Pith. sign in

REVIEW 68 references

Graph Network for Sign Language Tasks

T0 review · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read MixSignGraph, with local, temporal, and hierarchical graph modules plus text-driven CTC pretraining, achieves state-of-the-art results on multiple sign language recognition and translation benchmarks.

arxiv 2504.12020 v2 pith:P7VDFHGW submitted 2025-04-16 cs.CV

Shiwei Gan , Yafeng Yin , Zhiwei Jiang , Hongkai Wen , Lei Xie , Sanglu Lu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords signfeatureslanguagemodulegraphtasksfocusingmodel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Sign language videos are hard for standard AI vision systems, which are designed to recognize objects like cats or chairs. Sign language meaning is carried by small, fast-moving details: hands, face, body, and how these move together. This paper's model, MixSignGraph, turns each video frame into a graph of small image patches, like dots on a map. It then connects the dots in three ways: within a frame to link related regions (for example, a hand and the face), between consecutive frames to track motion of those regions, and across different zoom levels so fine details and overall shape of a region can inform each other. This graph structure lets the model focus on sign-relevant interactions that ordinary neural networks may miss. The paper also tackles the problem of translating sign language without expensive word-by-word gloss annotations. The authors propose using the final translated sentence itself to create rough pseudo glosses: they clean the text, remove punctuation, reduce words to root forms, and use that as a training target for a preliminary recognition step. This simple step, called TCP, significantly improves translation quality on several datasets, especially when no gloss labels exist. The model is tested on five public sign language datasets. On the smaller datasets it sets new state-of-the-art numbers. On the largest datasets, however, the authors did not run the full graph model, using instead simpler video features, so the most impressive scale-up claims rest on a different backbone.
Extended reading notes

Core claim

MixSignGraph, with its three sign graph modules (LSG, TSG, HSG), achieves superior performance on sign language recognition and translation tasks across five public datasets, surpassing SOTA models without relying on any additional cues, and the Text-driven CTC Pre-training (TCP) method substantially improves gloss-free SLT, bridging the gap with gloss-based models.

Load-bearing premise

The TCP mechanism assumes that CTC pretraining with pseudo glosses derived from text labels (by removing punctuation, lemmatization, and tokenization) provides a useful weak tokenization signal for the backbone, even though the alignment between video and spoken sentence is non-monotonic. This assumption appears in Section III-D2 (The principle of TCP) and is essential to the claimed gloss-free SLT improvements. If this weak tokenization hypothesis is false, the large ROUGE/BLEU gains from TCP would not materialize; the authors themselves note difficulty in CTC loss convergence on large vocabularies (Section VI).

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The free parameters are primarily KNN neighbor counts, patch sizes, and module counts, all tuned on the dev set. The key domain assumptions are that graph-based cross-region aggregation captures sign-relevant features and that the TCP pseudo-gloss signal is beneficial.

free parameters (6)
  • K1_l, K2_l = 3, 4
    Number of nearest neighbors in LSG modules; tuned on PHOENIX14T dev set (Section IV-C4, Fig. 8).
  • K1_t, K2_t = 49, 49
    Number of top node pairs in TSG modules; tuned on PHOENIX14T dev set (Section IV-C4, Fig. 8).
  • Patch size = 16 (two stages 16->32)
    Patch size chosen based on ablation (Table Vd); 16 gives best WER.
  • Number of stages = 2
    Two LSG/TSG/HSG modules chosen based on ablation (Table Ve); 2 stages beats 3 and 4.
  • Distance function = Euclidean
    Chosen over cosine and Chebyshev based on dev WER (Table Vb).
  • Graph convolution layer = EdgeConv
    Chosen over GAT, SAGE, GCN based on dev WER (Table Vc).
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Standard graph convolution and KNN operations preserve and aggregate features effectively.
    Assumed throughout; EdgeConv is a known layer.
  • domain assumption Sign-related features can be captured by cross-region edges between patches in a frame and across adjacent frames.
    This is the core design hypothesis for LSG and TSG; stated in Section I and III-B.
  • domain assumption Text-derived pseudo glosses provide useful weak supervision for CTC pretraining of video backbones.
    Assumed in TCP; the paper provides t-SNE visualizations as qualitative support, but no quantitative proof. Section III-D2.
  • domain assumption The downloaded dataset versions are close enough to official versions for fair comparison.
    Authors note datasets may slightly differ (Table I note); all comparisons rely on this.
  • domain assumption Performance on validation set is a reliable guide for choosing hyperparameters and for final test performance.
    Hyperparameters selected on dev set; this is standard but implicit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Graph Network for Sign Language Tasks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P7VDFHGW

