Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 52 references

Learning Sign Language Representation using CNN LSTM, 3DCNN, CNN RNN LSTM and CCN TD

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 3DCNN that learns spatial and temporal features directly from video outperforms the three other compared architectures on both a new Trinidad and Tobago Sign Language dataset (91%) and American Sign Language (83%).

desk verdict The paper's central 3DCNN-best claim is undermined by a likely frame-level train/test split that leaks the same videos into both sides, and the new-sign test confirms poor generalization. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18187 v1 pith:IXX54XGL submitted 2024-12-24 cs.LG

Nikita Louison , Wayne Goodridge , Koffka Khan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords signlanguagerecognition3DCNNspatiotemporalfeaturesTrinidadandTobagoAmericanneuralnetworkcomparisonvideoclassificationCNN-LSTM
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

The paper sets out to identify a neural network that can watch a video of someone signing, translate the sign, and grade whether the learner's form is correct, which is the core of a real-time sign-language tuition app. It compares four modern video-classification architectures (CNN-LSTM, 3DCNN, CNN-RNN-LSTM, and CNN-TD) on a newly assembled Trinidad and Tobago Sign Language dataset plus an American Sign Language dataset. The authors report that 3DCNN performs best on both, reaching 91% accuracy on TTSL and 83% accuracy on ASL. They conclude that 3DCNN, because it learns spatial and temporal features together from stacked frames, is the best foundation for building a translation and grading system for Caribbean sign languages.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the three-dimensional convolutional layer, which slides learnable 3D filters across a volume made by stacking video frames, so the same operation captures both spatial structure in each frame and motion across frames. The paper contrasts this with two-frame CNN-plus-recurrent designs (CNN-LSTM and CNN-RNN-LSTM) and a time-distributed wrapper that applies a 2D CNN independently to each timestamp. The 3DCNN's direct spatiotemporal feature learning is what the paper credits for the higher accuracy and faster prediction on newly submitted signs.

What would settle it

A concrete check: record a larger TTSL test set with multiple signers, different backgrounds, and varied lighting, then re-run the four architectures; if 3DCNN's margin over CNN-LSTM and CNN-TD shrinks or reverses on those held-out videos, the paper's central ranking is an artifact of the single-signer dataset rather than a property of the models.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a comparative ranking: when the same ten-word, ten-to-twenty-videos-per-word dataset (six ASL signs, four TTSL signs) is run through four architectures under shared preprocessing, loss, and optimizer settings, the 3DCNN is the best classifier. Its classification reports show 91% accuracy on the TTSL subset and 83% on the ASL subset, with the highest recall among all models; it also used the least RAM and GPU during training and made correct predictions on three of four new TTSL signs in a saved-model webcam simulation, whereas the runner-up CNN-TD recognized only one. The paper therefore claims that 3DCNN's ability to learn spatiotemporal features directly from stacked video frames makes it the best available base for a sign-language learning and assessment application, at least for these datasets.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that 10 to 20 videos per sign, all produced by one signer in one setting, represent the sign well enough that accuracy differences among models on this dataset will survive contact with real learners and new environments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 3DCNN-based sign-language tuition application can translate a learner's recorded sign and give a correctness grade within seconds; in the paper's simulation, the 3DCNN returned predictions on new webcam signs in 3 to 10 seconds after the first run.
  • The same training pipeline extends to a sign language for which no prior recognition dataset exists, since the authors built and used a new TTSL dataset from scratch.
  • For small sign datasets, two-stage CNN-plus-recurrent designs can be worse than a single spatiotemporal model; CNN-RNN-LSTM underperformed because its setup was too complex for the data.
  • Time-distributed CNN is a viable competitor on the held-out TTSL split (87.5% recall) but fails to generalize to newly recorded signs, so model choice should be validated on fresh captures rather than only on the test split.
  • Resource use matters for deployment: 3DCNN had the highest parameter count but the lowest RAM and GPU usage during training, making it practical for a classroom-app use case.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If 3DCNN's advantage holds on a larger multi-signer corpus, the same architecture could serve as a generic starting point for other under-resourced sign languages in the Caribbean, with fine-tuning on a small local vocabulary.
  • The finding that CNN-TD scored well on the split but failed on new signs suggests that single-signer accuracy may be inflated by background and clothing cues; a controlled experiment that removes the signer from the frame, for example by training on pose keypoints instead of raw pixels, would test whether the models are learning the sign or the person.
  • The paper's grading idea could be tested directly against human raters: compare the model's per-sign certainty score with a teacher's pass or fail judgment on the same videos to calibrate the certainty output as a usable grade.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper compares four neural architectures (CNN-LSTM, 3DCNN, CNN-RNN-LSTM, and CNN-TD) on a self-captured dataset of 162 videos covering 10 signs from American Sign Language and Trinidad and Tobago Sign Language. The central claim is that 3DCNN is the best-performing model, with 91% accuracy on the TTSL subset and 83% on the ASL subset. The paper also reports a small 'new sign' webcam evaluation in which 3DCNN correctly identified 3 of 4 TTSL signs while CNN-TD identified only Doubles, and concludes that 3DCNN is the most suitable basis for a sign-language tuition system.

