Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 67 references

AzSLD: Azerbaijani Sign Language Dataset for Fingerspelling, Word, and Sentence Translation with Baseline Software

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper introduces AzSLD, a 30,000-video Azerbaijani Sign Language dataset with frame-aligned word and sentence annotations, positioned as the first AI-oriented resource for the language.

desk verdict A genuinely useful low-resource sign language dataset that needs a clean second pass on its own numbers and some annotation validation before benchmarking claims hold. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12865 v2 pith:G6QUOX6B submitted 2024-11-19 cs.CL

Nigar Alishzade , Jamaladdin Hasanov This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords AzerbaijaniSignLanguagedatasetrecognitiontranslationfingerspellingframe-levelannotationlow-resourcevideo
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

AzSLD is a newly released video dataset for Azerbaijani Sign Language, built from recordings by 43 signers and totaling about 65 hours. The paper's central claim is that this is the first resource for the language made with AI purposes in mind, containing fingerspelling data, word-level videos, and sentence-level videos with time-aligned gloss labels. The sentence component consists of 500 sentences recorded from two camera angles, annotated so each sign is mapped to the frames where it occurs, which is what makes the data usable for both recognition and translation. The authors also provide a data loader that standardizes preprocessing, label encoding, and train/test splitting. A sympathetic reader should take the contribution to be the existence of the resource itself — publicly released, consent-cleared, and documented — rather than a new model result.

What carries the argument

The object carrying the argument is AzSLD itself, structured as three components: fingerspelling, words, and sentences. The load-bearing design choices are frame-level alignment, dual-camera capture, and a configurable data loader. In the sentence component, each label is tied to the exact video frames where the sign appears, letting downstream models do sign-boundary detection and learn temporal structure rather than treating each video as one undifferentiated clip. The two camera angles are intended as complementary views, so a sign hidden from the front may be visible from the side. The data loader extracts a fixed number of frames, resizes them to 224x224 pixels, converts categorical labels to one-hot vectors, and splits data 80/20 into training and testing sets, which is the mechanism that turns raw video into a usable benchmark.

What would settle it

Take a random sample of about 50 sentence videos, have native Azerbaijani Sign Language signers who were not part of the original annotation process independently re-annotate the labels and frame boundaries, and compare; if label mismatches or boundary disagreements are frequent, the claim of accurate and reliable annotations fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that AzSLD is the first dataset purpose-built for Azerbaijani Sign Language AI work, and that its annotation design supports isolated and continuous recognition as well as translation. In the paper's own summary table the dataset contains 30,312 videos: 10,864 images for the 24 statically expressed fingerspelling letters, 3,587 videos for the 8 dynamically expressed letters, 100 word classes drawn from the most frequent labels in the sentence set, and 500 sentences performed by 18 to 25 of the 43 participants. Every sentence video is captured from a frontal and a side camera, and each comes with a JSON annotation file that aligns every gloss label to its start and end frames; 687 unique labels appear across the sentence set. The authors state that all contributors gave informed consent and that the dataset is released publicly with documentation and source code. If the claim is right, researchers now have a documented, ready-to-load benchmark for a sign language that previously had no AI-oriented public resource.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the human annotations — the sign labels and the frame alignments — are accurate and consistent enough to serve as ground truth for training and evaluation, and the paper itself concedes that inter-annotator agreement metrics were not exhaustively documented.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Isolated sign recognition, fingerspelling recognition, sentence-level translation, and sign-boundary detection can be trained and evaluated on Azerbaijani Sign Language data for the first time.
  • The frame-aligned sentence annotations let researchers study how individual sign tokens combine into sentence-level translations, and compare temporal placement of the same label across different signers.
  • The dual-camera capture gives models a second, complementary view that can recover signs occluded in the frontal view.
  • The standardized data loader lowers the barrier to using the dataset and makes results across teams more directly comparable.
  • Because recording happened in a controlled laboratory setting, models trained on AzSLD are expected to need fine-tuning before deployment in naturalistic settings, as the paper's limitations section concedes.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • I infer that the sentence component's vocabulary, built around social service interactions, makes AzSLD a targeted record of a specific register of Azerbaijani Sign Language rather than a general-language corpus.
  • I infer that because inter-annotator agreement was not exhaustively documented, downstream users should re-validate a random sample of frame alignments before trusting model outputs; the paper itself lists this as a limitation.
  • I infer that a useful test the authors did not run is cross-view evaluation — training on one camera and testing on the other — to measure how much the two angles contribute independently.
  • I infer that if AzSLD becomes a benchmark, the most informative early baselines will be cross-lingual transfer from geographically or typologically related sign language datasets, a comparison the paper does not provide.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces AzSLD, a dataset for Azerbaijani Sign Language (AzSL) that comprises three components: fingerspelling (static images and dynamic videos for the 32-letter Azerbaijani alphabet), isolated word videos for the 100 most frequent words in the sentence corpus, and sentence-level videos recorded from two camera views with frame-level, time-aligned gloss annotations. The dataset is released on Zenodo with a companion data loader on GitHub. The paper describes the collection setup, annotation workflow via the Supervisely tool, ethical consent, and limitations, and positions AzSLD as the first AI-oriented resource for Azerbaijani Sign Language.

