Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

DiffSLT: Enhancing Diversity in Sign Language Translation via Diffusion Model

T0 review · 3 major / 7 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 DiffSLT proposes casting sign language translation as conditional latent diffusion, generating multiple diverse candidate translations per video, and reports accuracy and diversity gains over previous gloss-free methods on two standard…

desk verdict First diffusion-based SLT paper with a sensible design, but test-set tuning and an apples-to-oranges diversity comparison put the headline numbers in doubt. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17248 v1 pith:OXT7UT5G submitted 2024-11-26 cs.CV

JiHwan Moon , Jihoon Park , Jungeun Kim , Jongseong Bae , Hyeongwoo Jeon , Ha Young Kim This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords signlanguagetranslationdiffusionmodeldiversegloss-freemachinelatentpseudo-glossMinimumBayesRiskdecodingGuidanceFusionModule
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

This paper tries to establish that translation diversity in sign language models is a core capability, not a side effect, and that a diffusion model can deliver it without gloss supervision. It introduces DiffSLT, a gloss-free sign language translation framework that denoises random noise into a sentence latent conditioned on video features, so one sign video can yield several different but semantically faithful spoken sentences. The authors report that DiffSLT and its pseudo-gloss variant DiffSLT-P outperform previous gloss-free methods on PHOENIX14T and CSL-Daily, and that DiffSLT raises diversity by over 36 percent relative to the gloss-based TS-SLT baseline. If true, this would give sign language translation systems the lexical and syntactic flexibility that neural machine translation already enjoys, without requiring expensive gloss annotations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a latent diffusion denoiser operating on text latents: a compression network encodes frozen LLM embeddings into a low-dimensional fixed-length latent, and a denoising network with self- and cross-attention blocks learns to remove noise from that latent conditioned on visual features. Two additions carry the argument: the Guidance Fusion Module, a small feed-forward network with early fusion and skip connections that concatenates frame-level features and video-level spatiotemporal features into one conditioning representation; and, for DiffSLT-P, a frozen off-the-shelf pseudo-gloss predictor whose text embeddings replace the frame-level features in that fusion. During inference, classifier-free guidance and a DDIM sampler with 30 steps generate candidate latents, and Minimum Bayes Risk decoding picks a final translation.

What would settle it

Run the diversity metrics with DiffSLT restricted to one random sample per video and let strong autoregressive baselines use stochastic decoding with the same number of candidates; if DiffSLT's diversity advantage largely disappears, the reported diversity gain is an artifact of sampling multiple candidates.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a latent diffusion model, previously used for text generation, can serve as a sign language translator: starting from Gaussian noise, the denoising network reconstructs a compressed sentence latent conditioned on multi-level spatiotemporal visual features from the video. Because inference begins from fresh random noise each time, the output distribution is broad instead of collapsed onto one high-frequency phrase. DiffSLT therefore produces multiple candidate translations per video, and Minimum Bayes Risk decoding selects among them. On PHOENIX14T and CSL-Daily, the authors report state-of-the-art BLEU-4 and ROUGE-L scores among gloss-free methods, with DiffSLT outperforming SignLLM by 2.54 BLEU-4 points on PHOENIX14T and 6.13 points on CSL-Daily, while diversity metrics improve by over 36 percent relative to the gloss-based TS-SLT. The pseudo-gloss variant DiffSLT-P trades some diversity for higher accuracy by conditioning on predicted glosses as well as visual features.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes that evaluating diversity on multiple sampled candidates for DiffSLT while baselines produce one deterministic sentence is an apples-to-apples comparison.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • DiffSLT can return multiple candidate translations for one sign video, allowing downstream systems to present options or rerank them for a specific user.
  • The reported gains over SignLLM and other gloss-free baselines imply that diffusion-based whole-sentence generation can close the accuracy gap with gloss-based methods without manual gloss annotation.
  • Because DiffSLT-P improves accuracy at a small diversity cost, pseudo-glosses act as a controllable constraint whose strength could be tuned for a given application.
  • The diversity metrics indicate that additional sampled candidates are not just noise; they concentrate around the same underlying meaning, which is what makes Minimum Bayes Risk selection work.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same latent-diffusion recipe should transfer to other low-resource sign languages, where gloss annotations are scarcer, because the method needs only video-sentence pairs for the visual encoder pretraining.
  • Editorial inference: the accuracy-diversity trade-off observed in DiffSLT-P suggests a practical dial, since controlling how strongly pseudo-glosses condition the denoiser could let a deployment tune output variety per use case.
  • Editorial inference: a fair comparison would give autoregressive baselines stochastic decoding with the same candidate budget; the paper's diversity evaluation gives DiffSLT multiple samples and baselines one, so part of the diversity gap is structurally guaranteed.
  • Editorial inference: current diversity metrics count n-gram distinctness, not human acceptability; a testable next step is human evaluation of whether each sampled candidate is a fluent, contextually acceptable translation, not merely a different string.
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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DiffSLT, a gloss-free sign language translation framework based on a latent diffusion model, together with a variant DiffSLT-P that additionally conditions on pseudo-glosses. The method encodes sign-language video into text-aligned visual features, fuses frame-level and video-level features with a Guidance Fusion Module, and denoises random latents into sentence representations. At inference, five candidates are sampled per video and Minimum Bayes Risk decoding selects one. The authors report state-of-the-art accuracy among gloss-free and weakly gloss-free methods on PHOENIX14T and CSL-Daily, and report diversity metrics (Diversity, Compression Ratio, Homogenization, Memorization, BERTScore) on which DiffSLT outperforms previous SLT models. The paper claims that this is the first diffusion-based SLT approach and that it improves both accuracy and diversity.