Significance. If the comparative ranking were reliable, the paper would provide a useful empirical data point on a previously unexplored sign language (TTSL) and a reasonable baseline for future work on Caribbean sign languages. The authors are transparent about the small dataset and the same-signer/same-environment limitation, and the new-sign experiment is an honest attempt to probe generalization. However, the load-bearing issue is that the reported accuracies and the resulting ranking rest on an evaluation protocol whose validity is not established: the text in Sections III.C and III.D indicates a frame-level random split, which can leak near-duplicate frames from the same video into both training and test sets. The paper's own Section IV.E then shows poor transfer to a new video, which is consistent with inflated test results. The central claim therefore needs substantial rework before the comparison can be trusted.

major comments (3)
  1. [III.C and III.D] The data-splitting procedure is described at the frame level, not the video level: Section III.C states that the capture application 'split the videos into frames' and then 'the dataset which is referring to the captured frames was divided by training, validation or testing, with training being 80% and testing and validation 20%', and Section III.D similarly says videos were 'broken up' before frames were extracted and parsed through each model. Because each video is a 35-frame clip, adjacent frames are near-duplicates, so a random frame-level split places frames from the same recording in both training and test sets. This violates the independence assumption and can inflate all reported accuracies, potentially changing the model ranking. The evaluation should be redone with a video-level split (e.g., group frames by source video and assign whole videos to train/validation/test), and the paper should report per-video or per-clip evaluation metrics.
  2. [IV.E] The new-sign experiment directly undermines the external validity of the reported classification accuracies. The text states that both 3DCNN and CNN-TD had 87.5% recall on the TTSL dataset, yet when tested on a newly recorded webcam video of the same signer in the same environment, CNN-TD correctly identified only 'Doubles' and 3DCNN correctly identified 3 of 4 signs. The authors attribute this to the dataset being 'extremely similar in terms of the signs being completed by the same person in the same environment.' This is evidence that the high test-set accuracies reflect memorization of the recording conditions rather than robust sign recognition. The claim that 3DCNN is the best model for a real-time tuition system therefore needs support from an evaluation that controls for signer and environment, such as leave-one-signer-out or cross-environment testing.
  3. [IV (all subsections)] The paper reports a single 80/20 train/test split with no repeated runs, no error bars, and no statistical comparison. With roughly 162 videos total, the test set is on the order of tens of videos spread across 10 classes, so per-class support is very small. The reported differences between models (e.g., 91% vs. 87.5% on TTSL) may not be statistically distinguishable. The comparison should be repeated over multiple random splits (with video-level grouping) and reported as mean ± standard deviation, and the authors should state the per-class test support so readers can judge the reliability of the reported precision and recall values.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title] The title uses 'CCN TD' while the body consistently refers to 'CNN-TD'; this should be corrected.
  2. [III.B] There is a typo: 'For 3CDNN processing' should read 'For 3DCNN processing'.
  3. [IV (Table IV)] The heading 'ACCURACY AND LOSS VALUES INTERPRETION' contains a typo; it should be 'Interpretation'.
  4. [IV and figures] Figure 6 is a generic illustration of a confusion matrix, but the per-model confusion matrices described in the text are not shown. Either include the actual confusion matrices or point to supplementary material.
  5. [IV.E and Table XIII] Table XIII is referenced as presenting the new-sign results, but the table is not visible in the manuscript; the table should be included or the results should be described in full in the text.
  6. [V.Discussion] The discussion cites reference [28] to support the claim that other models outperform CNN-TD on video spatiotemporal datasets, but it does not explain how that prior work relates to the present architectures, hyperparameters, or dataset; please clarify the relevance.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is an empirical model comparison with no fitted-input relabeling, load-bearing self-citation, or derivation that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