@misc{pith2026250412020,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Graph Network for Sign Language Tasks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P7VDFHGW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.12020}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advances in sign language research have benefited from CNN-based backbones, which are primarily transferred from traditional computer vision tasks (\eg object identification, image recognition). However, these CNN-based backbones usually excel at extracting features like contours and texture, but may struggle with capturing sign-related features. In fact, sign language tasks require focusing on sign-related regions, including the collaboration between different regions (\eg left hand region and right hand region) and the effective content in a single region. To capture such region-related features, we introduce MixSignGraph, which represents sign sequences as a group of mixed graphs and designs the following three graph modules for feature extraction, \ie Local Sign Graph (LSG) module, Temporal Sign Graph (TSG) module and Hierarchical Sign Graph (HSG) module. Specifically, the LSG module learns the correlation of intra-frame cross-region features within one frame, \ie focusing on spatial features. The TSG module tracks the interaction of inter-frame cross-region features among adjacent frames, \ie focusing on temporal features. The HSG module aggregates the same-region features from different-granularity feature maps of a frame, \ie focusing on hierarchical features. In addition, to further improve the performance of sign language tasks without gloss annotations, we propose a simple yet counter-intuitive Text-driven CTC Pre-training (TCP) method, which generates pseudo gloss labels from text labels for model pre-training. Extensive experiments conducted on current five public sign language datasets demonstrate the superior performance of the proposed model. Notably, our model surpasses the SOTA models on multiple sign language tasks across several datasets, without relying on any additional cues.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.12020 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Left) Comparison of feature extraction between CNNs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The proposed SignGraph architecture. The order of LSG, TSG, HSG is just an example, and the order can be changed. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Graph construction in temporal sign graph module. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Graph construction in hierarchical sign graph module. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of feature distribution of one test sample [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Effects of Kl and Kt. model and 0.00001 for the translation model. The learning rate is reduced by a factor of 0.5 at the 20th and the 30th epoches. The batch size is set to 6. The CTC loss is applied after both 1D convolution blocks and the fully connected layer as th…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visualization of graph construction: LSG and T SG modules (LSG1 and T SG1 in the first row, LSG2 and T SG2 in the second row) are in the left part, HSG module is in the right part. The graph in LSG, T SG and HSG module is shown in yellow, blue and green, respectively. …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hand-model-aware sign language recogni- tion,

    H. Hu, W. Zhou, and H. Li, “Hand-model-aware sign language recogni- tion,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 35, 2021, pp. 1558–1566. 1

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Visual alignment constraint for continuous sign language recognition,

    Y . Min, A. Hao, X. Chai, and X. Chen, “Visual alignment constraint for continuous sign language recognition,” in ICCV, 2021, pp. 11 542– 11 551. 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 12

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Improving continuous sign language recognition with cross-lingual signs,

    F. Wei and Y . Chen, “Improving continuous sign language recognition with cross-lingual signs,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 23 612–23 621. 1, 3, 12

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Signgraph: A sign sequence is worth graphs of nodes,

    S. Gan, Y . Yin, Z. Jiang, H. Wen, L. Xie, and S. Lu, “Signgraph: A sign sequence is worth graphs of nodes,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 13 470–13 479. 1, 2, 5, 7

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Neural sign language translation,

    N. C. Camgoz, S. Hadfield, O. Koller, H. Ney, and R. Bowden, “Neural sign language translation,” in CVPR, 2018, pp. 7784–7793. 1, 3, 7, 9, 13

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Contrastive learning for sign language recognition and translation,

    S. Gan, Y . Yin, Z. Jiang, K. Xia, L. Xie, and S. Lu, “Contrastive learning for sign language recognition and translation,” in Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-23, 2023, pp. 763–772. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 12, 13

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Two-stream network for sign language recognition and translation,

    Y . Chen, R. Zuo, F. Wei, Y . Wu, S. Liu, and B. Mak, “Two-stream network for sign language recognition and translation,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 35, pp. 17 043–17 056,

    work page

  8. [8]

