wikilangs/dtp

Central Dusun - Wikilangs Models

Comprehensive Research Report & Full Ablation Study

This repository contains NLP models trained and evaluated by Wikilangs, specifically on Central Dusun 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

Analysis and Evaluation

• 1. Tokenizer Evaluation
• 2. N-gram Model Evaluation
• 3. Markov Chain Evaluation
• 4. Vocabulary Analysis
• 5. Word Embeddings Evaluation
• 6. Morphological Analysis (Experimental)
• 7. Summary & Recommendations
• Metrics Glossary
• Visualizations Index

---

1. Tokenizer Evaluation

Results

Vocab Size	Compression	Avg Token Len	UNK Rate	Total Tokens
8k	4.024x	4.03	0.1643%	595,784
16k	4.420x	4.42	0.1805%	542,287
32k	4.736x	4.74	0.1934%	506,176
64k	4.962x 🏆	4.96	0.2026%	483,109

Tokenization Examples

Below are sample sentences tokenized with each vocabulary size:

Sample 1: Boros Murut Timugon nopo nga boros di gunoon do Tulun Murut id Borneo. Sukuon

Vocab	Tokens	Count
8k	▁boros ▁murut ▁tim ug on ▁nopo ▁nga ▁boros ▁di ▁gunoon ... (+7 more)	17
16k	▁boros ▁murut ▁tim ug on ▁nopo ▁nga ▁boros ▁di ▁gunoon ... (+7 more)	17
32k	▁boros ▁murut ▁tim ugon ▁nopo ▁nga ▁boros ▁di ▁gunoon ▁do ... (+6 more)	16
64k	▁boros ▁murut ▁timugon ▁nopo ▁nga ▁boros ▁di ▁gunoon ▁do ▁tulun ... (+5 more)	15

Sample 2: Suminundu nopo nga sinawaan di Kinoingan.Kitanak yolo do songulun tondu tolumis ...

Vocab	Tokens	Count
8k	▁sumin undu ▁nopo ▁nga ▁sin awaan ▁di ▁kino ingan . ... (+14 more)	24
16k	▁sumin undu ▁nopo ▁nga ▁sinawaan ▁di ▁kinoingan . k itanak ... (+11 more)	21
32k	▁sumin undu ▁nopo ▁nga ▁sinawaan ▁di ▁kinoingan . k itanak ... (+10 more)	20
64k	▁suminundu ▁nopo ▁nga ▁sinawaan ▁di ▁kinoingan . kitanak ▁yolo ▁do ... (+8 more)	18

Sample 3: Mongintob nopo nga nunu nopo iri kokomoi do ginumu, ginayo, sinodu toi winagat.

Vocab	Tokens	Count
8k	▁mongin tob ▁nopo ▁nga ▁nunu ▁nopo ▁iri ▁kokomoi ▁do ▁ginumu ... (+7 more)	17
16k	▁mongintob ▁nopo ▁nga ▁nunu ▁nopo ▁iri ▁kokomoi ▁do ▁ginumu , ... (+6 more)	16
32k	▁mongintob ▁nopo ▁nga ▁nunu ▁nopo ▁iri ▁kokomoi ▁do ▁ginumu , ... (+6 more)	16
64k	▁mongintob ▁nopo ▁nga ▁nunu ▁nopo ▁iri ▁kokomoi ▁do ▁ginumu , ... (+6 more)	16

Key Findings

• Best Compression: 64k achieves 4.962x compression
• Lowest UNK Rate: 8k with 0.1643% 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	Variant	Perplexity	Entropy	Unique N-grams	Top-100 Coverage	Top-1000 Coverage
2-gram	Word	7,224	12.82	18,432	17.6%	40.2%
2-gram	Subword	227 🏆	7.82	2,665	72.6%	99.5%
3-gram	Word	10,598	13.37	17,860	12.0%	30.6%
3-gram	Subword	1,902	10.89	18,913	28.7%	75.5%
4-gram	Word	17,687	14.11	21,653	5.2%	18.7%
4-gram	Subword	10,332	13.33	90,801	14.5%	42.9%
5-gram	Word	9,233	13.17	10,312	5.0%	23.1%
5-gram	Subword	32,680	15.00	217,159	9.9%	28.5%

