README.md

metadata

language: bar
language_name: Bavarian
language_family: germanic_west_continental
tags:
  - wikilangs
  - nlp
  - tokenizer
  - embeddings
  - n-gram
  - markov
  - wikipedia
  - feature-extraction
  - sentence-similarity
  - tokenization
  - n-grams
  - markov-chain
  - text-mining
  - fasttext
  - babelvec
  - vocabulous
  - vocabulary
  - monolingual
  - family-germanic_west_continental
license: mit
library_name: wikilangs
pipeline_tag: text-generation
datasets:
  - omarkamali/wikipedia-monthly
dataset_info:
  name: wikipedia-monthly
  description: Monthly snapshots of Wikipedia articles across 300+ languages
metrics:
  - name: best_compression_ratio
    type: compression
    value: 4.003
  - name: best_isotropy
    type: isotropy
    value: 0.8432
  - name: vocabulary_size
    type: vocab
    value: 0
generated: 2026-01-03T00:00:00.000Z

Bavarian - Wikilangs Models

Comprehensive Research Report & Full Ablation Study

This repository contains NLP models trained and evaluated by Wikilangs, specifically on Bavarian 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	3.167x	3.17	0.0430%	1,042,115
16k	3.477x	3.48	0.0472%	949,394
32k	3.753x	3.75	0.0509%	879,530
64k	4.003x 🏆	4.00	0.0543%	824,531

Tokenization Examples

Below are sample sentences tokenized with each vocabulary size:

Sample 1: Forstern is a Gmoa im obaboarischn Landkroas Arrdeng. Im Netz Gemeinde Forstern ...

Vocab	Tokens	Count
8k	▁forst ern ▁is ▁a ▁gmoa ▁im ▁oba boarischn ▁landkroas ▁ar ... (+19 more)	29
16k	▁forst ern ▁is ▁a ▁gmoa ▁im ▁obaboarischn ▁landkroas ▁arrdeng . ... (+15 more)	25
32k	▁forst ern ▁is ▁a ▁gmoa ▁im ▁obaboarischn ▁landkroas ▁arrdeng . ... (+13 more)	23
64k	▁forst ern ▁is ▁a ▁gmoa ▁im ▁obaboarischn ▁landkroas ▁arrdeng . ... (+12 more)	22

Sample 2: Marlboro County. Obgruafa am 22. Feba is a County in South Carolina in da USA. B...

Vocab	Tokens	Count
8k	▁mar l boro ▁county . ▁obgruafa ▁am ▁ 2 2 ... (+18 more)	28
16k	▁mar l boro ▁county . ▁obgruafa ▁am ▁ 2 2 ... (+18 more)	28
32k	▁marl boro ▁county . ▁obgruafa ▁am ▁ 2 2 . ... (+17 more)	27
64k	▁marlboro ▁county . ▁obgruafa ▁am ▁ 2 2 . ▁feba ... (+16 more)	26

Sample 3: Hill County is a County in Montana in da USA. Beleg Im Netz in Montana

Vocab	Tokens	Count
8k	▁hill ▁county ▁is ▁a ▁county ▁in ▁montana ▁in ▁da ▁usa ... (+6 more)	16
16k	▁hill ▁county ▁is ▁a ▁county ▁in ▁montana ▁in ▁da ▁usa ... (+6 more)	16
32k	▁hill ▁county ▁is ▁a ▁county ▁in ▁montana ▁in ▁da ▁usa ... (+6 more)	16
64k	▁hill ▁county ▁is ▁a ▁county ▁in ▁montana ▁in ▁da ▁usa ... (+6 more)	16

Key Findings

• Best Compression: 64k achieves 4.003x compression
• Lowest UNK Rate: 8k with 0.0430% 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	27,199	14.73	109,780	13.0%	31.5%
2-gram	Subword	361 🏆	8.50	7,796	60.7%	98.3%
3-gram	Word	40,782	15.32	128,747	12.7%	26.6%
3-gram	Subword	3,796	11.89	62,893	20.6%	60.9%
4-gram	Word	56,976	15.80	186,218	13.7%	25.1%
4-gram	Subword	27,410	14.74	362,482	9.1%	28.4%
5-gram	Word	38,882	15.25	130,277	15.7%	28.0%
5-gram	Subword	124,788	16.93	1,153,187	4.9%	16.5%

Top 5 N-grams by Size

2-grams (Word):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	vo da	26,508
2	is a	22,819
3	in da	22,392
4	im netz	14,484
5	vo de	13,424

3-grams (Word):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	beleg im netz	3,530
2	in da usa	3,478
3	da beziak hod	2,393
4	im netz in	2,005
5	sitz vo da	1,888