    Sign language translation from instructional videos,

    L. Tarr ´es, G. I. G ´allego, A. Duarte, J. Torres, and X. Gir ´o-i Nieto, “Sign language translation from instructional videos,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 5624–5634. 1, 8, 13

    work page 2023

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Skeleton-aware neural sign language translation,

    S. Gan, Y . Yin, Z. Jiang, L. Xie, and S. Lu, “Skeleton-aware neural sign language translation,” in MM, 2021, pp. 4353–4361. 1, 2, 3, 9

    2021

  2. [10]

    Spatial-temporal multi-cue network for sign language recognition and translation,

    H. Zhou, W. Zhou, Y . Zhou, and H. Li, “Spatial-temporal multi-cue network for sign language recognition and translation,” TMM, 2021. 1, 2, 13

    2021

  3. [11]

    Imagenet-trained cnns are biased towards texture; in- creasing shape bias improves accuracy and robustness,

    R. Geirhos, P. Rubisch, C. Michaelis, M. Bethge, F. A. Wichmann, and W. Brendel, “Imagenet-trained cnns are biased towards texture; in- creasing shape bias improves accuracy and robustness,” in International Conference on Learning Representations , 2019. 1, 2

    2019

  4. [12]

    Spatial-temporal multi-cue network for continuous sign language recognition

    H. Zhou, W. Zhou, Y . Zhou, and H. Li, “Spatial-temporal multi-cue network for continuous sign language recognition.” in AAAI, 2020. 1, 12

    2020

  5. [13]

    Towards real-time sign language recognition and translation on edge devices,

    S. Gan, Y . Yin, Z. Jiang, L. Xie, and S. Lu, “Towards real-time sign language recognition and translation on edge devices,” in Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia , 2023, pp. 4502–4512. 1, 2, 12, 13

    2023

  6. [14]

    Deep high-resolution representation learning for visual recognition,

    J. Wang, K. Sun, T. Cheng, B. Jiang, C. Deng, Y . Zhao, D. Liu, Y . Mu, M. Tan, X. Wang et al. , “Deep high-resolution representation learning for visual recognition,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , vol. 43, no. 10, pp. 3349–3364, 2020. 2

    2020

  7. [15]

    Graph-based multimodal sequential embedding for sign language translation,

    S. Tang, D. Guo, R. Hong, and M. Wang, “Graph-based multimodal sequential embedding for sign language translation,” TMM, 2021. 2

    2021

  8. [16]

    Improving sign language translation with monolingual data by sign back-translation,

    H. Zhou, W. Zhou, W. Qi, J. Pu, and H. Li, “Improving sign language translation with monolingual data by sign back-translation,” in CVPR, 2021, pp. 1316–1325. 2, 3, 7, 12, 13

    2021

  9. [17]

    Boosting continuous sign language recognition via cross modality augmentation,

    J. Pu, W. Zhou, H. Hu, and H. Li, “Boosting continuous sign language recognition via cross modality augmentation,” in MM, 2020, pp. 1497–

    2020

  10. [18]

    A simple multi-modality transfer learning baseline for sign language translation,

    Y . Chen, F. Wei, X. Sun, Z. Wu, and S. Lin, “A simple multi-modality transfer learning baseline for sign language translation,” in CVPR, 2022, pp. 5120–5130. 2, 3, 5, 13

    2022

  11. [19]

    Self-mutual distillation learning for continuous sign language recognition,

    A. Hao, Y . Min, and X. Chen, “Self-mutual distillation learning for continuous sign language recognition,” in ICCV, 2021, pp. 11 303– 11 312. 2, 3, 12

    2021

  12. [20]

    Gloss attention for gloss-free sign language translation,

    A. Yin, T. Zhong, L. Tang, W. Jin, T. Jin, and Z. Zhao, “Gloss attention for gloss-free sign language translation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 2551–2562. 2, 3, 13, 14

    2023

  13. [21]

    Gloss-free sign language translation: Improving from visual- language pretraining,

    B. Zhou, Z. Chen, A. Clap ´es, J. Wan, Y . Liang, S. Escalera, Z. Lei, and D. Zhang, “Gloss-free sign language translation: Improving from visual- language pretraining,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 20 871–20 881. 2, 3, 13

    2023

  14. [22]

    How2sign: a large-scale multi- modal dataset for continuous american sign language,

    A. Duarte, S. Palaskar, L. Ventura, D. Ghadiyaram, K. DeHaan, F. Metze, J. Torres, and X. Giro-i Nieto, “How2sign: a large-scale multi- modal dataset for continuous american sign language,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2...