This paper is a purely empirical benchmark comparison of four neural architectures (CNN-LSTM, 3DCNN, CNN-RNN-LSTM, and CNN-TD) on a small self-collected ASL/TTSL video-frame dataset. The central claim, that 3DCNN achieves 91% accuracy on TTSL and 83% on ASL and ranks best, is directly supported by classification reports, confusion matrices, and accuracy/loss curves reported in Section IV; it is not derived from any equation that assumes the conclusion. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction: the models are trained on one split and evaluated on a held-out split, and even the 'new sign' experiment in Section IV.E is an additional evaluation rather than a restatement of training data. The paper contains no load-bearing self-citations; all cited prior work is external model or procedure references. The possible frame-level rather than video-level data split noted by the skeptic is a data-leakage and external-validity concern, but it does not make the reported accuracies equivalent to the inputs by construction, so it falls outside the circularity definition used here.

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

The paper's central comparison rests on several unexamined choices: a very small convenience dataset collected by one signer, an arbitrary 35-frame sequence length, and unreported per-model hyperparameters. These are the only real 'inputs' the paper relies on; there are no invented entities.

free parameters (5)
  • Epochs = 15 to 20
    Chosen ad hoc, with early stopping; not tuned systematically per model.
  • Early stopping patience = 5 or 7
    Set to stop training after repeated results; value not justified.
  • Sequence length = 35 frames
    All videos truncated to 35 frames for consistency; this may discard sign information.
  • Batch size = Not reported
    Described only as 'smaller than the sample size'; exact values per model are missing.
  • Image resolution = Not reported
    Preprocessing kept images from becoming too small, but exact pixel dimensions are not stated.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Categorical cross-entropy loss with softmax activation is appropriate for this multiclass classification task.
    Used consistently across all models in Section III.D.
  • domain assumption Convolutional and recurrent layers can extract spatiotemporal features from sign language videos.
    The entire method section assumes these architectures can learn sign patterns from frames.
  • domain assumption The 80/20 train/test split yields a test set representative of the class distribution.
    With only 10 to 20 videos per class, a random split may produce unbalanced test sets; the paper does not stratify or report test set composition.
  • domain assumption The signs are visually distinguishable from the recorded frames alone.
    The model only sees RGB or grayscale frames, with no pose landmarks or additional cues.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning Sign Language Representation using CNN LSTM, 3DCNN, CNN RNN LSTM and CCN TD." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IXX54XGL

@misc{pith2026241218187,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning Sign Language Representation using CNN LSTM, 3DCNN, CNN RNN LSTM and CCN TD},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IXX54XGL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18187}
}
read the original abstract

Existing Sign Language Learning applications focus on the demonstration of the sign in the hope that the student will copy a sign correctly. In these cases, only a teacher can confirm that the sign was completed correctly, by reviewing a video captured manually. Sign Language Translation is a widely explored field in visual recognition. This paper seeks to explore the algorithms that will allow for real-time, video sign translation, and grading of sign language accuracy for new sign language users. This required algorithms capable of recognizing and processing spatial and temporal features. The aim of this paper is to evaluate and identify the best neural network algorithm that can facilitate a sign language tuition system of this nature. Modern popular algorithms including CNN and 3DCNN are compared on a dataset not yet explored, Trinidad and Tobago Sign Language as well as an American Sign Language dataset. The 3DCNN algorithm was found to be the best performing neural network algorithm from these systems with 91% accuracy in the TTSL dataset and 83% accuracy in the ASL dataset.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.18187 by the authors.