Significance. If confirmed, the main contribution is meaningful: introducing a latent diffusion model as a non-autoregressive, generative SLT decoder is a plausible way to obtain diverse candidate translations, and the reported accuracy gains over SignLLM are substantial. The paper also contains useful ablations of the Guidance Fusion Module, self-conditioning, sampling steps, CFG scale, and number of MBR candidates. However, the central diversity claim rests on a comparison that is not apples-to-apples, and the accuracy claims are weakened by test-set hyperparameter tuning. The work is therefore a credible candidate for publication only after these load-bearing issues are addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.1, Fig. 6] The diversity evaluation does not compare like with like. The inference protocol in §5.1 samples five candidate translations per video for DiffSLT and DiffSLT-P (used for MBR decoding), while each baseline contributes exactly one deterministic sentence per video. The diversity metrics in Fig. 6 — Diversity, Compression Ratio, Homogenization, and Memorization — are corpus-level statistics over the generated sentence set. If, as the text suggests, they are computed over the five-candidate set for DiffSLT, the comparison is confounded by a 5x difference in the number of sentences and by the presence of near-duplicate intra-video candidates. More sentences per video can inflate unique n-gram counts and alter the other corpus statistics independently of the model's underlying diversity. No stochastic decoding is run on the autoregressive baselines, so their diversity under sampling is never measured. The abstract's claim that DiffSLT and DiffSLT-P 'significantly improve diversity over previous gloss-free SLT methods' is therefore not yet established. Please report diversity metrics computed over a single random sample per video for DiffSLT, and also run stochastic decoding (temperature sampling or diverse beam search) on the autoregressive baselines with the same number of candidates per video.
  2. [§5.3, Fig. 7, Table 4, Table D.1] Hyperparameters were selected on the test set, which makes the reported test numbers optimistic. Section 5.3 states that all ablations are 'performed using our gloss-free model on the PHOENIX14T test set', and this includes the choice of CFG scale, number of sampling steps (Fig. 7), and number of MBR candidates (Table 4). The sampling schedule scale for DiffSLT and DiffSLT-P in supplementary Table D.1 appears to be selected by the same procedure. Using the test set for model selection invalidates the test scores as unbiased estimates and undermines the state-of-the-art accuracy claim. Hyperparameters should be selected on the development split, and the test set should be used only for the final evaluation.
  3. [Abstract; Tables 1 and 2] The unqualified state-of-the-art claim is not supported by the reported numbers. The abstract says the methods 'achieve state-of-the-art performance on two SLT datasets', but Tables 1 and 2 show that the gloss-based TS-SLT achieves higher BLEU-4 than DiffSLT on both datasets (28.95 vs. 25.94 on PHOENIX14T; 25.79 vs. 21.88 on CSL-Daily). The strongest defensible claim is state-of-the-art among gloss-free and weakly gloss-free methods, as stated more carefully in §5.2. The abstract and conclusion should be revised to make this qualification explicit and to avoid implying superiority over gloss-supervised models.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§5.1] The sentence 'For MBR decoding, we sample five candidate spoken sentences using the DDIM sampler with 30 timesteps with cosine scheduling' does not specify whether the diversity metrics in Fig. 6 are computed over all five candidates or over the single MBR-selected sentence per video; this must be stated explicitly.
  2. [Fig. 6] BERTScore is not a diversity metric; it measures semantic similarity to the ground truth. Including it in a figure labeled 'Evaluation results on diversity' is potentially misleading and should be relabeled or justified as a semantic-accuracy companion metric.
  3. [§4.2, Eq. (4)] The quantity λ_t in the diffusion loss is never defined; please define it or remove it from the equation.
  4. [Supplementary Table D.1] The values for sampling schedule scale and CFG scale are reported without stating the search range or selection criterion; please provide this information or cite the ablation that determined them.
  5. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption says DiffSLT generates multiple candidates and 'selecting the sentence closest to the ground truth', which describes oracle selection rather than the MBR decoding used in the main tables; please clarify the relationship between the figure and the actual inference protocol.
  6. [Supplementary Algorithm 1] The expression 'Qt s=1 αs' appears to be an unresolved rendering of the product symbol; please fix the notation.
  7. [§5.2] The observation that oracle scores are higher than MBR scores is an expected property of oracle selection rather than a substantive empirical finding; consider removing this sentence or rephrasing it as a ceiling analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's accuracy and diversity claims are empirical evaluations against external benchmarks and held-out ground truth, not derivations that reduce to their own inputs.