Top 5 N-grams by Size

2-grams (Word):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	nopo nga	11,657
2	id suang	2,821
3	toi ko	1,861
4	ontok toun	1,828
5	nga iso	1,049

3-grams (Word):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	nopo nga iso	951
2	diti nopo nga	935
3	id suang do	660
4	nopo nga songulun	600
5	nopo diti nga	439

4-grams (Word):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	nopo nga iso mantad	117
2	nopo nga iso kawo	79
3	nopo nga songulun mimingkono	75
4	nopo nga kohompit no	71
5	nopo nga iso pogun	70

5-grams (Word):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	archived from the original on	42
2	toi ko lobi ointutunan sabaagi	34
3	koposion pogulu om pondidikan nosusu	25
4	toun uhu kono saluran tv	24
5	mw parser output reflist lower	24

2-grams (Subword):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	a n	132,420
2	n _	100,917
3	o _	92,031
4	i _	88,621
5	o n	79,747

3-grams (Subword):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	a n _	56,169
2	d o _	34,236
3	_ n o	33,345
4	_ d o	32,858
5	_ k o	28,766

4-grams (Subword):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	_ d o _	30,800
2	_ i d _	22,452
3	_ o m _	19,951
4	_ n g a	17,310
5	n o p o	15,354

5-grams (Subword):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	_ n g a _	14,567
2	_ n o p o	14,303
3	n o p o _	14,096
4	o n t o k	12,540
5	n t o k _	12,488

Key Findings

• Best Perplexity: 2-gram (subword) with 227
• Entropy Trend: Decreases with larger n-grams (more predictable)
• Coverage: Top-1000 patterns cover ~29% of corpus
• Recommendation: 4-gram or 5-gram for best predictive performance

---

3. Markov Chain Evaluation

Results

Context	Variant	Avg Entropy	Perplexity	Branching Factor	Unique Contexts	Predictability
1	Word	0.8540	1.808	5.51	70,711	14.6%
1	Subword	0.8991	1.865	5.16	1,986	10.1%
2	Word	0.2712	1.207	1.62	388,589	72.9%
2	Subword	0.6820	1.604	4.13	10,241	31.8%
3	Word	0.0811	1.058	1.13	628,158	91.9%
3	Subword	0.7746	1.711	3.85	42,293	22.5%
4	Word	0.0237 🏆	1.017	1.03	709,279	97.6%
4	Subword	0.6516	1.571	2.76	162,763	34.8%

Generated Text Samples (Word-based)

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

Context Size 1:

1. do tasu piipiro posis nopo nga bagas menteri malaysia toi ko 7 3w 7 808 güzelbahçe
2. id boros sweden maamaso timpu pogulu nosusu i nopo nga okito nogi i rajaa do amu
3. om papaharo sikul takawas id keningau diti nga kohompit om gisom pinoposiliu do dudumagang maritim m...

Context Size 2:

1. nopo nga okito id posorili do kuil kuil bongunan bongunan winonsoi o kinoyonon diti galeri sukuon pa...
2. id suang pambalajalan loolobi id gana do sains sosial om ekonomi mogigion do pulau bali winonsoi o
3. toi ko bandar raya santiago gurun atacama ii gersang id utara chile nopo nga kosoruan ointutunan sab...

Context Size 3:

1. nopo nga iso kakadayan komponen kalas ko 5 id kointayadan do 50 tondu yahudi di bobos boroson id
2. diti nopo nga kiwaa totos okuri nopo nga kirati do tudan udan talasu om i bobos poinwagu nopo
3. id suang do watas tenom om id siriba kotoinaan do upis watas keningau di laid abaabayan dii nopo

Context Size 4:

1. nopo nga iso mantad tolu puruan tinimungan slav kosilahon ii kakal po do pharo ii suai nopo nga monu...
2. nopo nga iso kawo boros dayak i popohompit do duo dialek daro om matu dialek mantad boros austronesi...
3. nopo nga songulun mimingkono di abantung kopio maya piipiro film miagal ko x men apocalypse om nogi ...

