Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Generated sign motions become humanoid-executable once self-collisions are removed by volumetric optimization and a vision-language critic refines the retargeted motion.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

A humanoid signing pipeline that first cleans SMPL-X self-collisions and then uses a VLM visual critic to refine IK retargeting; collision energy drops on 9 sequences, but VLM benefits are only qualitatively demonstrated.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-01 challenge →

load-bearing objection Believable proof-of-concept for SLG-to-humanoid, but collision mitigation evidence is the optimized loss on nine sequences and the VLM part is qualitative; merits a serious but heavy-revision review. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.17769 v1 pith:TUYYXFVL submitted 2026-07-20 cs.RO cs.CVcs.HC

From Sign Language Generation to Humanoid Execution: Vision-Language Guided Retargeting with Collision Mitigation

Nabeela Khan , Bowen Wu , Runwu Shi , Benjamin Yen , Takeshi Ashizawa , Carlos Toshinori Ishi , Takashi Minato , Kazuhiro Nakadai This is my paper
classification cs.RO cs.CVcs.HC
keywords sign language generationhumanoid retargetingself-collision mitigationVolumetricSMPL-Xvision-language modelinverse kinematicssigned distance fieldCSL-Daily
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 argues that the gap between AI-generated sign language motion and physically executable humanoid motion is a geometric and semantic problem that can be closed in two stages. First, a volumetric SMPL-X self-collision module projects signing poses out of hand–hand and hand–torso penetrations while keeping the motion close to the original. Second, an IK-based retargeter guided by a vision-language model critiques rendered robot motion and issues interpretable wrist-position and wrist-orientation corrections, bringing the robot's signing closer to the human reference. The authors establish this at system level: collision energy drops on the CSL-Daily benchmark with modest pose distortion, and VLM-refined retargeting visibly matches the reference better than IK alone. If right, the result matters because it replaces dictionaries of pre-recorded signs with a scalable path from text to robot signing.

Core claim

The central claim is stated plainly in Sec. V.A: collision mitigation materially improves the quality of motions before retargeting to a humanoid. The paper demonstrates this by optimizing generated SMPL-X pose sequences with VolumetricSMPL-X's differentiable signed-distance-field collision loss, reporting median collision-energy reduction of about 22% and improved sequences in 8 of 9 cases while pose MSE stays at 6.8e-4. It further claims that a vision-language model used as a visual critic over rendered humanoid motion, issuing targeted task-space corrections through primitives like 'move left up' or 'left yaw in', yields retargeted motions that are perceptually closer to the reference sig

What carries the argument

The machinery is a two-stage offline pipeline. Stage one uses VolumetricSMPL-X, a volumetric human body model that augments SMPL-X with differentiable signed-distance-field queries; the paper minimizes a weighted sum of its self-intersection loss, a closeness prior to the original trajectory, and a temporal acceleration smoothness term. Stage two uses an inverse-kinematics retargeter plus a vision-language model acting as judgment agent: it compares rendered robot motion against the SMPL-X reference and proposes small task-space edits on wrist positions (e.g., ±10 cm) and wrist yaw (e.g., ±20°), after which IK is re-solved.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the self-penetrations detected by the volumetric SMPL-X signed-distance field are the dominant obstacle to humanoid execution, and that a collision-cleaned SMPL-X pose, after shape optimization and IK, transfers to a feasible and semantically faithful robot trajectory; it reports no physical humanoid experiments to confirm this.

What would settle it

Run the pipeline on a physical humanoid with an off-the-shelf SLG sequence: if the collision-mitigated, VLM-refined trajectory still produces joint-limit violations, link collisions, or visibly incorrect signs (compared to a human reference) at substantially the same rate as the IK-only baseline, the central claim that collision mitigation and VLM feedback materially improve execution quality would be falsified. A simpler quantitative check: compare end-effector trajectory error in signing space and wrist-orientation error between VLM-refined and IK-only retargeting on a large sequence set; if