Significance. If the dataset is as described, AzSLD fills a clear gap for a low-resource sign language and offers a multi-view, time-aligned, sentence-level resource that could support sign recognition, translation, and linguistic research. The public release under CC-BY, the inclusion of a data loader, and the explicit attention to FATE/ethics are commendable and align with best practices for dataset papers. However, the manuscript currently contains internal inconsistencies in the reported statistics and does not provide sufficient evidence for the claimed frame-level annotation accuracy, so the dataset's actual contents and reliability cannot be fully verified from the paper alone.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1 and Table 1] The total dataset size is stated as 30,000 videos in the abstract, 30,312 videos in Table 1, and 'approximately 65 hours' in the introduction versus 65.2 hours in Table 1. More critically, the paper never breaks down the total into the three components (fingerspelling videos, word videos, sentence videos). Without explicit per-component counts, the reader cannot verify whether the sum is consistent. Please provide exact counts for each component, including the number of unique sentence videos, the number of camera views, and the number of samples per word class, so the total reconciles.
  2. [Section 3.1 and Table 2] The text reports 10,864 images and 3,587 videos for the fingerspelling component, summing to 14,451, but the per-letter counts in Table 2 sum to 14,453. This small discrepancy should be reconciled. In addition, Table 2 does not indicate which letters are static (image) and which are dynamic (video), so the image/video split cannot be cross-checked against the table. Please add this distinction or clarify the classification of each letter.
  3. [Section 3.2 and Section 4] The paper's core value proposition is the frame-level, time-aligned annotation of the sentence videos, yet Section 4 explicitly acknowledges that inter-annotator agreement metrics and consistency checks 'were not exhaustively detailed.' Since the dataset is the primary contribution, this is load-bearing: without any evidence about annotation reliability, the claim of 'meticulously annotated' and 'accurate sign labels' is not supported. Please provide a concrete annotation-quality check, such as agreement statistics on a double-annotated subset, a description of how disagreements were resolved, or at least a worked example showing actual start/end frame numbers from a JSON annotation file for one sentence.
  4. [Introduction and Section 3.1] The paper claims AzSLD is 'the first resource for Azerbaijani Sign Language with AI purposes,' but reference [54] already describes an AzSL dactyl-alphabet dataset and a word recognition system. The authors even cite [54] for the fingerspelling component. This undermines the novelty claim unless the paper clarifies exactly what new content AzSLD provides beyond [54]. Please state the relationship between the two resources and what is newly released in AzSLD.
  5. [Section 3.2] The number of signers is reported inconsistently: Section 3.2 says the dataset was developed by '42 DHH individuals who are native users of AzSLD, one CODA,' then later mentions '40 participants involved in the project,' and elsewhere states that 'Each sentence was recorded by at least 18 of the 40 participants' while Section 3.1 says the sentence videos were performed by '18 to 25 different signers.' These figures need to be unified so the reader understands the actual signer pool and the per-sentence signer counts.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Data availability and reference [24]] The Zenodo DOI is given as 10.5281/ZENODO.13627301 in reference [24] and as zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.13627300 in the Data availability statement; please ensure the correct DOI is used consistently.
  2. [Table 1] The language entry 'Chenese SL' appears to be a typo for 'Chinese SL'.
  3. [Section 3.1 and Section 3.2] There are several typos: 'staticly' should be 'statically', 'letteres' should be 'letters', and 'mactivity' appears in the description of the camera views and should likely be 'activity'.
  4. [Figures 2 and 3] Figures 2 and 3 are referenced without descriptive captions in the text; please add clear captions and axis labels so the reader knows what is plotted (e.g., histogram of frame lengths, histogram of word counts per sentence).
  5. [Section 3.4] The data loader description states that labels are extracted from directory names, but for the sentence-level component the labels are stored in JSON annotation files; please clarify how the loader handles this difference or whether the sentence-level data require a separate loading path.
  6. [Section 3.1] The AzSLD Words component is described as having 100 classes but no sample counts are given; please provide a link to a file listing the word classes and their counts, or include a summary table in the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reasoning: AzSLD is an external dataset artifact; the paper's claims are descriptive, not derived from fitted parameters or self-referential equations, and the flagged limitations are verification issues, not circularity.