Figure 23
Figure 23. Code snippets from Google Colab depicting: (1) saving the model, (2) loading the model for the experiment, (3) recording the video and (4) the translation code. On the first execution of the translation process the results were displayed after one minute for the CNN-TD model and after 10 seconds for the 3DCNN model. However, when the subsequent signs provided by the user were tested, the predictions were displayed m… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    and Lakulu, M.M.B., 2018

    Ahmed, M.A., Zaidan, B.B., Zaidan, A.A., Salih, M.M. and Lakulu, M.M.B., 2018. A review on systems -based sensory gloves for sign language recognition state of the art between 2007 and 2017. Sensors, 18(7), p.2208

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    and Hossain, M.S., 2019

    Al-Hammadi, M., Muhammad, G., Abdul, W., Alsulaiman, M. and Hossain, M.S., 2019. Hand gesture recognition using 3D-CNN model. IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine, 9(1), pp.95-101

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    and Mekhtiche, M.A., 2020

    Al-Hammadi, M., Muhammad, G., Abdul, W., Alsulaiman, M., Bencherif, M.A. and Mekhtiche, M.A., 2020. Hand gesture recognition for sign language using 3DCNN. IEEE Access, 8, pp.79491-79509

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    and Asari, V.K.,

    Alom, M.Z., Hasan, M., Yakopcic, C., Taha, T.M. and Asari, V.K.,

    work page

  5. [5]

    and Kiran Kumar, E., 2018

    Anantha Rao, G., Kishore, P.V.V., Sastry, A.S.C.S., Anil Kumar, D. and Kiran Kumar, E., 2018. Selfie continuous sign language recognition with neural network classifier. In Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Micro -Electronics, Electromagnetics and Telecommunications (pp. 31-40). Springer, Singapore

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    and Rajan, H., 2019, May

    Biswas, S., Islam, M.J., Huang, Y. and Rajan, H., 2019, May. Boa meets python: a boa dataset of data science software in python language. In 2019 IEEE/ACM 16th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR) (pp. 577-581). IEEE

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    and Thies, W., 2021, May

    Bragg, D., Caselli, N., Gallagher, J.W., Goldberg, M., Oka, C.J. and Thies, W., 2021, May. ASL Sea Battle: Gamifying Sign Language Data Collection. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1-13)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Ideologies of linguistic research on small sign languages in the global South: A Caribbean perspective

    Braithwaite, B., 2020. Ideologies of linguistic research on small sign languages in the global South: A Caribbean perspective. Language & Communication, 74, pp.182-194

    work page 2020

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    and Lamb, A., 2011

    Braithwaite, B., Drayton, K.A. and Lamb, A., 2011. The history of deaf language and education in Trinidad and Tobago since 1943. History in Action, 2(1), pp.12-17

    2011

  2. [10]

    and Ferreira, R., 2021, May

    Canesche, M., Bragança, L., Neto, O.P.V., Nacif, J.A. and Ferreira, R., 2021, May. Google colab cad4u: Hands -on cloud laboratories for digital design. In 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS) (pp. 1-5). IEEE

    2021

  3. [11]

    and Chen, W., 2018, November

    Chang, Z., Zhang, Y. and Chen, W., 2018, November. Effective adam-optimized LSTM neural network for electricity price forecasting. In 2018 IEEE 9th international conference on software engineering and service science (ICSESS) (pp. 245-248). IEEE

    2018

  4. [12]

    and Zhang, H., 2018

    Chen, M., He, X., Yang, J. and Zhang, H., 2018. 3 -D convolutional recurrent neural networks with attention model for speech emotion recognition. IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 25(10), pp.1440-1444

    2018

  5. [13]

    and Lee, B.G., 2018

    Chong, T.W. and Lee, B.G., 2018. American sign language recognition using leap motion controller with machine learning approach. Sensors, 18(10), p.3554

    2018

  6. [14]

    and Darrell, T., 2015

    Donahue, J., Anne Hendricks, L., Guadarrama, S., Rohrbach, M., Venugopalan, S., Saenko, K. and Darrell, T., 2015. Long -term recurrent convolutional networks for visual recognition and description. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognitio...

    2015

  7. [15]

    and Zaim, A.H., 2019

    Elmasry, W., Akbulut, A. and Zaim, A.H., 2019. Empirical study on multiclass classification ‐ based network intrusion detection. Computational Intelligence, 35(4), pp.919-954

    2019

  8. [16]

    and Hellinckx, P.,

    Elmaz, F., Eyckerman, R., Casteels, W., Latré, S. and Hellinckx, P.,

  9. [17]

    and Alazab, M., 2021

    Gadekallu, T.R., Rajput, D.S., Reddy, M., Lakshmanna, K., Bhattacharya, S., Singh, S., Jolfaei, A. and Alazab, M., 2021. A novel PCA–whale optimization -based deep neural network model for classification of tomato plant diseases using GPU. Journal of Real - Time Image Processi...