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If collision mitigation is applied before retargeting, SLG outputs inherit fewer penetrations, removing a known source of infeasible IK targets and control instability.
  • The small pose deviation (median MSE ~6.8e-4) and improved smoothness (for full regularizer) mean the collision-cleaned motion preserves communicative intent, so the fix is cheap in fidelity terms.
  • VLM refinement works without motion-description supervision, relying only on rendered visual comparison, so it can be applied to standard SL datasets that pair sentences with signing video.
  • Because the pipeline is offline per sentence or per sign inventory, VLM latency does not block live interaction; the output is a validated, robot-specific joint trajectory executed later by a real-time controller.
  • Task-space primitives transfer across robot embodiments without redesign, since they are defined relative to robot base/torso frame rather than robot-specific joint angles.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural testable extension is to run the collision-mitigated, VLM-refined trajectories on a physical humanoid and measure joint-limit violations, self-collision events, and signing intelligibility (e.g., via DHH raters); if those metrics improve relative to IK-only, the paper's central bridge would be confirmed in hardware.
  • The collision-mitigation objective could be folded into the SLG training loss itself, potentially eliminating the need for costly per-sequence test-time optimization (the current 521 s per sequence).
  • The same two-stage recipe could generalize beyond signing to other whole-body communicative motions (e.g., gesture, dance, or teaching demonstrations) where dense 3D human motion is retargeted to humanoids and self-penetration is a first-order failure.
  • The VLM critic's reliance on rendered video rather than motion text suggests it could also catch semantic errors (wrong handshape, wrong location in signing space), not just geometric deviations; quantifying this would require a dataset with explicit sign-error labels.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a two-stage system for transferring SMPL-X sign-language-generation output to humanoid joint trajectories. Stage one is an offline test-time optimization that minimizes a volumetric self-intersection loss (Eq. 1) together with closeness and temporal-smoothness regularizers (Eq. 3) over a masked subset of pose parameters. Stage two retargets the corrected SMPL-X motion to a humanoid via shape alignment (Eq. 4), an IK backbone with robot-geometry collision checking, and an iterative VLM refinement loop in which the VLM compares rendered robot motion with the reference SMPL-X motion and proposes task-space wrist position/orientation primitives before IK is re-solved. Quantitatively, Table I reports before/after collision energy for nine sequences; Table II ablates the regularizers; VLM refinement is only qualitatively illustrated in Fig. 3. The authors position the contribution as system-level and offline.

Significance. The target problem is real and underexplored: SLG models produce dense 3D human motion that is not directly robot-executable, and existing retargeting methods under-emphasize collision artifacts. The paper's strengths are its clear problem decomposition, the explicit use of a differentiable volumetric self-intersection model, interpretable task-space control primitives, and an honest limitation section. If the collision-mitigation benefit were shown to transfer to robot feasibility and VLM refinement were quantified, this would be a useful systems contribution. As it stands, the experiments do not yet support the two headline claims: the main quantitative result is the optimizer's own objective, and the second contribution lacks any quantitative evaluation.