full rationale

AzSLD is a dataset resource paper, not a derivation: there are no fitted parameters, no predictive equations, and no result that is equivalent by construction to its inputs. The dataset is an externally hosted artifact with a Zenodo DOI [24] and a separate public loader [25], so the central claim is about existence and composition rather than about a quantity derived from the paper's own assumptions. The word-level partition is described as 'the top 100 most frequent words observed within the sentences of the AzSLD Sentences dataset' (Section 3.1); this is a corpus-design choice, not a circular inference, because the labels are human annotations collected independently of the paper's evaluative claims. The fingerspelling component is 'described in detail in [54]', a prior publication by the same authors; that is a citation to an external, published dataset, and while it complicates the 'first resource' novelty claim, it does not make any argument reduce to itself. Section 4 explicitly flags that 'inter-annotator agreement metrics and consistency checks are essential but were not exhaustively detailed in this dataset'; this, together with the abstract's '30,000 videos' versus Table 1's '30,312' and the 'approximately 65 hours' versus Table 1's '65.2', is a verification and correctness concern, not a circular-reasoning concern. No circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes a dataset, not a theoretical model, so the ledger mostly contains domain assumptions about data quality and representativeness rather than fitted parameters or invented entities. No free parameters are used because there is no mathematical model being fit.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The 500 sentences, composed with social service workers and reviewed by Deaf community members, are representative enough of everyday AzSL to serve as the dataset's vocabulary base.
    Section 3.2 states the sentences were suggested and reviewed by stakeholders, but no coverage or representativeness metric is given.
  • domain assumption Sign labels and frame alignments produced by fluent signers and the Supervisely tool are accurate ground truth.
    Section 3.1 asserts accurate annotations; Section 4 admits inter-annotator agreement was not exhaustively measured.
  • domain assumption The two-camera setup captures all necessary visual information for recognition, including signs hidden from the frontal view.
    Section 3.1 states the two views are complementary, but no occlusion analysis is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AzSLD: Azerbaijani Sign Language Dataset for Fingerspelling, Word, and Sentence Translation with Baseline Software." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G6QUOX6B

@misc{pith2026241112865,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AzSLD: Azerbaijani Sign Language Dataset for Fingerspelling, Word, and Sentence Translation with Baseline Software},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G6QUOX6B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12865}
}
read the original abstract