full rationale

I walked the paper's derivation chain and found no step in which a predicted quantity is defined through the model parameters, fitted values, or author-controlled citations. The central accuracy claims (Tables 1 and 2) are BLEU/ROUGE scores against held-out ground-truth sentences on PHOENIX14T and CSL-Daily, which are external benchmarks; no metric is defined in terms of the model's own training loss or latent variables. The diffusion objective (Eq. 4) is a standard L1 denoising loss, and the inference procedure (Eqs. 5-6) uses classifier-free guidance and MBR decoding; MBR selection is post-hoc and does not feed back into the training objective, so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction pattern. The diversity claims (Fig. 6) are corpus-level statistics computed on generated sentences; while the comparison gives DiffSLT five sampled candidates per video while baselines contribute one deterministic sentence, this is a measurement-protocol fairness issue rather than circularity, because the paper does not define diversity as a consequence of its own architecture or training loss, and it reports the same protocol transparently in Sec. 4.3 and Sec. 5.1. The method cites external prior work for its building blocks (latent diffusion [37], pseudo-gloss predictor [25], CFG [21], DDIM [50]); none of these citations is a self-citation, and none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the sole justification for the diversity claim. There is no equation in the paper where an output equals an input by construction, and no parameter is fitted to the diversity metric and then reported as a prediction of diversity. The mild concern about candidate multiplicity belongs in a correctness/fairness review, not a circularity finding, and it does not make the derivation self-referential.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model relies on standard supervised learning assumptions and on hyperparameters tuned during development. No fitted physical constants. The main free parameters are sampling and decoding hyperparameters (CFG scale, schedule scale, timesteps, candidate count), which were chosen via ablations reported on the PHOENIX14T test set, a methodological concern. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Classifier-free guidance scale = 1.5
    Selected via ablation on the PHOENIX14T test set (Fig. 7).
  • Sampling schedule scale = 0.1 (DiffSLT), 0.3 (DiffSLT-P)
    Set empirically; lower values concentrate noise at high levels, affecting conditioning utilization.
  • Number of diffusion timesteps = 30 (DiffSLT), 15 (DiffSLT-P)
    Chosen based on ablation; lower steps improve inference speed.
  • Number of MBR candidates = 5
    Ablation in Tab. 4 shows best BLEU-4 at 5 candidates; other numbers produce different tradeoffs.
  • Self-conditioning probability = 0.5
    Fixed at 0.5 during training; no ablation reported.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The sign video and its frame sequence contain enough information to recover the target spoken sentence.
    The entire SLT task assumes this; if the video lacks the information, no model can translate it.
  • domain assumption Text embeddings from the frozen MBart encoder and the compression-reconstruction autoencoder form a continuous latent space where L1 denoising can recover meaningful sentence representations.
    Relies on prior latent diffusion for language generation [37].
  • domain assumption Pseudo-glosses generated by the frozen CorrNet+ model are semantically aligned with the target language and provide useful conditioning.
    DiffSLT-P uses these predictions without retraining them.
  • ad hoc to paper Hyperparameters (CFG scale, sampling schedule, number of steps) chosen via ablations on the PHOENIX14T test set generalize to the test set itself.
    The paper's ablations in Sec 5.3 are performed directly on the test set, so the reported scores may be optimistic.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DiffSLT: Enhancing Diversity in Sign Language Translation via Diffusion Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OXT7UT5G