major comments (4)
  1. [V-A, Table I, Eq. (3)] The central claim that collision mitigation 'materially improves quality' rests on before/after values of L_col, the exact term minimized in Eq. (3). This is a circular measurement: any optimizer reduces its own loss. The paper needs independent evidence, e.g., robot-geometry self-collision counts from the IK checker described in Sec. III-C, IK feasibility/failure rates, or end-effector trajectory error relative to the reference. Also report variance or confidence intervals; N=9 with means/medians only is too weak for the stated conclusion.
  2. [III-C, V-A] Sec. III-C states that retargeting includes robot-geometry collision checking, but no results from that checker are reported. Without knowing whether mitigated sequences have fewer IK violations or robot self-collisions than unmitigated ones, the causal link from lower SMPL-X collision energy to humanoid execution is unsupported. Since physical validation is deferred (Sec. V.E), at minimum report simulation-level feasibility metrics before/after mitigation.
  3. [Table II, IV-A] The ablation in Table II is confounded by variable N: collision-only uses 8 sequences, +closeness uses 9, and +closeness+smoothness uses 10, with the text explaining runs used 'the available set of sequences at the time of evaluation.' This makes cross-row comparisons of Success and Red. uninterpretable—e.g., the improvement from 62.5% (N=8) to 88.9% (N=9) may be due to sequence selection. Re-run all settings on a fixed held-out set and report paired comparisons.
  4. [III-C, V-B, V-E] VLM-guided refinement is validated only by the qualitative Fig. 3, and the termination condition is the VLM's own judgment that the motion is sufficiently aligned. Sec. V.E explicitly lists quantitative evaluation as future work. Without an independent, non-VLM metric (e.g., wrist position/orientation error in signing space, or a human evaluation) and a comparison against IK-only retargeting, the second contribution is not established. Either add such results or substantially weaken the claims in the abstract and conclusions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] 'V olumetricSMPL-X' is inconsistently typeset with a space; ensure proper rendering.
  2. [Fig. 2] The caption contains an untidy fragment 'Self-collision correctedGenerated'; please fix.
  3. [IV-A, Acknowledgment] The experiments use GPT-5.2 as the VLM, but the acknowledgment states GPT-4/Claude were used in the refinement loop; clarify which model produced the reported figures.
  4. [IV-B] Clarify whether 'Pose MSE' is averaged over frames and pose dimensions or is a per-sequence scalar; specify the protocol for computing medians across sequences.
  5. [V-A] The sentence 'Our goal in this paper is to establish...' is a purpose statement, not a result; move the actual quantitative finding into the discussion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Collision mitigation's headline improvement is the optimization objective itself; pose-MSE evidence is independent.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Eq. (3), Table I, Sec. V.A]
    "min_x λ_col L_col(x_eff) + λ_close ∥x_eff−x^(0)∥_2^2 + λ_smooth ∥Δ^2 x_eff∥_2^2 ... Collision energy (mean) Before 3.52 After 0.94 ... Our goal in this paper is to establish that collision mitigation materially improves the quality of motions before retargeting to a humanoid."

    The 'After' collision energy is the value of L_col at the end of the optimization defined in Eq. (3), so the reported reduction is the objective itself decreasing, not an independent measured outcome. Because λ_col=50 dominates the regularizers (1e-4), any successful Adam run is forced to lower L_col. The paper's central claim of materially improved quality is therefore supported by a metric that the optimization is defined to minimize. Downstream feasibility (robot IK success, collision counts, execution stability) is not measured, and Sec. V.E defers physical validation to future work. The decrease is thus by construction rather than evidence that SMPL-X self-collision reduction transfers to humanoid execution.

full rationale

The only load-bearing circular reduction I can exhibit is in the collision-mitigation evaluation. Eq. (3) optimizes L_col(x_eff) plus two small regularizers, and Table I reports before/after values of that same L_col as the main evidence for the central claim in Sec. V.A. The After value is produced by the minimization itself, so a decrease is by construction. The pose-MSE and ΔAccel metrics are independent and show limited distortion, which is genuine evidence, so the paper is only partially circular. The VLM-guided loop is self-referential in design (the VLM both proposes edits and decides when to stop), but the paper makes no quantitative success claim for it and explicitly limits it to qualitative representative sequences in Sec. V.E, so I do not count it as a separate circular step. Self-citations [3,4,5,22,23] appear only in related work and are not load-bearing; the core SMPL-X collision model and CSL-Daily preprocessing are external [9,24,34]. Table II's varying N is an evaluation confound, not a circularity. The absence of physical humanoid validation is a correctness/validity gap rather than a circular derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced; control primitives and the VLM critic are design components, not independent postulates.

free parameters (7)
  • lambda_col = 50
    Weight on volumetric self-collision loss in Eq. (3); selected by hand, not tuned in the paper.
  • lambda_close = 1e-4
    Closeness weight in Eq. (3); ablation shown in Table II but no selection criterion is given.
  • lambda_smooth = 1e-4
    Smoothness weight in Eq. (3); ablation in Table II but no principled choice.
  • Optimizable pose mask M = hand pose dimensions (not enumerated)
    Eq. (2) restricts optimization to a subset of pose dims; masking choice is a free design decision.
  • VLM primitive step sizes = 10 cm position, 20 deg yaw
    Sec. III-C; hand-selected, though authors argue vocabulary matters more than magnitudes.
  • VLM refinement rounds = 2
    Sec. IV-A; 'empirically' sufficient, not optimized.
  • lambda_beta (shape reg) = unspecified
    Eq. (4) includes lambda_beta but its value is not reported; affects shape alignment.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption VolumetricSMPL-X SDF captures the collision geometry that matters for humanoid execution
    Eqs. (1)-(3) and Table I rely on this; no robot-geometry collision validation is performed.
  • domain assumption A VLM's visual comparison of rendered videos is a valid proxy for sign-language communicative fidelity
    Sec. III-C uses GPT-5.2 judgment as both correction source and stopping criterion; Sec. V.E concedes this is unquantified.
  • domain assumption The curated CSL-Daily SMPL-X preprocessing from [24] preserves the semantics of the original sign videos
    All quantitative results are computed on that representation; no sign-language expert verification is reported.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Sign Language Generation to Humanoid Execution: Vision-Language Guided Retargeting with Collision Mitigation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TUYYXFVL