Sign language processing technology development relies on extensive and reliable datasets, instructions, and ethical guidelines. We present a comprehensive Azerbaijani Sign Language Dataset (AzSLD) collected from diverse sign language users and linguistic parameters to facilitate advancements in sign recognition and translation systems and support the local sign language community. The dataset was created within the framework of a vision-based AzSL translation project. This study introduces the dataset as a summary of the fingerspelling alphabet and sentence- and word-level sign language datasets. The dataset was collected from signers of different ages, genders, and signing styles, with videos recorded from two camera angles to capture each sign in full detail. This approach ensures robust training and evaluation of gesture recognition models. AzSLD contains 30,000 videos, each carefully annotated with accurate sign labels and corresponding linguistic translations. The dataset is accompanied by technical documentation and source code to facilitate its use in training and testing. This dataset offers a valuable resource of labeled data for researchers and developers working on sign language recognition, translation, or synthesis. Ethical guidelines were strictly followed throughout the project, with all participants providing informed consent for collecting, publishing, and using the data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12865 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of the video screens captured by the frontal and the side [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Total frame numbers of large-lexicon signing videos [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Variety of word counts in large-lexicon signing videos [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Frame numbers of top 10 most frequent labels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Isolated word distribution within videos of a sentence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [54]

    Hasanov, N

    J. Hasanov, N. Alishzade, A. Nazimzade, S. Dadashzade, T. Tahirov, Development of a hybrid word recognition system and dataset for the azerbaijani sign language dactyl alphabet, Speech Communica- tion (2023) 102960 doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2023. 102960. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0167639323000948

    work page doi:10.1016/j.specom.2023 2023

  2. [1]

    KASAPBAŞI, A

    A. KASAPBAŞI, A. E. A. ELBUSHRA, O. AL-HARDANEE, A. YIL- MAZ, DeepASLR: A CNN based human computer interface for American Sign Language recognition for hearing-impaired individuals, Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine Update 2 (2022) 100048. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpbup.2021.100048. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S...

    arXiv 2022

  3. [2]

    Y. Du, P. Xie, M. Wang, X. Hu, Z. Zhao, J. Liu, Full transformer network with masking future for word-level sign language recognition, Neurocomputing 500 (2022) 115–123. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2022.05.051. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0925231222006178

    doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2022.05.051 2022

  4. [3]

    Musthafa, C

    N. Musthafa, C. G. Raji, Real time Indian sign language recognition sys- tem (2022). doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.03.011. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S2214785322013013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.matpr.2022.03.011 2022

  5. [4]

    D. A. Kumar, A. Sastry, P. V. V. Kishore, E. K. Kumar, 3D sign lan- guage recognition using spatio temporal graph kernels, Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences 34 (2) (2022) 143–152. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2018.11.008. 17 N. Alishzade and J. Hasanov Azerbaijani Sign Language Dataset URL https://www.sciencedirec...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jksuci.2018.11.008 2022

  6. [5]

    H. Chao, W. Fenhua, Z. Ran, Sign language recognition based on cbam- resnet, in: Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Ar- tificial Intelligence and Advanced Manufacturing, AIAM 2019, Asso- ciation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2019. doi: 10.1145/3358331.3358379. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3358331.3358379

    work page arXiv 2019

  7. [6]

    S. Das, M. S. Imtiaz, N. H. Neom, N. Siddique, H. Wang, A hybrid approach for Bangla sign language recognition us- ing deep transfer learning model with random forest classi- fier, Expert Systems with Applications 213 (2023) 118914. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118914. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0957417422019327

    arXiv 2023

  8. [7]

    Katoch, V

    S. Katoch, V. Singh, U. S. Tiwary, Indian sign language recognition system using SURF with SVM and CNN, Array 14 (2022) 100141.doi: 10.1016/j.array.2022.100141. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.array.2022.100141

    arXiv 2022

Show all 67 references
  1. [8]

    Rastgoo, K

    R. Rastgoo, K. Kiani, S. Escalera, Real-time isolated hand sign lan- guage recognition using deep networks and SVD, Journal of Ambi- ent Intelligence and Humanized Computing 13 (1) (2021) 591–611. doi:10.1007/s12652-021-02920-8. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-021-02920-8

    2021 doi

  2. [9]

    M. Ying, X. Tianpei, K. Kangchul, Two-Stream Mixed Convolutional Neural Network for American Sign Language Recognition, Sensors 22 (16) (2022). doi:10.3390/s22165959. URL https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/22/16/5959

    2022 doi

  3. [10]

    Imran, A

    A. Imran, A. Razzaq, I. A. Baig, A. Hussain, S. Shahid, T.- u. Rehman, Dataset of Pakistan Sign Language and Auto- matic Recognition of Hand Configuration of Urdu Alphabet through Machine Learning, Data in Brief 36 (2021) 107021. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2021.107021. ...

