Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 42 references

Physics-Informed Diffusion for Biomechanically Plausible 3D Sign Language Generation

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that explicitly enforcing biomechanical constraints inside a diffusion model improves both the realism and the semantic fidelity of generated 3D sign language, and supports the claim with a differentiable Geometric Refiner

desk verdict Solid engineering contribution with a plausible physics-informed diffusion recipe for SLP, but the headline numbers are compromised by test-set checkpoint selection; worth a serious referee after the evaluation is redone. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.14836 v1 pith:WSOY6C2L submitted 2026-07-16 cs.CV

Emanuele Colonna , Moises Diaz , Gennaro Vessio , Miguel Angel Ferrer , Giovanna Castellano This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords signlanguageproductiondiffusionmodelsphysics-informedlearningbiomechanicalconstraints3Dhumanmotionsynthesisgloss-to-posetranslationcontrastivealignmentback-translationevaluation
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 argues that sign language production should be treated as constrained generation over anatomically feasible motion, not as unconstrained coordinate regression. To test this, the authors build PIDiffSign, a diffusion model whose denoiser ends in a differentiable geometric refiner that corrects bone lengths and clips joint angles into biological bounds, and whose training loss adds anthropomorphic, kinematic, angular, finger, and contrastive alignment terms. On German and Chinese sign language benchmarks, this physics-informed model consistently beats a matched diffusion baseline on pose accuracy, joint-angle error, distributional realism, and back-translation quality. The ablation shows that the biomechanical terms drive the distributional realism and angle accuracy while a contrastive gloss-pose alignment loss drives most of the semantic gain. If correct, the result shows that embedding explicit anatomical priors in the architecture and objective is a viable substitute for input-level structural features.

What carries the argument

The differentiable Geometric Refiner, a two-stage module that (1) corrects bone lengths by shifting child joints along parent-child directions toward learned reference lengths under a learnable gate, and (2) clips each of 43 anatomical joint angles via Rodrigues axis-angle rotation, again gated. Because it is a terminal, differentiable operation on the predicted clean pose, it acts as an architectural inductive bias during training and a hard constraint projector at inference, and it lets classifier-free guidance be applied aggressively without pushing samples outside the feasible skeleton manifold.

What would settle it

Disable only the hard projection (remove the Geometric Refiner at inference) while keeping all physics losses, then compare back-translation BLEU-4 and joint-range violation rates; if BLEU-4 rises toward the no-physics baseline while violations stay low, the hard projection is the binding constraint on semantics. Alternatively, run a forced-choice comprehension test with deaf signers between PIDiffSign and the no-physics baseline: if comprehension does not improve despite better FID and MPJAE, the claimed realism gain does not translate into communicative gain.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a sign language production model that hard-codes anatomical plausibility into both the network and the loss produces motion that is at once more realistic and more semantically faithful than a model that only minimizes coordinate error. The mechanism is a differentiable Geometric Refiner placed as the terminal operation of the denoiser: it rescales each bone to a learned reference length and rotates out-of-range joint angles back into biological bounds, so every training gradient and every sample passes through the anatomical constraint. Training adds losses for bone-length conservation, joint-angle range and orientation, temporal smoothness, wrist-relative finger s