    2021

  15. [23]

    Open-domain sign language translation learned from online video,

    B. Shi, D. Brentari, G. Shakhnarovich, and K. Livescu, “Open-domain sign language translation learned from online video,” in Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2022, pp. 6365–6379. 2, 7, 14

    2022

  16. [24]

    Re-sign: Re-aligned end-to-end sequence modelling with deep recurrent cnn-hmms,

    O. Koller, S. Zargaran, and H. Ney, “Re-sign: Re-aligned end-to-end sequence modelling with deep recurrent cnn-hmms,” in CVPR, 2017, pp. 4297–4305. 2

    2017

  17. [25]

    Multi-channel transformers for multi-articulatory sign language translation,

    N. C. Camgoz, O. Koller, S. Hadfield, and R. Bowden, “Multi-channel transformers for multi-articulatory sign language translation,” in ECCV. Springer, 2020, pp. 301–319. 2

    2020

  18. [26]

    Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks,

    S. Ren, K. He, R. Girshick, and J. Sun, “Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1137–1149,

  19. [27]

    C2slr: Consistency-enhanced continuous sign language recognition,

    R. Zuo and B. Mak, “C2slr: Consistency-enhanced continuous sign language recognition,” in CVPR, 2022, pp. 5131–5140. 2, 12

    2022

  20. [28]

    Realtime multi-person 2d pose estimation using part affinity fields,

    Z. Cao, T. Simon, S.-E. Wei, and Y . Sheikh, “Realtime multi-person 2d pose estimation using part affinity fields,” in CVPR, 2017, pp. 7291–

    2017

  21. [29]

    Deep high-resolution represen- tation learning for human pose estimation,

    K. Sun, B. Xiao, D. Liu, and J. Wang, “Deep high-resolution represen- tation learning for human pose estimation,” in CVPR, 2019, pp. 5693–

    2019

  22. [30]

    Sign2gpt: Leveraging large language models for gloss-free sign language translation,

    R. Wong, N. C. Camgoz, and R. Bowden, “Sign2gpt: Leveraging large language models for gloss-free sign language translation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.04164, 2024. 3, 13

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Weakly supervised learning with multi-stream cnn-lstm-hmms to discover sequential paral- lelism in sign language videos,

    O. Koller, C. Camgoz, H. Ney, and R. Bowden, “Weakly supervised learning with multi-stream cnn-lstm-hmms to discover sequential paral- lelism in sign language videos,” TPAMI, 2019. 3

    2019

  24. [32]

    Multilingual denoising pre-training for neural machine translation,

    Y . Liu, J. Gu, N. Goyal, X. Li, S. Edunov, M. Ghazvininejad, M. Lewis, and L. Zettlemoyer, “Multilingual denoising pre-training for neural machine translation,” Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, vol. 8, pp. 726–742, 2020. 3, 6

    2020

  25. [33]

    Language models are unsupervised multitask learners,

    A. Radford, J. Wu, R. Child, D. Luan, D. Amodei, I. Sutskever et al., “Language models are unsupervised multitask learners,” OpenAI blog , vol. 1, no. 8, p. 9, 2019. 3, 13

    2019

  26. [34]

    Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks,

    T. N. Kipf and M. Welling, “Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907 , 2016. 3, 9, 10

    2016 arXiv

  27. [35]

    A simple yet effective baseline for non-attributed graph classification,

    C. Cai and Y . Wang, “A simple yet effective baseline for non-attributed graph classification,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.03508 , 2018. 3

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Deep graph kernels,

    P. Yanardag and S. Vishwanathan, “Deep graph kernels,” in Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining , ser. KDD ’15. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2015, p. 1365–1374. [Online]. Available: https:...