    2021

  4. [11]

    Z. Hao, S. Yixiang, L. Zenghui, L. Qiyuan, L. Xiyao, J. Ming, S. Gerald, F. Hui, Heterogeneous attention based transformer for sign language translation, Applied Soft Computing 144 (2023) 110526. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110526. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com...

    2023

  5. [12]

    G. Z. de Castro, R. R. Guerra, F. G. Guimarães, Automatic translation of sign language with multi-stream 3D CNN and generation of artificial depth maps, Expert Systems with Applications 215 (2023) 119394. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.119394. URL https://www.scienced...

    2023

  6. [13]

    S. Gan, Y. Yin, Z. Jiang, L. Xie, S. Lu, Skeleton-aware neural sign language translation, in: Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference onMultimedia, MM ’21, Association for Computing Machin- ery, New York, NY, USA, 2021, p. 4353–4361.doi:10.1145/3474085. 3475577. U...

    2021

  7. [14]

    J. Tao, Z. Zhou, Contrastive disentangled meta-learning for signer- independent sign language translation, in: Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, MM ’21, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2021, p. 5065–5073. doi:10.1145/34...

    2021

  8. [15]

    J. Tao, Z. Zhou, Z. Meng, Z. Xingshan, Mc-slt: Towards low-resource signer-adaptive sign language translation, in: Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, MM ’22, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2022, p. 4939–4947. doi:10.114...

    2022

  9. [16]

    X. Li, S. Yang, H. Guo, Application of virtual human sign language translation based on speech recognition, Speech Communication 152 (2023) 102951. doi:10.1016/j.specom.2023.06.001. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2023.06.001 19 N. Alishzade and J. Hasanov Azerbaijani Sig...

    2023 doi

  10. [17]

    Tejaswini, S

    A. Tejaswini, S. Priyanshu, C. Akash, S. Akhil, L. Brian, P. Joseph, W. Andre, K. Nikunj, S. Shagan, S. Thomastine, P. Raymond, N. Ifeoma, Deep Learning Methods for Sign Language Translation, ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing 14 (2021) 1–30. doi: 10.1145/3477498

    2021 doi

  11. [18]

    B. G. Gebre, O. Crasborn, P. Wittenburg, S. Drude, T. Heskes, Un- supervised feature learning for visual sign language identification, in: K. Toutanova, H. Wu (Eds.), Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Pa- p...

    2014 doi

  12. [19]

    Mathieu, S

    C. Mathieu, S. Dimitar, V. Mieke, D. J, Machine translation from signed to spoken languages: state of the art and challenges, Uni- versal Access in the Information Society (2023) 1–27 doi:10.1007/ s10209-023-00992-1

    2023

  13. [20]

    Forster, D

    J. Forster, D. Stein, E. Ormel, O. Crasborn, H. Ney, Best practice for sign language data collections regarding the needs of data-driven recognition and translation, Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Corpora and Sign Langua...

    2010

  14. [21]

    A. L. Berez-Kroeker, B. McDonnell, E. Koller, L. B. Collister (Eds.), The Open Handbook of Linguistic Data Management, The MIT Press,

  15. [22]

    Carol, O

    N. Carol, O. Augustine, M. Dimitris, Asl video corpora and sign bank: Resources available through the american sign language linguistic re- search project (asllrp) (2022).doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2201.07899. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.07899

    2022 doi arXiv

  16. [23]

    Crasborn, Managing data in sign language corpora, in: The Open Handbook of Linguistic Data Management, The MIT Press, 2022, pp

    O. Crasborn, Managing data in sign language corpora, in: The Open Handbook of Linguistic Data Management, The MIT Press, 2022, pp. 463–470. doi:10.7551/mitpress/12200.003.0044. URL https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/12200.003.0044 20 N. Alishzade and J. Hasanov Azerbaijani Sign ...