@misc{pith2026260717769,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Sign Language Generation to Humanoid Execution: Vision-Language Guided Retargeting with Collision Mitigation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TUYYXFVL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17769}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Recent sign language generation (SLG) systems increasingly output dense 3D body representations, which better preserve full-body kinematics and geometry for downstream embodiment on humanoid robots. However, these generated motions frequently exhibit self-intersections such as hand-hand and hand-torso penetration. While such artifacts may be tolerated in offline rendering, they become critical in humanoid execution as they lead to infeasible inverse-kinematics (IK) solutions, collisions, and unstable retargeted trajectories. We present a system-level framework that bridges SLG outputs to humanoid joint-space execution via two components. First, we introduce a volumetric SMPL-X collision-mitigation module that projects generated signing motions toward physically plausible configurations while minimally deviating from the original trajectory. Second, we propose a vision-language-guided retargeting algorithm built on an IK backbone: a VLM serves as a visual critic over rendered humanoid motion, identifies embodiment-specific failure modes, and triggers targeted task-space corrections. Our results highlight collision handling and perception-guided refinement as key missing components for reliable humanoid signing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17769 by Benjamin Yen, Bowen Wu, Carlos Toshinori Ishi, Kazuhiro Nakadai, Nabeela Khan, Runwu Shi, Takashi Minato, Takeshi Ashizawa.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of the proposed pipeline VLM-guided [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Qualitative results for self-collision correction. Left: raw generated pose exhibiting hand–hand interpene￾tration (zoomed inset). Right: result after VolumetricSMPL￾X-based optimization, which reduces self-collision while preserving the overall signing configuration. Finally, Time (s) reports the wall-clock runtime per sequence for the optimization procedure (averaged over sequences). V. RESULTS AND DISCU… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Qualitative comparison of humanoid retargeting for the sentence “He is my classmate.” Top: reference SMPL-X motion. Middle: IK-only retargeting, which is kinematically feasible but exhibits embodiment-induced de￾viation, including hand drift away from the intended signing region and mismatched wrist orientation relative to the refer￾ence motion. Bottom: VLM-refined retargeting after applying corrective tas… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Including signed languages in natural language processing,

    K. Yin, A. Moryossef, J. Hochgesang, Y . Goldberg, and M. Alikhani, “Including signed languages in natural language processing,” inPro- ceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pp. 7347– 7360, 2021

    2021

  2. [2]

    Signbot: Learn- ing human-to-humanoid sign language interaction,

    G. Qiao, S. Lin, R. Zuo, Z. Wu, K. Jia, and G. Liu, “Signbot: Learn- ing human-to-humanoid sign language interaction,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.24266, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Towards online sign language expression for real-time human-robot interaction,

    N. Khan, S. Tan, and K. Nakadai, “Towards online sign language expression for real-time human-robot interaction,” in2025 34th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communi- cation (RO-MAN), pp. 1123–1128, IEEE, 2025

    2025

  4. [4]

    A review of deep learning-based approaches to sign language process- ing,

    S. Tan, N. Khan, Z. An, Y . Ando, R. Kawakami, and K. Nakadai, “A review of deep learning-based approaches to sign language process- ing,”Advanced Robotics, vol. 38, no. 23, pp. 1649–1667, 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    Signflow: End-to-end sign language generation for one-to-many modeling using conditional flow matching,

    N. Khan, B. Wu, S. Tan, C. T. Ishi, and K. Nakadai, “Signflow: End-to-end sign language generation for one-to-many modeling using conditional flow matching,” inProceedings of the 27th International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, pp. 173–180, 2025