@misc{pith2026241117248,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DiffSLT: Enhancing Diversity in Sign Language Translation via Diffusion Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OXT7UT5G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17248}
}
read the original abstract

Sign language translation (SLT) is challenging, as it involves converting sign language videos into natural language. Previous studies have prioritized accuracy over diversity. However, diversity is crucial for handling lexical and syntactic ambiguities in machine translation, suggesting it could similarly benefit SLT. In this work, we propose DiffSLT, a novel gloss-free SLT framework that leverages a diffusion model, enabling diverse translations while preserving sign language semantics. DiffSLT transforms random noise into the target latent representation, conditioned on the visual features of input video. To enhance visual conditioning, we design Guidance Fusion Module, which fully utilizes the multi-level spatiotemporal information of the visual features. We also introduce DiffSLT-P, a DiffSLT variant that conditions on pseudo-glosses and visual features, providing key textual guidance and reducing the modality gap. As a result, DiffSLT and DiffSLT-P significantly improve diversity over previous gloss-free SLT methods and achieve state-of-the-art performance on two SLT datasets, thereby markedly improving translation quality.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17248 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Translation results on the PHOENIX14T [3]. DiffSLT generates multiple high-quality translations that are both diverse and accurate, selecting the sentence closest to the ground truth. In contrast, existing methods produce a single translation for a sign language video. Blue indicates a correct translation, purple represents an incorrect translation, and yellow denotes cases where different words with the same meanin… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of diversity scores and distributions of translated spoken sentences. Previous SLT models exhibit relatively low [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overall training framework of DiffSLT. Our training process consists of two phases: pretraining for diffusion and diffusion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of Guidance Fusion Module. GFM provides [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evaluation results on diversity. We report the diver [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Sampling strategy. We validate our sampling strategy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Exploring Pose-based Sign Language Translation: Ablation Studies and Attention Insights

    cs.CV 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Pose normalization based on the signer's signing space substantially improves gloss-free sign language translation with a T5 model, while interpolation and augmentation give smaller, less certain gains.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Layer normalization

    Jimmy Lei Ba. Layer normalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.06450, 2016. 4

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    Universal guidance for diffusion models

    Arpit Bansal, Hong-Min Chu, Avi Schwarzschild, Soumyadip Sengupta, Micah Goldblum, Jonas Geip- ing, and Tom Goldstein. Universal guidance for diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 843–852,

  3. [3]

    Neural sign language trans- lation

    Necati Cihan Camgoz, Simon Hadfield, Oscar Koller, Her- mann Ney, and Richard Bowden. Neural sign language trans- lation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2018. 1, 5, 6, 13, 14, 15

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Neural sign language trans- lation