    2022 doi

  17. [24]

    Alishzade, J

    N. Alishzade, J. Hasanov, Azsld - azerbaijani sign language dataset (2023). doi:10.5281/ZENODO.13627301. URL https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.13627301

    2023 doi

  18. [25]

    Hasanov, A data loader code for azsl, https://github.com/ ADA-SITE-JML/azsl_dataloader (2023)

    J. Hasanov, A data loader code for azsl, https://github.com/ ADA-SITE-JML/azsl_dataloader (2023)

    2023

  19. [26]

    N. Tran, R. E. Ladner, D. Bragg, U.s. deaf community perspectives on automatic sign language translation, in: Proceedings of the 25th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Acces- sibility, ASSETS ’23, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 20...

    2023

  20. [27]

    M. Kopf, M. Schulder, T. Hanke, The sign language dataset com- pendium: Creating an overview of digital linguistic resources, in: E. Efthimiou, S.-E. Fotinea, T. Hanke, J. A. Hochgesang, J. Kristof- fersen, J. Mesch, M. Schulder (Eds.), Proceedings of the LREC2022 10thWorkshop...

    2022

  21. [28]

    Desai, L

    A. Desai, L. Berger, F. O. Minakov, V. Milan, C. Singh, K. Pumphrey, R. E. Ladner, H. Daumé III, A. X. Lu, N. Caselli, D. Bragg, Asl citi- zen: A community-sourced dataset for advancing isolated sign language recognition, arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05934 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Starner, S

    T. Starner, S. Forbes, M. So, D. Martin, R. Sridhar, G. Deshpande, S. Sepah, S. Shahryar, K. Bhardwaj, T. Kwok, D. Sehgal, S. Hassan, B. Neubauer, S. A. Vempala, A. Tan, J. Heath, U. U. Kumar, P. V. Mosur, T.M.Hall, R.Singh, C.Z.Cui, G.Cameron, S.Dane, G.Tanzer, Popsign ASL v1...

    2023

  23. [30]

    J. R. Tasia, R. Rizauddin, Z. Zuliani, S. Nizaroyani, MyWSL: Malaysian words sign language dataset, Data in Brief 49 (2023) 109338. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2023.109338. 21 N. Alishzade and J. Hasanov Azerbaijani Sign Language Dataset URL https://www.sciencedirect.com...

    2023

  24. [31]

    David, T

    U. David, T. Garrett, G. Manfred, Youtube-asl: A large-scale, open- domain american sign language-english parallel corpus (2023). doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2306.15162. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.15162

    2023 doi arXiv

  25. [32]

    Kenza, S

    K. Kenza, S. Rachid, Alabib-65: A realistic dataset for algerian sign lan- guage recognition, ACM Trans. Asian Low-Resour. Lang. Inf. Process. 22 (6) (jun 2023).doi:10.1145/3596909. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3596909

    2023 doi

  26. [33]

    Alexander, K

    K. Alexander, K. Karina, N. Alexander, P. Elizaveta, Slovo: Russian sign language dataset (2023).doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2305.14527. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.14527

    2023 doi arXiv

  27. [34]

    Gueuwou, K

    S. Gueuwou, K. Takyi, M. Müller, M. S. Nyarko, R. Adade, R.-M. O. M. Gyening, Afrisign: Machine translation for african sign languages, in: 4th Workshop on African Natural Language Processing, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=EHldk3J2xk

    2023

  28. [35]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.15481

    B.P.Dal, R.Gastón, R.Franco, Q.Facundo, S.Oscar, H.Waldo, R.Ale- jandro, Lsa-t: The first continuous argentinian sign language dataset for sign language translation (2022).doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2211.15481. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.15481

    2022 doi arXiv

  29. [36]

    Bowen, B

    S. Bowen, B. Diane, S. Greg, L. Karen, Open-domain sign language translation learned from online video (2022). doi:10.48550/ARXIV. 2205.12870. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.12870

    2022 doi arXiv

  30. [37]

    Z. Hao, Z. Wengang, Q. Weizhen, P. Junfu, L. Houqiang, Improving signlanguagetranslationwithmonolingualdatabysignback-translation (2021). doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2105.12397. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.12397

    2021 doi arXiv

  31. [38]

    Mukushev, A

    M. Mukushev, A. Ubingazhibov, A. Kydyrbekova, A. Imashev, V. Kim- melman, A. Sandygulova, FluentSigners-50: A Signer Independent Benchmark Dataset for Sign Language Processing, Plos One (2022). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0273649. 22 N. Alishzade and J. Hasanov Azerbaijani Sign L...