    2015

  29. [37]

    Structure-activity relationship of mutagenic aromatic and heteroaromatic nitro compounds. correlation with molecular orbital energies and hydrophobicity,

    A. K. Debnath, R. L. Lopez de Compadre, G. Debnath, A. J. Shusterman, and C. Hansch, “Structure-activity relationship of mutagenic aromatic and heteroaromatic nitro compounds. correlation with molecular orbital energies and hydrophobicity,” Journal of medicinal chemistry , vol...

    1991

  30. [38]

    Spatial temporal graph convolutional networks for skeleton-based action recognition,

    S. Yan, Y . Xiong, and D. Lin, “Spatial temporal graph convolutional networks for skeleton-based action recognition,” in AAAI, 2018. 3

    2018

  31. [39]

    Sign language translation with hierarchical spatio-temporal graph neural network,

    J. Kan, K. Hu, M. Hagenbuchner, A. C. Tsoi, M. Bennamoun, and Z. Wang, “Sign language translation with hierarchical spatio-temporal graph neural network,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Con- ference on Applications of Computer Vision , 2022, pp. 3367–3376. 3, 12

    2022

  32. [40]

    Signbert+: Hand-model-aware self-supervised pre-training for sign language understanding,

    H. Hu, W. Zhao, W. Zhou, and H. Li, “Signbert+: Hand-model-aware self-supervised pre-training for sign language understanding,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 2023. 3

    2023

  33. [41]

    Spatio-temporal graph convolutional networks for continuous sign language recognition,

    M. Parelli, K. Papadimitriou, G. Potamianos, G. Pavlakos, and P. Mara- gos, “Spatio-temporal graph convolutional networks for continuous sign language recognition,” in ICASSP. IEEE, 2022. 3

    2022

  34. [42]

    Cosign: Explor- ing co-occurrence signals in skeleton-based continuous sign language recognition,

    P. Jiao, Y . Min, Y . Li, X. Wang, L. Lei, and X. Chen, “Cosign: Explor- ing co-occurrence signals in skeleton-based continuous sign language recognition,” in ICCV, 2023, pp. 20 676–20 686. 3, 12

    2023

  35. [43]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,

    A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weissenborn, X. Zhai, T. Unterthiner, M. Dehghani, M. Minderer, G. Heigold, S. Gelly et al., “An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,” in International Conference on Learning Representations , 2020...

    2020

  36. [44]

    Vision gnn: An image is worth graph of nodes,

    K. Han, Y . Wang, J. Guo, Y . Tang, and E. Wu, “Vision gnn: An image is worth graph of nodes,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 35, pp. 8291–8303, 2022. 3, 4, 9, 10

    2022

  37. [45]

    Connection- ist temporal classification: labelling unsegmented sequence data with recurrent neural networks,

    A. Graves, S. Fern ´andez, F. Gomez, and J. Schmidhuber, “Connection- ist temporal classification: labelling unsegmented sequence data with recurrent neural networks,” in ICML, 2006, pp. 369–376. 4

    2006

  38. [46]

    Cvt: Introducing convolutions to vision transformers,

    H. Wu, B. Xiao, N. Codella, M. Liu, X. Dai, L. Yuan, and L. Zhang, “Cvt: Introducing convolutions to vision transformers,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , 2021, pp. 22–31. 4, 8

    2021

  39. [47]

    Tackling over- smoothing for general graph convolutional networks,

    W. Huang, Y . Rong, T. Xu, F. Sun, and J. Huang, “Tackling over- smoothing for general graph convolutional networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.09864, 2020. 5

    2008 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows,

    Z. Liu, Y . Lin, Y . Cao, H. Hu, Y . Wei, Z. Zhang, S. Lin, and B. Guo, “Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2021, pp. 10 012–10 022. 5, 9, 10

    2021

  41. [49]

    Visualizing data using t-sne

    L. Van der Maaten and G. Hinton, “Visualizing data using t-sne.” Journal of machine learning research , vol. 9, no. 11, 2008. 6

    2008

  42. [50]

    SentencePiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for neural text processing,

    T. Kudo and J. Richardson, “SentencePiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for neural text processing,” in Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations , E. Blanco and W. Lu, E...