    Necati Cihan Camgoz, Simon Hadfield, Oscar Koller, Her- mann Ney, and Richard Bowden. Neural sign language trans- lation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 7784–7793, 2018. 6

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Sign language transformers: Joint end-to- end sign language recognition and translation

    Necati Cihan Camgoz, Oscar Koller, Simon Hadfield, and Richard Bowden. Sign language transformers: Joint end-to- end sign language recognition and translation. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10023–10033, 2020. 6

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    On the importance of noise scheduling for diffu- sion models

    Ting Chen. On the importance of noise scheduling for diffu- sion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.10972, 2023. 13

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Analog bits: Generating discrete data using diffusion models with self-conditioning

    Ting Chen, Ruixiang Zhang, and Geoffrey Hinton. Analog bits: Generating discrete data using diffusion models with self-conditioning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.04202 , 2022. 5, 13

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

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

    Yutong Chen, Fangyun Wei, Xiao Sun, Zhirong Wu, and Stephen Lin. A simple multi-modality transfer learning baseline for sign language translation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5120–5130, 2022. 1, 6

    work page 2022

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Two-stream network for sign language recognition and translation

    Yutong Chen, Ronglai Zuo, Fangyun Wei, Yu Wu, Shujie Liu, and Brian Mak. Two-stream network for sign language recognition and translation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:17043–17056, 2022. 1, 6, 7

    2022

  2. [10]

    Factorized learn- ing assisted with large language model for gloss-free sign language translation

    Zhigang Chen, Benjia Zhou, Jun Li, Jun Wan, Zhen Lei, Ning Jiang, Quan Lu, and Guoqing Zhao. Factorized learn- ing assisted with large language model for gloss-free sign language translation. In Proceedings of the 2024 Joint In- ternational Conference on Computational Linguist...

    2024

  3. [11]

    Cfg++: Manifold-constrained clas- sifier free guidance for diffusion models

    Hyungjin Chung, Jeongsol Kim, Geon Yeong Park, Hyelin Nam, and Jong Chul Ye. Cfg++: Manifold-constrained clas- sifier free guidance for diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08070, 2024. 8

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Continuous diffusion for categorical data

    Sander Dieleman, Laurent Sartran, Arman Roshannai, Niko- lay Savinov, Yaroslav Ganin, Pierre H Richemond, Arnaud Doucet, Robin Strudel, Chris Dyer, Conor Durkan, et al. Continuous diffusion for categorical data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.15089, 2022. 2

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Speech recognition techniques for a sign language recognition system

    Philippe Dreuw, David Rybach, Thomas Deselaers, Morteza Zahedi, and Hermann Ney. Speech recognition techniques for a sign language recognition system. hand, 60:80, 2007. 1

    2007

  6. [14]

    A token-level contrastive framework for sign language translation

    Biao Fu, Peigen Ye, Liang Zhang, Pei Yu, Cong Hu, Xi- aodong Shi, and Yidong Chen. A token-level contrastive framework for sign language translation. In ICASSP 2023- 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1–5. IEEE, 2023. 6

    2023

  7. [15]

    Difformer: Empowering diffusion models on the embedding space for text generation

    Zhujin Gao, Junliang Guo, Xu Tan, Yongxin Zhu, Fang Zhang, Jiang Bian, and Linli Xu. Difformer: Empowering diffusion models on the embedding space for text generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09412, 2022. 2

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Minimum bayes-risk automatic speech recognition

    Vaibhava Goel and William J Byrne. Minimum bayes-risk automatic speech recognition. Computer Speech & Lan- guage, 14(2):115–135, 2000. 5

    2000

  9. [17]

    Llms are good sign language translators

    Jia Gong, Lin Geng Foo, Yixuan He, Hossein Rahmani, and Jun Liu. Llms are good sign language translators. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 18362–18372, 2024. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7

    2024

  10. [18]

    Diffuseq: Sequence to sequence text generation with diffusion models

    Shansan Gong, Mukai Li, Jiangtao Feng, Zhiyong Wu, and LingPeng Kong. Diffuseq: Sequence to sequence text generation with diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.08933, 2022. 2, 3, 8