    2022 doi

  32. [39]

    Jérôme, F

    F. Jérôme, F. Benoît, M. Laurence, C. Anthony, Lsfb-cont and lsfb-isol: Two new datasets for vision-based sign language recognition, in: 2021 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), 2021, pp. 1–8. doi:10.1109/IJCNN52387.2021.9534336

    2021

  33. [40]

    Amanda, P

    D. Amanda, P. Shruti, V. Lucas, G. Deepti, D. Kenneth, M. Florian, T. Jordi, G. i Nieto Xavier, How2sign: A large-scale multimodal dataset for continuous american sign language (2020). doi:10.48550/ARXIV. 2008.08143. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.08143

    2020 doi arXiv

  34. [41]

    Oğulcan, K

    Ö. Oğulcan, K. A. Alp, C. C. Necati, A. Lale, BosphorusSign22k sign language recognition dataset, in: Proceedings of the LREC2020 9th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Sign Language Resources in the Service of the Language Community, Technologica...

    2020

  35. [43]

    Samuel, V

    A. Samuel, V. Gül, M. Liliane, B. Hannah, A. Triantafyllos, C. Himel, F.Neil, W.Bencie, C.Rob, M.Andrew, Z.Andrew, BBC-OxfordBritish Sign Language Dataset, working paper or preprint (Jan. 2022). URL https://hal.science/hal-03516444

    2022

  36. [44]

    Hamid, K

    V. Hamid, K. Oscar, MS-ASL: A Large-Scale Data Set and Benchmark for Understanding American Sign Language, in: The British Machine Vision Conference (BMVC), 2019. URL https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/ ms-asl-a-large-scale-data-set-and-benchmark-for-understa...

    2019

  37. [45]

    Dongxu, O

    L. Dongxu, O. C. Rodriguez, Y. Xin, L. Hongdong, Word-level deep sign language recognition from video: A new large-scale dataset and methods comparison, in: 2020 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Com- puter Vision (WACV), 2020, pp. 1448–1458.doi:10.1109/WACV45572. 2020...

    2020

  38. [46]

    M. Ozge, K. Hacer, AUTSL: A Large Scale Multi-Modal Turkish Sign Language Dataset and Baseline Methods, IEEE Access 8 (2020) 181340– 181355. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3028072

    2020

  39. [47]

    S.-K. Ko, J. G. Son, H. Jung, Sign language recognition with recur- rent neural network using human keypoint detection, in: Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Research in Adaptive and Convergent Systems, RACS ’18, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2018...

    2018

  40. [48]

    Corpus: POLYTROPON Parallel Corpus | SL Data Compendium — sign-lang.uni-hamburg.de, https://www.sign-lang.uni-hamburg.de/ lr/compendium/corpus/polytroponcor.html, [Accessed 09-08-2023]

    2023

  41. [49]

    Alfarabi, M

    I. Alfarabi, M. Medet, K. Vadim, S. Anara, A Dataset for Linguistic Understanding, Visual Evaluation, and Recognition of Sign Languages: The K-RSL (2020). doi:10.18653/v1/2020.conll-1.51

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    S. Prem, N. Gokul, K. Pratyush, K. Mitesh, OpenHands: Making sign language recognition accessible with pose-based pretrained mod- els across languages, in: Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), Associat...

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    S. S, M. S, Survey on sign language recognition in context of vision- based and deep learning, Measurement: Sensors 23 (2022) 100385. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measen.2022.100385. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S2665917422000198

    2022

  44. [52]

    C. Zong, F. Xia, W. Li, R. Navigli (Eds.), Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), Association for Computational Linguistics, Onl...

