How Non-Linguistic Is the Indus Sign System? A Synthetic-Baseline Scorecard

Statistical regularities are routinely offered as evidence that undeciphered sign systems encode language; the Indus script debate is the canonical example. Any such inference rests on specificity: the reported outcome must be unusual among plausible structured non-languages. We test that premise constructively with SIGIL, a purpose-built generative emblem system whose 3,000-text core corpus carries explicit compositional meanings although no sign has a phonological value. A literature registry compiled in advance of evaluation records 54 methods and admits a method to exact scoring when both the published Indus outcome and a source-defined decision rule can be reproduced. SIGIL receives the same category as the Indus corpus on every criterion scored this way, across repetition, directional-asymmetry, and lexical-distribution tests. Declared reconstructions of entropy, frequency, positional, predictive, classifier, and network measures reproduce the familiar Indus-like signatures as well. A sequential decipherment stress test then reaches high dictionary coverage for English, Sanskrit, and Tamil on the same corpus, while grouped held-out declines and unstable keys reveal how little that coverage identifies. The construction does not decide what the Indus signs encode: it shows that the evaluated measures detect organization without being specific to language, and therefore cannot, on their own, establish encoded speech.

More than a billion people communicate in Indic languages, yet the natural language processing infrastructure serving them remains fragmented and underdeveloped. The cause is structural: the field organizes its tools and benchmarks around individual languages or small subsets of genealogical language families, building separate analyzers, parsers, and datasets for each language and starting over for the next. This overlooks a deep regularity. Through more than two millennia of convergence around Sanskrit, Indic languages came to share a morphosyntactic architecture formalized in Pānini's grammar, the Astādhyāyī. This cuts across genealogical lines, uniting languages through a common framework. We argue that this Pāninian framework supplies a unifying computational architecture the field has lacked, and that benchmarks grounded explicitly in it would make Indic language systems more accurate, more data-efficient, and more transferable, effectively merging many apparently disparate and sparse Indic language resources into a single high-resource metalanguage bedrock. We propose a four-part benchmark suite to render this shared architecture explicit, measurable, and ready to be leveraged for practical applications. Moreover, we underscore the question it raises for interpretability research: whether neural models trained on these languages come to represent Pānini's categories on their own.

Standard text-to-speech (TTS) evaluation measures intelligibility (WER, CER) and overall naturalness (MOS, UTMOS) but does not quantify accent. A synthesiser may score well on all four yet sound non-native on features that are phonemic in the target language. For Indic languages, these features include retroflex articulation, aspiration, vowel length, and the Tamil retroflex approximant (letter zha). We present PSP, the Phoneme Substitution Profile, an interpretable, per-phonological-dimension accent benchmark for Indic TTS. PSP decomposes accent into six complementary dimensions: retroflex collapse rate (RR), aspiration fidelity (AF), vowel-length fidelity (LF), Tamil-zha fidelity (ZF), Frechet Audio Distance (FAD), and prosodic signature divergence (PSD). The first four are measured via forced alignment plus native-speaker-centroid acoustic probes over Wav2Vec2-XLS-R layer-9 embeddings; the latter two are corpus-level distributional distances. In this v1 we benchmark four commercial and open-source systems (ElevenLabs v3, Cartesia Sonic-3, Sarvam Bulbul, Indic Parler-TTS) on Hindi, Telugu, and Tamil pilot sets, with a fifth system (Praxy Voice) included on all three languages, plus an R5->R6 case study on Telugu. Three findings: (i) retroflex collapse grows monotonically with phonological difficulty Hindi < Telugu < Tamil (~1%, ~40%, ~68%); (ii) PSP ordering diverges from WER ordering -- commercial WER-leaders do not uniformly lead on retroflex or prosodic fidelity; (iii) no single system is Pareto-optimal across all six dimensions. We release native reference centroids (500 clips per language), 1000-clip embeddings for FAD, 500-clip prosodic feature matrices for PSD, 300-utterance golden sets per language, scoring code under MIT, and centroids under CC-BY. Formal MOS-correlation is deferred to v2; v1 reports five internal-consistency signals plus a native-audio sanity check.