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Sequence to sequence mixture model for diverse machine translation

    Xuanli He, Gholamreza Haffari, and Mohammad Norouzi. Sequence to sequence mixture model for diverse machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.07391, 2018. 2

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Gaussian error linear units (gelus)

    Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. Gaussian error linear units (gelus). arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.08415, 2016. 4

    2016 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Classifier-free diffusion guidance

    Jonathan Ho and Tim Salimans. Classifier-free diffusion guidance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.12598, 2022. 5, 13

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020. 2, 3, 7, 8

    2020

  15. [23]

    sim- ple diffusion: End-to-end diffusion for high resolution im- ages

    Emiel Hoogeboom, Jonathan Heek, and Tim Salimans. sim- ple diffusion: End-to-end diffusion for high resolution im- ages. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 13213–13232. PMLR, 2023. 13

    2023

  16. [24]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen- Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685, 2021. 5

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Corrnet+: Sign language recognition and translation via spatial-temporal correlation

    Lianyu Hu, Wei Feng, Liqing Gao, Zekang Liu, and Liang Wan. Corrnet+: Sign language recognition and translation via spatial-temporal correlation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11111, 2024. 4

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Noise2music: Text- conditioned music generation with diffusion models

    Qingqing Huang, Daniel S Park, Tao Wang, Timo I Denk, Andy Ly, Nanxin Chen, Zhengdong Zhang, Zhishuai Zhang, Jiahui Yu, Christian Frank, et al. Noise2music: Text- conditioned music generation with diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.03917, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Visual alignment pre-training for sign language translation

    Peiqi Jiao, Yuecong Min, and Xilin Chen. Visual alignment pre-training for sign language translation. In European Con- ference on Computer Vision, pages 349–367. Springer, 2025. 1, 2, 6

    2025

  20. [28]

    Prior knowledge and memory enriched transformer for sign lan- guage translation

    Tao Jin, Zhou Zhao, Meng Zhang, and Xingshan Zeng. Prior knowledge and memory enriched transformer for sign lan- guage translation. In Findings of the Association for Compu- 9 tational Linguistics: ACL 2022 , pages 3766–3775, 2022. 1, 6

    2022

  21. [29]

    Pyramidal flow matching for efficient video generative modeling

    Yang Jin, Zhicheng Sun, Ningyuan Li, Kun Xu, Hao Jiang, Nan Zhuang, Quzhe Huang, Yang Song, Yadong Mu, and Zhouchen Lin. Pyramidal flow matching for efficient video generative modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05954 ,

  22. [30]

    Minimum bayes-risk de- coding for statistical machine translation

    Shankar Kumar and Bill Byrne. Minimum bayes-risk de- coding for statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: HLT-NAACL 2004, pages 169–176, 2004. 5

    2004

  23. [31]

    Tspnet: Hier- archical feature learning via temporal semantic pyramid for sign language translation

    Dongxu Li, Chenchen Xu, Xin Yu, Kaihao Zhang, Benjamin Swift, Hanna Suominen, and Hongdong Li. Tspnet: Hier- archical feature learning via temporal semantic pyramid for sign language translation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:12034–12045, 2020. 1, 2, 6

    2020

  24. [32]

    A simple, fast diverse decoding algorithm for neural generation

    Jiwei Li, Will Monroe, and Dan Jurafsky. A simple, fast diverse decoding algorithm for neural generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.08562, 2016. 3

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Diffusion-lm improves control- lable text generation

    Xiang Li, John Thickstun, Ishaan Gulrajani, Percy S Liang, and Tatsunori B Hashimoto. Diffusion-lm improves control- lable text generation. Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, 35:4328–4343, 2022. 2, 7

    2022

  26. [34]

    Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries

    Chin-Yew Lin. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text summarization branches out , pages 74–81, 2004. 5, 7, 12

    2004

  27. [35]

    Multilingual denoising pre-training for neural ma- chine translation

    Y Liu. Multilingual denoising pre-training for neural ma- chine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08210 , 2020. 5, 12