    2018

  43. [51]

    Continuous sign language recogni- tion: Towards large vocabulary statistical recognition systems handling multiple signers,

    O. Koller, J. Forster, and H. Ney, “Continuous sign language recogni- tion: Towards large vocabulary statistical recognition systems handling multiple signers,” CVIU, vol. 141, pp. 108–125, Dec. 2015. 7

    2015

  44. [52]

    Early convolutions help transformers see better,

    T. Xiao, M. Singh, E. Mintun, T. Darrell, P. Doll ´ar, and R. Girshick, “Early convolutions help transformers see better,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 34, pp. 30 392–30 400, 2021. 8, 10

    2021

  45. [53]

    Dynamic graph cnn for learning on point clouds,

    Y . Wang, Y . Sun, Z. Liu, S. E. Sarma, M. M. Bronstein, and J. M. Solomon, “Dynamic graph cnn for learning on point clouds,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (tog), vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 1–12, 2019. 8, 9, 10

    2019

  46. [54]

    Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries,

    C.-Y . Lin, “Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries,” in Text summarization branches out , 2004, pp. 74–81. 9

    2004

  47. [55]

    Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation,

    K. Papineni, S. Roukos, T. Ward, and W.-J. Zhu, “Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation,” in ACL, 2002, pp. 311–

    2002

  48. [56]

    A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations,

    T. Chen, S. Kornblith, M. Norouzi, and G. Hinton, “A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations,” in ICML. PMLR, 2020, pp. 1597–1607. 9

    2020

  49. [57]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,” in NIPS, 2017, pp. 5998–6008. 9, 10

    2017

  50. [58]

    How attentive are graph attention networks?

    S. Brody, U. Alon, and E. Yahav, “How attentive are graph attention networks?” arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.14491 , 2021. 9, 10

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Inductive representation learning on large graphs,

    W. Hamilton, Z. Ying, and J. Leskovec, “Inductive representation learning on large graphs,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 30, 2017. 9, 10

    2017

  52. [60]

    Dropedge: Towards deep graph convolutional networks on node classification,

    Y . Rong, W. Huang, T. Xu, and J. Huang, “Dropedge: Towards deep graph convolutional networks on node classification,” in International Conference on Learning Representations , 2020. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=Hkx1qkrKPr 9, 11

    2020

  53. [61]

    Sign language transformers: Joint end-to-end sign language recognition and transla- tion,

    N. C. Camgoz, O. Koller, S. Hadfield, and R. Bowden, “Sign language transformers: Joint end-to-end sign language recognition and transla- tion,” in CVPR, 2020, pp. 10 023–10 033. 12, 13

    2020

  54. [62]

    Continuous sign language recognition with correlation network,

    L. Hu, L. Gao, Z. Liu, and W. Feng, “Continuous sign language recognition with correlation network,” in CVPR, 2023, pp. 2529–2539. 12

    2023

  55. [63]

    Fully convolutional networks for continuous sign language recognition,

    K. L. Cheng, Z. Yang, Q. Chen, and Y .-W. Tai, “Fully convolutional networks for continuous sign language recognition,” inECCV. Springer,

  56. [64]

    Better sign language translation with STMC- transformer,

    K. Yin and J. Read, “Better sign language translation with STMC- transformer,” in COLING, Barcelona, Spain (Online), Dec. 2020, pp. 5975–5989. [Online]. Available: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/ 2020.coling-main.525 13

    2020

  57. [65]

    Tspnet: Hierarchical feature learning via temporal semantic pyramid for sign language translation,

    D. Li, C. Xu, X. Yu, K. Zhang, B. Swift, H. Suominen, and H. Li, “Tspnet: Hierarchical feature learning via temporal semantic pyramid for sign language translation,” in NIPS, vol. 33, 2020. 13

    2020

  58. [66]

    Conditional sentence generation and cross-modal reranking for sign language transla- tion,

    J. Zhao, W. Qi, W. Zhou, N. Duan, M. Zhou, and H. Li, “Conditional sentence generation and cross-modal reranking for sign language transla- tion,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia , vol. 24, pp. 2662–2672, 2021. 13

    2021

  59. [67]

    Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision,

    M. Oquab, T. Darcet, T. Moutakanni, H. V o, M. Szafraniec, V . Khalidov, P. Fernandez, D. Haziza, F. Massa, A. El-Nouby et al. , “Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision,” Transactions on Machine Learning Research Journal , pp. 1–31, 2024. 13 Shiwei Gan (St...

    2024

  60. [2022]

    1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.