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that a single fixed set of 43 joint-angle ranges and learned per-bone reference lengths correctly and completely describes biomechanical plausibility for all signers, and that hard projection onto this manifold does not destroy linguistically meaningful variation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Generated sign motions will no longer exhibit the bone-length drift, hyperextended elbows, and frozen fingers that coordinate-only models produce, making output directly usable for avatar rendering without post-correction.
  • The two families of losses play distinct roles: weighting the biomechanical terms improves motion realism (FID, MPJAE) at a small BLEU-4 cost, while the contrastive alignment term improves back-translation quality without hurting pose metrics, so practitioners can tune the trade-off.
  • Higher classifier-free guidance scales become usable without anatomical degradation, because the refiner absorbs the distributional drift that strong conditioning induces.
  • Physics-informed training transfers to a structurally different sign language (Chinese) with only loss-weight recalibration, supporting the claim that the biomechanical prior is language-independent.
  • The same differentiable-constraint-as-terminal-operation design could apply to any structured output with known physical limits, such as whole-body locomotion with foot-contact constraints.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper's BLEU back-translation uses in-domain recognizers, the semantic-fidelity claim is about a machine approximation; a deaf-signer comprehension study would be the decisive test.
  • The fixed 43 joint-angle ranges and learned per-bone reference lengths are signer-independent and were calibrated mostly on one benchmark; on a multi-signer corpus, per-signer or per-sample range adaptation would likely be needed to avoid erasing signer-specific but linguistically meaningful variation.
  • The pattern of a differentiable manifold projector as the denoiser's terminal step extends beyond sign language, for instance to protein backbone generation with bond-angle limits or robotic motion with joint limits.
  • The paper's own ablation, where removing geometric terms raises BLEU-4, suggests headroom for making the anatomical ranges soft or learned per signer rather than fixed global constants.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. PIDiffSign is a gloss-to-3D-pose diffusion model for sign language production. The denoiser is a Transformer encoder–decoder with AdaLN-Zero timestep conditioning, augmented by a differentiable Geometric Refiner that enforces bone-length consistency and joint-angle bounds through gated corrections. Training uses a composite loss combining anthropomorphic, angular, kinematic, finger-articulation, and contrastive gloss-pose alignment terms, plus classifier-free guidance. The paper reports consistent improvements over a DDPM baseline on PHOENIX14T and CSL-Daily in DTW, MPJPE, MPJAE, FID, BLEU-4, and WER, and attributes these gains to the physics-informed components. It also compares against published SLP systems on PHOENIX14T and provides ablations on the loss terms.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the paper makes a useful contribution: it introduces a simple, differentiable way to hard-code anatomical constraints into a motion-diffusion model, and it combines these with a contrastive alignment loss that appears to improve back-translation quality. The dev-split ablations in Table 3 provide some independent support for the effect of the physics-informed losses on FID and MPJAE. The authors also promise code release, which would help reproducibility. However, the evaluation protocol in §4.2 (checkpoint selection on the test split) and the fact that the baseline shares the Geometric Refiner architecture currently prevent the headline claims from being trusted at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2, Table 2] The central empirical claim rests on test metrics obtained by selecting the best checkpoint on the test split: 'The best checkpoint was selected every 250 optimization steps on the test split' and early-stopping criteria use DTW and BLEU-4 on test. This makes the reported test numbers optimistic upper envelopes, not unbiased estimates, and invalidates the comparison against the DDPM baseline in Table 2 and the abstract. The paper must re-run the evaluation with checkpoint selection on the development split (or via nested validation), report both dev and test numbers, and include multiple seeds with error bars and significance tests.
  2. [§3.3, §4.3] The DDPM baseline is described as 'no physics', but it shares the identical Transformer encoder–decoder architecture, including the Geometric Refiner Rgeo that enforces bone lengths and joint angles. Thus both systems pass all outputs through the same hard anatomical projector. The reported improvements in MPJAE (and any bone-length consistency) cannot be attributed solely to the physics-informed training; the architectural 'physics' is present in both. To support the paper's stated contribution, an ablation should remove the Geometric Refiner from the baseline (or freeze its gates at identity) and compare against the full model.
  3. [Table 3, §4.5] The paper's own ablations show that removing geometric terms (Lanthro, Lfinger, Lkin) increases BLEU-4 relative to the full model on the dev split (e.g., 2.354 vs 2.083 on PHOENIX14T for −Lanthro; 2.400 for −Lkin). This is presented as a tradeoff, but it tempers the abstract's unqualified claim that physics-informed diffusion 'improves ... semantic fidelity.' The claim is only true relative to the no-physics baseline, not in an absolute sense. The abstract and conclusion should be worded to reflect that geometric regularization improves realism at a measurable cost in back-translated BLEU, which the alignment head partially compensates.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.1, Eq. (2)] Notation overload: B is used for the set of parent–child bones in §3.1 and also for the batch size in the mask M∈{0,1}^{B×T}. Use different symbols (e.g., N for batch) to avoid confusion.
  2. [Eq. (3)] The notation x(c)_t and x(p)_t is ambiguous: the parent/child relation is better written as superscripts (p) and (c) consistently, and the equation should clarify whether these are clean or noised coordinates.
  3. [§3.3] The text says 'learned sinusoidal positional embeddings' but sinusoidal encodings are typically fixed; if they are learned, this should be stated explicitly.
  4. [§4.2, Table 2] The text says two configurations (DTW opt. and BT opt.) are reported, but Table 2 shows only a single row per model. Please clarify which configuration is shown, or include both rows.
  5. [§4.4] The comparison with Sign-IDD is acknowledged as not protocol-aligned, yet the text states 'PIDiffSign is comparable to Sign-IDD.' This is at best indicative; please mark it clearly as a non-aligned reference and avoid drawing conclusions from it.
  6. [§4.8] The qualitative section claims 'No visible bone-length drift or elbow hyperextension is observed at any convergence stage,' but no quantitative bone-length or angle-violation metric is reported. Either add a metric or soften the claim.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Some reported gains (MPJAE, bone-length consistency) are ensured by the Geometric Refiner by construction; the core FID/DTW/BLEU claim remains independent.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.3 (Eqs. 5–6), Section 3.4 (Eqs. 8–9), Section 4.1 (metrics), Table 2]
    "The Geometric Refiner Rgeo then turns this raw estimate into the final anatomical prediction ˆx0 through two gated correction stages ... The second stage clips out-of-range joint angles via a Rodrigues rotation. ... MPJAE (degrees) measures joint-angle deviation."