    2001 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization

    I Loshchilov. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017. 13

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Latent diffusion for language generation

    Justin Lovelace, Varsha Kishore, Chao Wan, Eliot Shekht- man, and Kilian Q Weinberger. Latent diffusion for language generation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, 36, 2024. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12

    2024

  30. [38]

    Effective approaches to attention- based neural machine translation

    Minh-Thang Luong. Effective approaches to attention- based neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.04025, 2015. 6

    2015 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Umap: Uniform manifold approximation and projection for dimen- sion reduction

    Leland McInnes, John Healy, and James Melville. Umap: Uniform manifold approximation and projection for dimen- sion reduction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.03426, 2018. 13

    2018 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Min and X

    Y . Min and X. Chen. Towards faithful sign language transla- tion. 2023. https://openreview.net/forum?id= mWMJN0vbDF. 6

    2023

  33. [41]

    Generating diverse translation with per- turbed knn-mt

    Yuto Nishida, Makoto Morishita, Hidetaka Kamigaito, and Taro Watanabe. Generating diverse translation with per- turbed knn-mt. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09344, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation

    Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages 311–318,

  35. [43]

    Automatic differentiation in pytorch

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Soumith Chintala, Gregory Chanan, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Zeming Lin, Al- ban Desmaison, Luca Antiga, and Adam Lerer. Automatic differentiation in pytorch. 2017. 5

    2017

  36. [44]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj ¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10684–10695, 2022. 2, 7

    2022

  37. [45]

    Xtreme-r: Towards more challenging and nuanced multilingual evaluation

    Sebastian Ruder, Noah Constant, Jan Botha, Aditya Sid- dhant, Orhan Firat, Jinlan Fu, Pengfei Liu, Junjie Hu, Dan Garrette, Graham Neubig, et al. Xtreme-r: Towards more challenging and nuanced multilingual evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.07412, 2021. 3

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Palette: Image-to-image diffusion models

    Chitwan Saharia, William Chan, Huiwen Chang, Chris Lee, Jonathan Ho, Tim Salimans, David Fleet, and Mohammad Norouzi. Palette: Image-to-image diffusion models. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2022 conference proceedings, pages 1–10,

    2022

  39. [47]

    Mo \ˆ usai: Text-to-music generation with long- context latent diffusion

    Flavio Schneider, Ojasv Kamal, Zhijing Jin, and Bernhard Sch¨olkopf. Mo \ˆ usai: Text-to-music generation with long- context latent diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11757 ,

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    Standardizing the mea- surement of text diversity: A tool and a comparative analysis of scores

    Chantal Shaib, Joe Barrow, Jiuding Sun, Alexa F Siu, By- ron C Wallace, and Ani Nenkova. Standardizing the mea- surement of text diversity: A tool and a comparative analysis of scores. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.00553, 2024. 5, 7, 12

    2024

  41. [49]

    Diverse sign language translation

    Xin Shen, Lei Shen, Shaozu Yuan, Heming Du, Haiyang Sun, and Xin Yu. Diverse sign language translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.19586, 2024. 2, 3

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502, 2020. 2, 6, 7, 8, 13

    2010 arXiv

  43. [51]

    A contrastive framework for neural text generation

    Yixuan Su, Tian Lan, Yan Wang, Dani Yogatama, Lingpeng Kong, and Nigel Collier. A contrastive framework for neural text generation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:21548–21561, 2022. 5, 7, 12

    2022

  44. [52]

    Generating diverse translation by manipulating multi-head attention

    Zewei Sun, Shujian Huang, Hao-Ran Wei, Xin-yu Dai, and Jiajun Chen. Generating diverse translation by manipulating multi-head attention. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 8976–8983, 2020. 2

    2020

  45. [53]

    Attention is all you need

    A Vaswani. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017. 4

    2017

  46. [54]

    Stochastic transformer networks with linear competing units: Application to end-to-end sl translation

    Andreas V oskou, Konstantinos P Panousis, Dimitrios Kos- mopoulos, Dimitris N Metaxas, and Sotirios Chatzis. Stochastic transformer networks with linear competing units: Application to end-to-end sl translation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Comput...