4-grams (Word):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	beleg im netz in	1,575
2	da sitz vo da	1,482
3	is a county in	1,429
4	in da usa da	1,407
5	a katastralgmoa in da	1,387

5-grams (Word):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	flächn ausgwiesn gwesn ende woarn	1,385
2	hektar ois laundwiatschoftliche flächn gnutzt	1,385
3	forstwirtschaftli gnutzte flächn ausgwiesn gwesn	1,385
4	hektar sand ois forstwirtschaftli gnutzte	1,385
5	ois laundwiatschoftliche flächn gnutzt und	1,385

2-grams (Subword):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	n _	701,951
2	a _	667,528
3	c h	636,525
4	_ d	557,323
5	e _	479,658

3-grams (Subword):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	s c h	303,728
2	_ d e	253,515
3	_ d a	172,902
4	n d _	169,557
5	u n d	168,298

4-grams (Subword):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	_ d a _	132,086
2	_ d e _	130,374
3	u n d _	127,939
4	_ u n d	119,950
5	i s c h	99,379

5-grams (Subword):

Rank	N-gram	Count
1	_ u n d _	118,720
2	_ v o _ d	44,559
3	_ i n _ d	37,539
4	i s c h e	33,643
5	_ d e s _	31,011

Key Findings

• Best Perplexity: 2-gram (subword) with 361
• Entropy Trend: Decreases with larger n-grams (more predictable)
• Coverage: Top-1000 patterns cover ~17% 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	0.7076	1.633	5.17	567,851	29.2%
1	Subword	0.9427	1.922	6.61	3,387	5.7%
2	Word	0.2111	1.158	1.52	2,930,161	78.9%
2	Subword	0.9146	1.885	5.83	22,370	8.5%
3	Word	0.0663	1.047	1.11	4,443,260	93.4%
3	Subword	0.8673	1.824	4.66	130,496	13.3%
4	Word	0.0224 🏆	1.016	1.04	4,937,652	97.8%
4	Subword	0.7772	1.714	3.53	608,299	22.3%

Generated Text Samples (Word-based)

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

Context Size 1:

1. de gepidn und bbö 178 bukit tinggi 72 canon triplex a 7 hz ws touro college
2. da effentlichn stroßn am 9 verletzter blick af de gebietskeapaschoftn in bayern gwen dem meearesspia...
3. und alfonso cuarón timothy j nö öbb infra öbb pv tullnerfelder bahn rengschbuach grünthal geografie ...

Context Size 2:

1. vo da blaa oim aussa und entschdengan seine wichdigstn litararischn weak da voda vo da gmoa kirchham
2. is a kuaza a1 kuaza mit klima b launga und zwoa enklkinda da hoeneß uli z bad
3. in da katastralgmoa dobranberg zsammgrechnt 84 bauflächn mit 44 633 m und 58 gärten auf 135 526

Context Size 3:

1. in da usa beleg im netz in virginia
2. beleg im netz in missouri
3. da beziak hod 39 451 eihwohna da sitz vo da vawoitung is leoti da beziak hod 12 786

Context Size 4:

1. beleg im netz in nebraska
2. da sitz vo da kroasvawoitung vo oanign landkroas liegt außahoib vom landkroas oft in da namasgleichn...
3. is a county in wisconsin in da usa beleg im netz in der emilia romagna des europapreises

Generated Text Samples (Subword-based)

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

Context Size 1:

1. _w.adaiwenieurio
2. a_lidovicröniser
3. e_hmbrkum_runís_

Context Size 2:

1. n_fc_rein_wieforo
2. a_da_oschofferkea
3. chr_koi'seybunds_

Context Size 3:

1. schburyan_no_san_d
2. _dem_scusdecentisc
3. _daument_in_und_zu

Context Size 4:

1. _da_letztn_de_ameri
2. _de_marekd_om_auf_1
3. und_botta_200+_maß_

Key Findings

• Best Predictability: Context-4 (word) with 97.8% predictability
• Branching Factor: Decreases with context size (more deterministic)
• Memory Trade-off: Larger contexts require more storage (608,299 contexts)
• Recommendation: Context-3 or Context-4 for text generation

---

4. Vocabulary Analysis

Statistics

Metric	Value
Vocabulary Size	212,365
Total Tokens	5,339,853
Mean Frequency	25.14
Median Frequency	3
Frequency Std Dev	712.67

Most Common Words

Rank	Word	Frequency
1	de	136,913
2	da	136,168
3	und	119,185
4	in	101,699
5	a	92,218
6	vo	91,584
7	is	86,664
8	im	70,677
9	des	33,854
10	hod	30,719