    Because Rgeo is applied to every output, the final pose always has bone lengths tied to the learned ℓ_b and joint angles clipped to the fixed ranges [θ_min, θ_max]. Ground-truth human skeletons are within these anatomical ranges, so clipping/projecting can only reduce the measured angle and bone-length errors. Therefore the reported MPJAE (and bone-length-component) improvements over the no-refiner baseline are partly a mathematical consequence of the hard projector, not evidence that the learned denoiser is better. The learned reference lengths ℓ_b are fitted parameters, so 'bone-length consistency' is guaranteed by construction when gates are 1. The central claim retains independent content because FID, DTW, and BLEU-4 are not directly minimized by the projector.

full rationale

The paper's main scientific claim—that physics-informed diffusion improves both realism and semantic fidelity—is not circular: FID, DTW, and back-translation BLEU-4 are computed against external ground-truth/back-translators and are not directly minimized by the Geometric Refiner. The DDPM baseline shares the same architecture, so the comparison isolates the physics-informed supervision. However, Table 2 also reports MPJAE (and MPJPE), and the Geometric Refiner (Eqs. 5–6) is a hard projection that enforces exactly the quantities these metrics penalize: bone lengths are corrected toward learned ℓ_b and joint angles are clipped to the biological ranges. Since the ground-truth skeletons obey these ranges, the projector provably reduces angle/bone-length errors relative to the unrefined output, making the MPJAE/MPJPE gains partly self-fulfilling. The paper's own ablation (§4.5) confirms the refiner alone has an effect on MPJAE even without the angular loss. This is partial circularity, but not central: the FID/DTW/BLEU findings stand independently. No load-bearing self-citation was found; refs [4,5] are ancillary. Separately, the evaluation protocol (§4.2) selects checkpoints on the test split, a serious empirical issue that undermines the headline numbers, but that is a benchmarking flaw rather than a circularity of derivation. Overall score 4 reflects the partial self-fulfillment of the kinematic metrics while acknowledging independent support for the core claim.