Generated Text Samples (Subword-based)

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

Context Size 1:

1. _2_,_suhyl_palal
2. aheacasomomoid_p
3. ombaaiayosiesili

Context Size 2:

1. an_gan_ka_kopoko_
2. n_mek_koudions_gr
3. o_dukul_bihaguluh

Context Size 3:

1. an_abaagu_di_aut"_
2. do_sukuon_debutang
3. _nokobol_kopo_ngam

Context Size 4:

1. _do_ponuan_chillage
2. _id_sabaagi_gisom_n
3. _om_institud_5.11-3

Key Findings

• Best Predictability: Context-4 (word) with 97.6% predictability
• Branching Factor: Decreases with context size (more deterministic)
• Memory Trade-off: Larger contexts require more storage (162,763 contexts)
• Recommendation: Context-3 or Context-4 for text generation

---

4. Vocabulary Analysis

Statistics

Metric	Value
Vocabulary Size	30,571
Total Tokens	714,971
Mean Frequency	23.39
Median Frequency	4
Frequency Std Dev	322.81

Most Common Words

Rank	Word	Frequency
1	do	30,939
2	id	22,604
3	om	20,001
4	nga	15,882
5	nopo	14,210
6	di	13,677
7	i	9,637
8	mantad	7,460
9	ontok	6,784
10	sabaagi	5,793

Least Common Words (from vocabulary)

Rank	Word	Frequency
1	nın	2
2	tarihçesi	2
3	paü	2
4	eğitim	2
5	dergisi	2
6	sayı	2
7	mongumang	2
8	mikattiwang	2
9	sisimbarpulou	2
10	koz	2

Zipf's Law Analysis

Metric	Value
Zipf Coefficient	1.0496
R² (Goodness of Fit)	0.994075
Adherence Quality	excellent

Coverage Analysis

Top N Words	Coverage
Top 100	41.6%
Top 1,000	66.1%
Top 5,000	84.5%
Top 10,000	91.2%

Key Findings

• Zipf Compliance: R²=0.9941 indicates excellent adherence to Zipf's law
• High Frequency Dominance: Top 100 words cover 41.6% of corpus
• Long Tail: 20,571 words needed for remaining 8.8% coverage

---

5. Word Embeddings Evaluation

5.1 Cross-Lingual Alignment

5.2 Model Comparison

Model	Dimension	Isotropy	Semantic Density	Alignment R@1	Alignment R@10
mono_32d	32	0.8679 🏆	0.3272	N/A	N/A
mono_64d	64	0.7620	0.2632	N/A	N/A
mono_128d	128	0.3462	0.2417	N/A	N/A
aligned_32d	32	0.8679	0.3226	0.0560	0.2820
aligned_64d	64	0.7620	0.2720	0.1060	0.3860
aligned_128d	128	0.3462	0.2427	0.2020	0.5260

Key Findings

• Best Isotropy: mono_32d with 0.8679 (more uniform distribution)
• Semantic Density: Average pairwise similarity of 0.2782. Lower values indicate better semantic separation.
• Alignment Quality: Aligned models achieve up to 20.2% 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

Metric	Value	Interpretation	Recommendation
Productivity Index	5.000	High morphological productivity	Reliable analysis
Idiomaticity Gap	-0.189	Low 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

Prefix	Examples
-po	poinkilong, pointounda, poninong
-ko	kopogonuan, kontinjen, kokomoi
-mo	monongkuyaan, mongingit, mohd
-mi	mind, millennium, minsingumbal
-ma	maru, many, matter

Productive Suffixes

Suffix	Examples
-n	louson, sukun, monongkuyaan
-an	monongkuyaan, kopogonuan, keahlian
-on	louson, southampton, unsubon
-ng	poinkilong, skateboarding, dropping

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.