    2021

  10. [18]

    and Khehra, B.S., 2022

    Gill, H.S. and Khehra, B.S., 2022. An integrated approach using CNN-RNN-LSTM for classification of fruit images. Materials Today: Proceedings, 51, pp.591-595

    2022

  11. [19]

    and Kweon, I.S., 2021, December

    Ham, S., Park, K., Jang, Y., Oh, Y., Yun, S., Yoon, S., Kim, C.J., Park, H.M. and Kweon, I.S., 2021, December. KSL -Guide: A Large- scale Korean Sign Language Dataset Including Interrogative Sentences for Guiding the Deaf and Hard -of-Hearing. In 2021 16th IEEE International C...

    2021

  12. [20]

    and Phung Ngoc, T., 2021

    Huu, P.N. and Phung Ngoc, T., 2021. Hand Gesture Recognition Algorithm Using SVM and HOG Model for Control of Robotic System. Journal of Robotics, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    and Kanagachidambaresan, G.R., 2021

    Imambi, S., Prakash, K.B. and Kanagachidambaresan, G.R., 2021. PyTorch. In Programming with TensorFlow (pp. 87 -104). Springer, Cham

    2021

  14. [22]

    and Gupta, P., 2021

    Jaiswal, S. and Gupta, P., 2021. A review on american sign language character recognition. In Rising Threats in Expert Applications and Solutions (pp. 275-280). Springer, Singapore

    2021

  15. [23]

    and Ginsburg, B., 2021, June

    Jia, F., Majumdar, S. and Ginsburg, B., 2021, June. Marblenet: Deep 1d time -channel separable convolutional neural network for voice activity detection. In ICASSP 2021 -2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) (pp. 6818-6822). IEEE

    2021

  16. [24]

    and Xie, Y., 2018

    Jiang, X., Pang, Y., Li, X., Pan, J. and Xie, Y., 2018. Deep neural networks with elastic rectified linear units for object recognition. Neurocomputing, 275, pp.1132-1139

    2018

  17. [25]

    and Koller, O., 2018

    Joze, H.R.V. and Koller, O., 2018. Ms -asl: A large-scale data set and benchmark for understanding american sign language. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.01053

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    and Burrows, M., 2021

    Kaufman, S., Phothilimthana, P., Zhou, Y., Mendis, C., Roy, S., Sabne, A. and Burrows, M., 2021. A learned performance model for tensor processing units. Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems, 3, pp.387-400

    2021

  19. [27]

    and Cho, C., 2019

    Ko, S.K., Kim, C.J., Jung, H. and Cho, C., 2019. Neural sign language translation based on human keypoint estimation. Applied Sciences, 9(13), p.2683

    2019

  20. [28]

    and Fu, Z., 2020

    Kong, Z., Zhang, C., Lv, H., Xiong, F. and Fu, Z., 2020. Multimodal feature extraction and fusion deep neural networks for short-term load forecasting. IEEE Access, 8, pp.185373-185383

    2020

  21. [29]

    and Rui, Y., 2018

    Li, D., Yao, T., Duan, L.Y., Mei, T. and Rui, Y., 2018. Unified spatio-temporal attention networks for action recognition in videos. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 21(2), pp.416-428

    2018

  22. [30]

    and Yun, U., 2021

    Lin, J.C.W., Shao, Y., Djenouri, Y. and Yun, U., 2021. ASRNN: a recurrent neural network with an attention model for sequence labeling. Knowledge-Based Systems, 212, p.106548

    2021

  23. [31]

    Understanding and working with Keras

    Manaswi, N.K., 2018. Understanding and working with Keras. In Deep Learning with Applications Using Python (pp. 31 -43). Apress, Berkeley, CA

    2018

  24. [32]

    and Han, D.S., 2020, February

    Mutegeki, R. and Han, D.S., 2020, February. A CNN -LSTM approach to human activity recognition. In 2020 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Information and Communication (ICAIIC) (pp. 362-366). IEEE

    2020

  25. [33]

    and Zhang, L., 2018

    Qiao, H., Wang, T., Wang, P., Qiao, S. and Zhang, L., 2018. A time - distributed spatiotemporal feature learning method for machine health monitoring with multi-sensor time series. Sensors, 18(9), p.2932