Least Common Words (from vocabulary)

Rank	Word	Frequency
1	mechanisches	2
2	stabilisierungssystem	2
3	voeffentlecht	2
4	innpuls	2
5	buagstej	2
6	nuwenburg	2
7	kulturweges	2
8	spessartprojektes	2
9	terrassnfermig	2
10	tuamhigi	2

Zipf's Law Analysis

Metric	Value
Zipf Coefficient	0.9730
R² (Goodness of Fit)	0.999444
Adherence Quality	excellent

Coverage Analysis

Top N Words	Coverage
Top 100	34.1%
Top 1,000	55.0%
Top 5,000	70.0%
Top 10,000	76.7%

Key Findings

• Zipf Compliance: R²=0.9994 indicates excellent adherence to Zipf's law
• High Frequency Dominance: Top 100 words cover 34.1% of corpus
• Long Tail: 202,365 words needed for remaining 23.3% 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	0.8296	0.3402	N/A	N/A
mono_64d	64	0.8410	0.2581	N/A	N/A
mono_128d	128	0.8432 🏆	0.1737	N/A	N/A
aligned_32d	32	0.8296	0.3341	0.0920	0.3960
aligned_64d	64	0.8410	0.2543	0.1940	0.6020
aligned_128d	128	0.8432	0.1862	0.2860	0.6780

Key Findings

• Best Isotropy: mono_128d with 0.8432 (more uniform distribution)
• Semantic Density: Average pairwise similarity of 0.2578. Lower values indicate better semantic separation.
• Alignment Quality: Aligned models achieve up to 28.6% 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

Metric	Value	Interpretation	Recommendation
Productivity Index	5.000	High morphological productivity	Reliable analysis
Idiomaticity Gap	0.694	High 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

Prefix	Examples
-sc	scharmbeck, schitznvaein, schiaf
-sch	scharmbeck, schitznvaein, schiaf

Productive Suffixes

Suffix	Examples
-n	şabran, unterwestern, weidesdn
-en	metallen, theologen, münzen
-ng	wondering, pisang, umwondlung
-er	gräberfelder, eichenauer, weydenhammer
-ch	hoierschbouch, weißabgleich, obergreutschach
-ung	umwondlung, auflösung, ausbroadung

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
ster	2.00x	209 contexts	aster, ester, stern
schl	1.77x	287 contexts	eschl, ischl, schlau
schr	1.99x	137 contexts	schrit, schrim, schreg
gsch	1.77x	181 contexts	gschai, gschdö, gschmo
uach	1.99x	99 contexts	buach, huach, suach
itsc	2.19x	64 contexts	gitsch, nitsch, kitsch
icht	1.54x	345 contexts	eicht, wicht, richt
atio	2.26x	45 contexts	ratio, natio, nation
nisc	1.77x	126 contexts	nisch, nischn, nischt
reic	1.78x	97 contexts	reich, reichd, reichl
chof	2.07x	50 contexts	schof, schoft, schofn
tion	1.73x	93 contexts	tione, aktion, notion

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
-sc	-n	52 words	schbondan, schbüün
-sc	-er	16 words	schatzgräber, schweinsteiger
-sc	-en	13 words	schlampen, screven
-sc	-ng	11 words	schädlbedeckung, schraubvabindung
-sc	-ch	10 words	scharlach, schbruch
-sc	-ung	4 words	schädlbedeckung, schraubvabindung

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
schnitzen	sch-nitz-en	6.0	nitz
enthaltenen	enthalt-en-en	6.0	enthalt
schwensen	sch-wens-en	6.0	wens
herrnhausen	herrnhaus-en	4.5	herrnhaus
schrottenberg	sch-rottenberg	4.5	rottenberg
heaschafamülien	heaschafamüli-en	4.5	heaschafamüli
fawoitung	fawoit-ung	4.5	fawoit
regulären	regulär-en	4.5	regulär
leitmeritzer	leitmeritz-er	4.5	leitmeritz
jungfrauen	jungfrau-en	4.5	jungfrau
gespenster	gespenst-er	4.5	gespenst
dynastien	dynasti-en	4.5	dynasti
referenten	referent-en	4.5	referent
birkenhainer	birkenhain-er	4.5	birkenhain
rettersheimer	rettersheim-er	4.5	rettersheim

6.6 Linguistic Interpretation

Automated Insight: The language Bavarian 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

Production Recommendations

Component	Recommended	Rationale
Tokenizer	64k BPE	Best compression (4.00x)
N-gram	2-gram	Lowest perplexity (361)
Markov	Context-4	Highest predictability (97.8%)
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: 2026-01-03 19:01:37