… ู„ู…ูŠู„ุงุฏูŠ ุชุตู†ูŠู : ู†ู‡ุงุฑุงุช ุฏ ู„ุนุงู… ุชุตู†ูŠู : ูƒุชุงุชุจูŠุง ู…ุบุงุฑุจุง ุฏ ู„ู‚ุฑู†
  2. ุŒ ูˆ ุตุฏุฑุงุช ู…ู†ูˆ ุฃุบู†ูŠุฉ rip , love . ุงู„ุฏูŠุณูƒ ุฎุฑุฌ ุฑุณู…ูŠุง ู‹ paypal holdings inc .
  3. ู† ู‘ ุงุณ ู† ู‘ ุดูŠุทูŠู† ( ู„ ู‘ ูŠ ู‚ุงุฑูŠูŠู† ููˆู‚ ุงู„ู„ูŠุณูŠ ( ู„ูŠุณูŠ ูˆ ุฌุงู…ุนุฉ

Context Size 3:

  1. ู…ุตุงุฏุฑ ุชุตู†ูŠู : ูŠู†ุงูŠุฑ ุชุตู†ูŠู : ู†ู‡ุงุฑุงุช ุฏ ู„ุนุงู… ุชุตู†ูŠู : ู…ู‚ุงู„ุงุช ููŠู‡ุง ู…ุตุฏุฑ ูˆ 3000 ุจุงูŠุช ุชุตู†ูŠู
  2. ุชุตู†ูŠู : ู…ู‚ุงู„ุงุช ุฒุงุฏู‡ูˆู… ุฏุงุฑูŠุฌุงุจูˆุช ุชุตู†ูŠู : ุจู„ุงูŠุต ู…ุณูƒูˆู†ูŠู† ู ุฅู‚ู„ูŠู… ุจุฑุดูŠุฏ ุŒ ุฌู‡ุฉ ุฏ ู‘ ุงุฑ ู„ุจูŠุถุง
  3. ู† ู‘ ุงุณ ุงู„ู„ูŠ ุฎุฏุงู…ูŠู† ู ุฏ ู‘ ูˆู„ุฉ : 4 , 4 % ุฅู‚ุชุตุงุฏ ู†ุณุจุฉ ู† ู‘

Context Size 4:

  1. ุชุตู†ูŠู : ุฏูˆุงุฑ ู ู„ู…ุบุฑูŠุจ ุชุตู†ูŠู : ุฏูˆุงุฑ ู ู„ู…ุบุฑูŠุจ ุชุตู†ูŠู : ุฏูˆุงุฑ ู ู„ู…ุบุฑูŠุจ ุชุตู†ูŠู : ุฏูˆุงุฑ ู
  2. ู†ุณุจุฉ ู† ู‘ ุงุณ ู† ู‘ ุดูŠุทูŠู† ( ู„ ู‘ ูŠ ูŠู‚ุฏุฑูˆ ูŠุฎุฏู…ูˆ ) : 50 , 2 %
  3. . ู…ุตุงุฏุฑ ุชุตู†ูŠู : ุนูˆุงู… ุฏ ุชู‚ูˆูŠู… ู„ู…ูŠู„ุงุฏูŠ ุชุตู†ูŠู : ู…ู‚ุงู„ุงุช ุฒุงุฏู‡ูˆู… ุฏุงุฑูŠุฌุงุจูˆุช ุชุตู†ูŠู : ุนูˆุงู… 380 ู‚ุจู„ ู„ู…ูŠู„ุ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

Zipf's Law

Top Words

Coverage Curve

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 ูˆ 61,463
4 ุชุตู†ูŠู 37,231
5 ู„ 34,076
6 ุฏูŠุงู„ 32,761
7 ู…ู† 29,612
8 ุนู„ู‰ 19,717
9 ู„ูŠ 18,627
10 ุจ 18,189

Least Common Words (from vocabulary)

Rank Word Frequency
1 ุจูŠุชุณูŠ 2
2 ูˆุตุงู†ุนูŠ 2
3 ูˆุฃู‡ู…ูŠุชู‡ุง 2
4 ุจูˆุฑุฏูŠูˆ 2
5 ุจู„ูˆู…ุฑ 2
6 ู…ู‚ุชุฑุญุฉ 2
7 anchor 2
8 ุงู„ุฑุณู…ูŠุฉุงู„ู„ูŠ 2
9 ุจุนุตุจุฉ 2
10 ู…ุงฺญูŠ 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

Embedding Isotropy

Similarity Matrix

t-SNE Words

t-SNE Sentences

Model Comparison

Model Vocab Size Dimension Avg Norm Std Norm Isotropy
mono_32d 37,528 32 4.010 1.183 0.8264 ๐Ÿ†
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

Performance Dashboard

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

  1. Compare within model families: Metrics are most meaningful when comparing models of the same type (e.g., 8k vs 64k tokenizer).
  2. Consider trade-offs: Better performance on one metric often comes at the cost of another (e.g., compression vs. OOV rate).
  3. Context matters: Optimal values depend on downstream tasks. Text generation may prioritize different metrics than classification.
  4. Corpus influence: All metrics are influenced by corpus characteristics. Wikipedia text differs from social media or literature.
  5. 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