    2018

  26. [34]

    and Gelly, S.,

    Sajjadi, M.S., Bachem, O., Lucic, M., Bousquet, O. and Gelly, S.,

  27. [35]

    and Woo, W.C., 2015

    Shi, X., Chen, Z., Wang, H., Yeung, D.Y., Wong, W.K. and Woo, W.C., 2015. Convolutional LSTM network: A machine learning approach for precipitation nowcasting. Advances in neural information processing systems, 28

    2015

  28. [36]

    and Bird, J., 2018

    Spiegel, S., Mueller, F., Weismann, D. and Bird, J., 2018. Cost - sensitive learning for predictive maintenance. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.10979

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    and Khapra, M., 2020, October

    Sridhar, A., Ganesan, R.G., Kumar, P. and Khapra, M., 2020, October. Include: A large scale dataset for indian sign language recognition. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM international conference on multimedia (pp. 1366-1375)

    2020

  30. [38]

    and Visumathi, J., 2020

    Suresh, A.J. and Visumathi, J., 2020. Inception ResNet deep transfer learning model for human action recognition using LSTM. Materials Today: Proceedings

    2020

  31. [39]

    and Paluri, M., 2015

    Tran, D., Bourdev, L., Fergus, R., Torresani, L. and Paluri, M., 2015. Learning spatiotemporal features with 3d convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision (pp. 4489-4497)

    2015

  32. [40]

    and Dulf, E.H., 2022

    Tulbure, A.A., Tulbure, A.A. and Dulf, E.H., 2022. A review on modern defect detection models using DCNNs –Deep convolutional neural networks. Journal of Advanced Research, 35, pp.33-48

    2022

  33. [41]

    and Nápoles, G., 2020

    Van Houdt, G., Mosquera, C. and Nápoles, G., 2020. A review on the long short-term memory model. Artificial Intelligence Review, 53(8), pp.5929-5955

    2020

  34. [42]

    and Langari, R., 2018

    Wahid, M.F., Tafreshi, R., Al -Sowaidi, M. and Langari, R., 2018. Subject-independent hand gesture recognition using normalization and machine learning algorithms. Journal of computational science, 27, pp.69-76

    2018

  35. [43]

    and Wu, J., 2018

    Wang, L., Xu, Y., Cheng, J., Xia, H., Yin, J. and Wu, J., 2018. Human action recognition by learning spatio -temporal features with deep neural networks. IEEE access, 6, pp.17913-17922

    2018

  36. [44]

    and Hua, C., 2021, October

    Wang, N., Zhu, G., Zhang, L., Shen, P., Li, H. and Hua, C., 2021, October. Spatio -Temporal Interaction Graph Parsing Networks for Human-Object Interaction Recognition. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Multimedia (pp. 4985-4993)

    2021

  37. [45]

    and Anderson, J., 2022

    Wang, Q., Ihme, M., Chen, Y.F. and Anderson, J., 2022. A tensorflow simulation framework for scientific computing of fluid flows on tensor processing units. Computer Physics Communications, p.108292

    2022

  38. [46]

    and Wang, H., 2020

    Xia, K., Huang, J. and Wang, H., 2020. LSTM -CNN architecture for human activity recognition. IEEE Access, 8, pp.56855-56866

    2020

  39. [47]

    and Shami, A., 2020

    Yang, L. and Shami, A., 2020. On hyperparameter optimization of machine learning algorithms: Theory and practice. Neurocomputing, 415, pp.295-316

    2020

  40. [48]

    On the confusion matrix in credit scoring and its analytical properties

    Zeng, G., 2020. On the confusion matrix in credit scoring and its analytical properties. Communications in Statistics -Theory and Methods, 49(9), pp.2080-2093

    2020

  41. [49]

    and Zhang, L., 2018, July

    Zhang, Y., Chen, Y., Cheung, S.C., Xiong, Y. and Zhang, L., 2018, July. An empirical study on TensorFlow program bugs. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (pp. 129-140)

    2018

  42. [2018]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31

    Assessing generative models via precision and recall. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31

  43. [2020]

    Neural Computing and Applications, 32(1), pp.279-293

    Improved inception -residual convolutional neural network for object recognition. Neural Computing and Applications, 32(1), pp.279-293

  44. [2021]

    Building and Environment, 206, p.108327

    CNN -LSTM architecture for predictive indoor temperature modeling. Building and Environment, 206, p.108327

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.