    2021

  47. [55]

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

    Ryan Wong, Necati Cihan Camgoz, and Richard Bowden. Sign2gpt: Leveraging large language models for gloss-free sign language translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.04164,

    arXiv

  48. [56]

    Generating di- verse translation from model distribution with dropout.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.08178, 2020

    Xuanfu Wu, Yang Feng, and Chenze Shao. Generating di- verse translation from model distribution with dropout.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.08178, 2020. 2, 3

    2010 arXiv

  49. [57]

    mt5: A massively multilingual pre-trained text-to- text transformer

    L Xue. mt5: A massively multilingual pre-trained text-to- text transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11934, 2020. 12

    2010 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Sign language translation with it- erative prototype

    Huijie Yao, Wengang Zhou, Hao Feng, Hezhen Hu, Hao Zhou, and Houqiang Li. Sign language translation with it- erative prototype. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Interna- 10 tional Conference on Computer Vision, pages 15592–15601,

  51. [59]

    Dinoiser: Diffused conditional se- quence learning by manipulating noises

    Jiasheng Ye, Zaixiang Zheng, Yu Bao, Lihua Qian, and Mingxuan Wang. Dinoiser: Diffused conditional se- quence learning by manipulating noises. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.10025, 2023. 2, 13

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Simulslt: End-to- end simultaneous sign language translation

    Aoxiong Yin, Zhou Zhao, Jinglin Liu, Weike Jin, Meng Zhang, Xingshan Zeng, and Xiaofei He. Simulslt: End-to- end simultaneous sign language translation. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Multimedia , pages 4118–4127, 2021. 1, 6

    2021

  53. [61]

    Gloss attention for gloss-free sign language translation

    Aoxiong Yin, Tianyun Zhong, Li Tang, Weike Jin, Tao Jin, and Zhou Zhao. Gloss attention for gloss-free sign language translation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2551–2562,

  54. [62]

    Seqdiffuseq: Text diffusion with encoder- decoder transformers

    Hongyi Yuan, Zheng Yuan, Chuanqi Tan, Fei Huang, and Songfang Huang. Seqdiffuseq: Text diffusion with encoder- decoder transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10325 ,

    arXiv

  55. [63]

    Sltunet: A simple unified model for sign language translation

    Biao Zhang, Mathias M ¨uller, and Rico Sennrich. Sltunet: A simple unified model for sign language translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.01778, 2023. 1, 6

    2023 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Bertscore: Evaluating text genera- tion with bert

    Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q Wein- berger, and Yoav Artzi. Bertscore: Evaluating text genera- tion with bert. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.09675, 2019. 5, 7, 12

    1904 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Conditional sentence generation and cross-modal reranking for sign language translation

    Jian Zhao, Weizhen Qi, Wengang Zhou, Nan Duan, Ming Zhou, and Houqiang Li. Conditional sentence generation and cross-modal reranking for sign language translation. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 24:2662–2672, 2021. 1, 6

    2021

  58. [66]

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

    Benjia Zhou, Zhigang Chen, Albert Clap ´es, Jun Wan, Yanyan Liang, Sergio Escalera, Zhen Lei, and Du Zhang. Gloss-free sign language translation: Improving from visual- language pretraining. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF In- ternational Conference on Computer Vision , pages 2...

    2023

  59. [67]

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

    Hao Zhou, Wengang Zhou, Weizhen Qi, Junfu Pu, and Houqiang Li. Improving sign language translation with monolingual data by sign back-translation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition, pages 1316–1325, 2021. 1, 5, 6, 13, 16

    2021

  60. [68]

    Storydiffusion: Consistent self-attention for long-range image and video generation

    Yupeng Zhou, Daquan Zhou, Ming-Ming Cheng, Ji- ashi Feng, and Qibin Hou. Storydiffusion: Consistent self-attention for long-range image and video generation. NeurIPS 2024, 2024. 2 11 DiffSLT: Enhancing Diversity in Sign Language Translation via Diffusion Model Supplementary Ma...

    2024

Pith tools

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