    2021

  45. [53]

    Aloysius, G

    N. Aloysius, G. M, P. Nedungadi, Incorporating relative position in- formation in transformer-based sign language recognition and trans- lation, IEEE Access 9 (2021) 145929–145942. doi:10.1109/ACCESS. 2021.3122921

    2021

  46. [55]

    Shafizadegan, A

    F. Shafizadegan, A. R. Naghsh-Nilchi, E. Shabaninia, Multimodal vision-based human action recognition using deep learning: a re- view, Artificial Intelligence Review 57 (7) (Jun. 2024).doi:10.1007/ s10462-024-10730-5. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10462-024-10730-5

    2024 doi

  47. [56]

    URL https://docs.supervisely.com/

    Supervisely, unified os for computer vision. URL https://docs.supervisely.com/

  48. [57]

    Julie, Managing Sign Language Acquisition Video Data: A Personal Journey in the Organization and Representation of Signed Data, 2022, pp

    H. Julie, Managing Sign Language Acquisition Video Data: A Personal Journey in the Organization and Representation of Signed Data, 2022, pp. 367–384. doi:10.7551/mitpress/12200.003.0035

    2022 doi

  49. [58]

    Maria, S

    K. Maria, S. Marc, H. Thomas, The sign language dataset compendium: Creating an overview of digital linguistic resources, in: Proceedings of the LREC2022 10th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Multilingual Sign Language Resources, European Langua...

    2022

  50. [59]

    Maria, S

    K. Maria, S. Marc, H. Thomas, Overview of Datasets for the Sign Lan- guages of Europe (Jul. 2021).doi:10.25592/uhhfdm.9561. URL https://doi.org/10.25592/uhhfdm.9561

    2021 doi

  51. [60]

    C. N. Cihan, H. Simon, K. Oscar, N. Hermann, B. Richard, Neural sign language translation, in: 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2018, pp. 7784–7793. doi:10.1109/ CVPR.2018.00812. 25 N. Alishzade and J. Hasanov Azerbaijani Sign Language Dataset

    2018

  52. [61]

    L. Hou, R. Lepic, E. Wilkinson, Managing sign language video data collected from the internet, in: The Open Handbook of Linguistic Data Management, The MIT Press, 2022, pp. 471–480.doi:10.7551/ mitpress/12200.003.0045. URL https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/12200.003.0045

    2022 doi

  53. [62]

    Dasom, K

    A. Dasom, K. Sangwon, H. Hyunsu, K. B. Chul, Star-transformer: A spatio-temporal cross attention transformer for human action recogni- tion, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applica- tions of Computer Vision (WACV), 2023, pp. 3330–3339

    2023

  54. [63]

    Bragg, N

    D. Bragg, N. Caselli, J. A. Hochgesang, M. Huenerfauth, L. Katz- Hernandez, O. Koller, R. Kushalnagar, C. Vogler, R. E. Ladner, The fate landscape of sign language ai datasets: An interdisciplinary perspective, ACMTrans.Access.Comput.14(2)(Jul.2021). doi:10.1145/3436996. URL h...

    2021 doi

  55. [64]

    Desai, M

    A. Desai, M. D. Meulder, J. A. Hochgesang, A. Kocab, A. X. Lu, Sys- temic biases in sign language ai research: A deaf-led call to reevaluate research agendas (2024).arXiv:2403.02563. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.02563

    2024 arXiv

  56. [65]

    D. S. Mirella, V. Vincent, E. G. Santiago, D. C. Mathieu, S. Dimitar, S. Horacio, Challenges with sign language datasets for sign language recognition and translation, in: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, European Language Resources A...

    2022

  57. [66]

    GitHub-jeraldflowers/American-Sign-Language-TensorFlow, https:// github.com/jeraldflowers/American-Sign-Language-TensorFlow, [Accessed 20-11-2024]

    2024

  58. [67]

    — github.com, https://github.com/ sign-language-processing/datasets, [Accessed 20-11-2024]

    GitHub - sign-language-processing/datasets: TFDS data loaders for sign language datasets. — github.com, https://github.com/ sign-language-processing/datasets, [Accessed 20-11-2024]. 26

    2024

  59. [2022]

    URL https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/12200.001.0001

    doi:10.7551/mitpress/12200.001.0001. URL https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/12200.001.0001

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.