    2025

  6. [6]

    Expressive body capture: 3d hands, face, and body from a single image,

    G. Pavlakos, V . Choutas, N. Ghorbani, T. Bolkart, A. A. Osman, D. Tzionas, and M. J. Black, “Expressive body capture: 3d hands, face, and body from a single image,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp. 10975– 10985, 2019

    2019

  7. [7]

    Retargeting matters: General motion retargeting for humanoid motion tracking,

    J. P. Araujo, Y . Ze, P. Xu, J. Wu, and C. K. Liu, “Retargeting matters: General motion retargeting for humanoid motion tracking,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.02252, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Harmon: Whole-body motion generation of humanoid robots from language descriptions,

    Z. Jiang, Y . Xie, J. Li, Y . Yuan, Y . Zhu, and Y . Zhu, “Harmon: Whole-body motion generation of humanoid robots from language descriptions,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.12773, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    V olumetricsmpl: A neural volumetric body model for efficient in- teractions, contacts, and collisions,

    M. Mihajlovic, S. Zhang, G. Li, K. Zhao, L. Muller, and S. Tang, “V olumetricsmpl: A neural volumetric body model for efficient in- teractions, contacts, and collisions,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 5060–5070, 2025

    2025

  10. [10]

    Towards fast and high- quality sign language production,

    W. Huang, W. Pan, Z. Zhao, and Q. Tian, “Towards fast and high- quality sign language production,” inProceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pp. 3172–3181, 2021

    2021

  11. [11]

    Signing at scale: Learning to co-articulate signs for large-scale photo-realistic sign language production,

    B. Saunders, N. C. Camgoz, and R. Bowden, “Signing at scale: Learning to co-articulate signs for large-scale photo-realistic sign language production,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 5141–5151, 2022

    2022

  12. [12]

    Gloss semantic-enhanced network with online back-translation for sign language production,

    S. Tang, R. Hong, D. Guo, and M. Wang, “Gloss semantic-enhanced network with online back-translation for sign language production,” in Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pp. 5630–5638, 2022

    2022

  13. [13]

    G2p- ddm: Generating sign pose sequence from gloss sequence with discrete diffusion model,

    P. Xie, Q. Zhang, P. Taiying, H. Tang, Y . Du, and Z. Li, “G2p- ddm: Generating sign pose sequence from gloss sequence with discrete diffusion model,” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 38, pp. 6234–6242, 2024

    2024

  14. [14]

    Select and reorder: A novel approach for neural sign language production,

    H. Walsh, B. Saunders, and R. Bowden, “Select and reorder: A novel approach for neural sign language production,” inProceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Lin- guistics, Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-COLING 2024), pp. 14531–14542, 2024

    2024

  15. [15]

    Gloss-driven conditional diffusion models for sign language production,

    S. Tang, F. Xue, J. Wu, S. Wang, and R. Hong, “Gloss-driven conditional diffusion models for sign language production,”ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications and Appli- cations, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 1–17, 2025

    2025

  16. [16]

    A simple baseline for spoken language to sign language translation with 3d avatars,

    R. Zuo, F. Wei, Z. Chen, B. Mak, J. Yang, and X. Tong, “A simple baseline for spoken language to sign language translation with 3d avatars,” inEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 36–54, Springer, 2024

    2024

  17. [17]

    Sign language production with latent motion transformer,

    P. Xie, T. Peng, Y . Du, and Q. Zhang, “Sign language production with latent motion transformer,” in2024 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), pp. 3012–3022, IEEE Computer Society, 2024

    2024

  18. [18]

    Towards ai-driven sign language generation with non-manual mark- ers,

    H. Zhang, R. Shalev-Arkushin, V . Baltatzis, C. Gillis, G. Laput, R. Kushalnagar, L. C. Quandt, L. Findlater, A. Bedri, and C. Lea, “Towards ai-driven sign language generation with non-manual mark- ers,” inProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–26, 2025

    2025

  19. [19]

    Progressive transformers for end-to-end sign language production,

    B. Saunders, N. C. Camgoz, and R. Bowden, “Progressive transformers for end-to-end sign language production,” inEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 687–705, Springer, 2020

