Fig 1.
Repertoire of 96 Cypro-Minoan syllabograms and their classification in three sub-corpora according to Olivier [5].
Fig 2.
Incoherent classification of signs 070, 087 and 092 vis-a-vis 088, 089, 090 in [5] (after [3]).
Fig 3.
Distribution of CM signs in our dataset according to archaeological site.
Table 1.
Number of attestations for the 15 most frequent signs in the dataset.
Table 2.
Number of attestations for the 10 most frequent sign trigrams in the dataset.
Fig 4.
DeepCluster structure [32].
Fig 5.
Sign2Vecd (signs drawn after [5]).
Fig 6.
Separation of CM signs from clay tablets (in green) and signs found in other types of inscription (in red) in the 3D scatter plot.
Fig 7.
Separation of a CM grapheme in two groups in the 3D scatter plot.
Example of sign 097.
Fig 8.
Example of sign with incoherent label (reading) in the editions of CM [5]: The sign marked with a contour has been transcribed as 049, even though its shape is consistent with 052.
Such cases were tested for correction by means of a non-parametric Mann–Whitney U-test.
Fig 9.
On the left: The paleographic vector (red) was first calculated from the difference vector (black) between centroids of signs from clay tablets and centroids of signs from other documents.
On the right: the vector was applied to find a missing correspondence between signs shapes from the same two sets.
Fig 10.
32 consensual signs attested both in the Other and Tablets subsets.
Table 3.
Application of the paleographic vector to consensual graphemes using both DeepClusterv2 and Sign2Vecd.
Fig 11.
Pairs of CM1 (left column) / CM2 (right column) signs in complementary distribution and hypothesized as variants of the same grapheme.
Fig 12.
Pairs comprised of a shape attested only in CM1 (left column) and a shape attested in all sub-corpora (right column), hypothesized as variants of the same grapheme [3].