Stem	Cohesion	Substitutability	Examples
anga	1.64x	146 contexts	ganga, tanga, manga
ngan	1.88x	34 contexts	songan, jangan, dengan
oros	2.02x	26 contexts	boros, oroso, doros
anta	1.48x	88 contexts	banta, manta, antad
boro	2.19x	19 contexts	boros, oboros, borough
ongu	1.63x	50 contexts	tongue, tongus, mongua
impu	1.96x	24 contexts	limpu, timpu, limput
mont	1.81x	26 contexts	monto, montk, monte
ampa	1.48x	47 contexts	campa, gampa, rampa
uang	1.59x	33 contexts	huang, duang, ruang
ogun	1.79x	21 contexts	oguno, pogun, koguno
mpai	1.95x	13 contexts	ampai, rumpai, mimpai

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.

Prefix	Suffix	Frequency	Examples
-ko	-n	164 words	kolintuhunan, koyomutan
-po	-n	148 words	poimpohon, porundangan
-ko	-an	121 words	kolintuhunan, koyomutan
-po	-an	109 words	porundangan, pomutulan
-po	-on	39 words	poimpohon, potingkodon
-ko	-on	37 words	kohinoon, kosogubon
-mi	-ng	29 words	minanamong, minongisonong
-mi	-n	23 words	million, miimpohon
-mo	-ng	22 words	momoguring, moyang
-po	-ng	16 words	poring, poning

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).

Word	Suggested Split	Confidence	Stem
kopomolobusan	ko-po-mo-lobus-an	9.0	lobus
popokobong	po-po-ko-bong	7.5	bong
pomokritik	po-mo-kritik	6.0	kritik
popobibas	po-po-bibas	6.0	bibas
momooboros	mo-mo-oboros	6.0	oboros
mamagakom	ma-ma-gakom	6.0	gakom
pomodolinan	po-mo-dolin-an	4.5	dolin
koingkuri	ko-ingkuri	4.5	ingkuri
tungkusan	tungkus-an	4.5	tungkus
pengurusan	pengurus-an	4.5	pengurus
kopogisuusuayan	ko-po-gisuusuay-an	4.5	gisuusuay
pesisiran	pesisir-an	4.5	pesisir
kopomoogian	ko-po-mo-ogian	4.5	ogian
pomudagangan	po-mudaga-ng-an	4.5	mudaga
pomobodilan	po-mo-bodil-an	4.5	bodil

6.6 Linguistic Interpretation

Automated Insight: The language Central Dusun 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

Production Recommendations

Component	Recommended	Rationale
Tokenizer	64k BPE	Best compression (4.96x)
N-gram	2-gram	Lowest perplexity (227)
Markov	Context-4	Highest predictability (97.6%)
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) × 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. 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
Tokenizer Compression	Compression ratios by vocabulary size
Tokenizer Fertility	Average token length by vocabulary
Tokenizer OOV	Unknown token rates
Tokenizer Total Tokens	Total tokens by vocabulary
N-gram Perplexity	Perplexity by n-gram size
N-gram Entropy	Entropy by n-gram size
N-gram Coverage	Top pattern coverage
N-gram Unique	Unique n-gram counts
Markov Entropy	Entropy by context size
Markov Branching	Branching factor by context
Markov Contexts	Unique context counts
Zipf's Law	Frequency-rank distribution with fit
Vocab Frequency	Word frequency distribution
Top 20 Words	Most frequent words
Vocab Coverage	Cumulative coverage curve
Embedding Isotropy	Vector space uniformity
Embedding Norms	Vector magnitude distribution
Embedding Similarity	Word similarity heatmap
Nearest Neighbors	Similar words for key terms
t-SNE Words	2D word embedding visualization
t-SNE Sentences	2D sentence embedding visualization
Position Encoding	Encoding method comparison
Model Sizes	Storage requirements
Performance Dashboard	Comprehensive 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 - Open-source NLP models for every Wikipedia language.

Maintainer

Omar Kamali - Omneity Labs

Citation

If you use these models in your research, please cite:

@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

• 🌐 Website: wikilangs.org
• 🤗 Models: huggingface.co/wikilangs
• 📊 Data: wikipedia-monthly
• 👤 Author: Omar Kamali
• 🤝 Sponsor: Featherless AI

---

Generated by Wikilangs Models Pipeline

Report Date: 2026-01-04 02:42:58