    2020

  20. [20]

    T2s-gpt: Dynamic vector quantization for autoregressive sign language production from text,

    A. Yin, H. Li, K. Shen, S. Tang, and Y . Zhuang, “T2s-gpt: Dynamic vector quantization for autoregressive sign language production from text,” inProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pp. 3345– 3356, 2024

    2024

  21. [21]

    Continuous 3d multi- channel sign language production via progressive transformers and mixture density networks,

    B. Saunders, N. C. Camgoz, and R. Bowden, “Continuous 3d multi- channel sign language production via progressive transformers and mixture density networks,”International journal of computer vision, vol. 129, no. 7, pp. 2113–2135, 2021

    2021

  22. [22]

    Multigau: Real time sign language generation using multimodal gated attention,

    N. Khan, B. Wu, C. T. Ishi, and K. Nakadai, “Multigau: Real time sign language generation using multimodal gated attention,” inInternational Conference on Industrial, Engineering and Other Applications of Applied Intelligent Systems, pp. 149–160, Springer, 2025

    2025

  23. [23]

    End to end text to sign language generation using multigau,

    N. Khan, “End to end text to sign language generation using multigau,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME), pp. 1–6, IEEE, 2025

    2025

  24. [24]

    Signs as tokens: A retrieval-enhanced multilingual sign language generator,

    R. Zuo, R. A. Potamias, E. Ververas, J. Deng, and S. Zafeiriou, “Signs as tokens: A retrieval-enhanced multilingual sign language generator,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 23806–23816, 2025

    2025

  25. [25]

    Neural sign actors: A diffusion model for 3d sign language production from text,

    V . Baltatzis, R. A. Potamias, E. Ververas, G. Sun, J. Deng, and S. Zafeiriou, “Neural sign actors: A diffusion model for 3d sign language production from text,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 1985– 1995, 2024

    1985

  26. [26]

    Remips: Physically consistent 3d reconstruction of multiple interacting people under weak supervision,

    M. Fieraru, M. Zanfir, T. Szente, E. Bazavan, V . Olaru, and C. Smin- chisescu, “Remips: Physically consistent 3d reconstruction of multiple interacting people under weak supervision,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, pp. 19385–19397, 2021

    2021

  27. [27]

    Coap: Compositional articulated occupancy of people,

    M. Mihajlovic, S. Saito, A. Bansal, M. Zollhoefer, and S. Tang, “Coap: Compositional articulated occupancy of people,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 13201–13210, 2022

    2022

  28. [28]

    Cloaf: Collision-aware human flow,

    A. Davydov, M. Engilberge, M. Salzmann, and P. Fua, “Cloaf: Collision-aware human flow,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 1176–1185, 2024

    2024

  29. [29]

    Local optimization for robust signed distance field colli- sion,

    M. Macklin, K. Erleben, M. M ¨uller, N. Chentanez, S. Jeschke, and Z. Corse, “Local optimization for robust signed distance field colli- sion,”Proceedings of the ACM on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2020

    2020

  30. [30]

    Real-time self-collision avoidance in joint space for humanoid robots,

    M. Koptev, N. Figueroa, and A. Billard, “Real-time self-collision avoidance in joint space for humanoid robots,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 1240–1247, 2021

    2021

  31. [31]

    Vlmpc: Vision-language model predictive control for robotic manipulation,

    W. Zhao, J. Chen, Z. Meng, D. Mao, R. Song, and W. Zhang, “Vlmpc: Vision-language model predictive control for robotic manipulation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.09829, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Aha: A vision- language-model for detecting and reasoning over failures in robotic manipulation,

    J. Duan, W. Pumacay, N. Kumar, Y . R. Wang, S. Tian, W. Yuan, R. Krishna, D. Fox, A. Mandlekar, and Y . Guo, “Aha: A vision- language-model for detecting and reasoning over failures in robotic manipulation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.00371, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimiza- tion,

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimiza- tion,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  34. [34]

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

    H. Zhou, W. Zhou, W. Qi, J. Pu, and H. Li, “Improving sign language translation with monolingual data by sign back-translation,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp. 1316–1325, 2021

    2021

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.