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

The central empirical claim rests mainly on learned or fitted elements: loss weights, guidance scale, per-bone reference lengths, and refiner gates. The fixed angle ranges and skeleton topology are borrowed from anatomy/OpenPose and are treated as domain assumptions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Physics loss weights λ_a, λ_ω, λ_k, λ_f, λ_fm, λ_align = 1e-2, 5e-3, 1e-1, 5e-2, 2e-2, 3e-2
    Coarse grid search on PHOENIX14T (§3.4, §4.7); reused unchanged for CSL-Daily, so the transfer result is not hyperparameter-independent.
  • Guidance scale ω = 2.0
    Selected on PHOENIX14T dev split (§4.6); the CFG sweep shows FID improves monotonically with ω while pose metrics degrade.
  • Per-bone reference lengths l_b = learned via softplus(r_b)
    Eq. (5): every generated bone is projected toward these fitted lengths; they are learned from training data, not derived from anatomy.
  • Refiner gates g_len, g_ang = learnable, clamped to [0,1]
    Blend identity vs. correction in Eqs. (5)-(6); fitted during training, so the strength of the hard constraint is data-dependent.
  • CFG drop probability p_drop = 0.10 / 0.15
    Chosen per-sample drop rate for conditional/unconditional training (§3.6).
  • Hidden-state soft clip bound = 30
    Chosen by hand to bound activations in high-noise tails (§3.3).
assumptions (6)
  • standard math The DDPM forward process, cosine noise schedule, DDIM sampling, and CFG linear combination are valid (Eqs. 1, 15).
    Standard diffusion machinery invoked without proof; not the paper's contribution.
  • domain assumption The K=43 joint-angle triplets and fixed biological ranges (e.g., elbow 30–175°, MCP 70–180°, PIP/DIP 40–180°) correctly represent human articulation limits across signers and languages.
    Used to define the angular loss and the refiner's clipping (§3.1, Figure 2); no subject-specific or language-specific validation.
  • domain assumption The 50-joint OpenPose/SMPL-X upper-body skeleton with the stated kinematic tree is a faithful representation of sign-language phonology; non-manual markers and body locomotion are unnecessary for the claimed semantic fidelity.
    The task is defined over this skeleton (§3.1); the Limitations section acknowledges non-manual features are not modelled.
  • domain assumption Back-translation BLEU-4/WER from frozen SLT models is a valid proxy for semantic fidelity of generated sign motion.
    Used as a primary semantic metric (§4.1); authors note possible domain inflation from same-domain training.
  • standard math InfoNCE/CLIP symmetric cross-modal loss with temperature 0.07 provides a valid alignment objective for encoder and decoder representations.
    Borrowed verbatim from CLIP/InfoNCE (§3.5).
  • domain assumption Per-joint standardization and x0-prediction allow stable training with disabled sample clipping.
    Scheduler design choice in §3.2; not ablated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Physics-Informed Diffusion for Biomechanically Plausible 3D Sign Language Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WSOY6C2L

@misc{pith2026260714836,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Physics-Informed Diffusion for Biomechanically Plausible 3D Sign Language Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WSOY6C2L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14836}
}
read the original abstract

Sign language production, which generates continuous 3D skeletal motion from spoken language input, must simultaneously satisfy two constraints: semantic fidelity, so that a deaf viewer can recognize the intended sequence of glosses, and biomechanical plausibility, so that the generated skeleton respects anatomical constraints. Existing approaches optimize semantic reconstruction through coordinate-based objectives that treat the skeleton as an unstructured vector, thus allowing for bone length drift, joint angle violations, and temporarily locked fingers. We introduce PIDiffSign, a physics-informed diffusion model for gloss-to-pose translation that incorporates anatomical constraints into both the architecture and training objective. The model uses a Transformer encoder-decoder, where the decoder is conditioned on the diffusion time step through adaptive zero-initialized layer normalization and cross-attends to gloss representations. A differentiable geometry module enforces bone length consistency and biologically valid joint angles throughout generation. Training combines anthropomorphic, kinematic, angular, and finger-joint constraints with a contrastive gloss-pose alignment loss and classifier-free guidance for semantically conditioned sampling. Experiments on the PHOENIX14T and CSL-Daily benchmarks show consistent improvements over a strong diffusion baseline in pose accuracy, joint-angle correctness, distributional realism, and back-translation quality. These results demonstrate that physics-informed diffusion improves both motion realism and semantic fidelity for sign language generation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14836 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the PIDiffSign framework. The gloss encoder conditions the AdaLN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Skeleton topology and joint-angle constraints adopted in PIDiffSign. Each coloured [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative comparison on PHOENIX14T (dev split): original video, ground-truth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative comparison on CSL-Daily (dev split): original video, ground-truth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    N. C. Camgoz, S. Hadfield, O. Koller, H. Ney, R. Bowden, Neural Sign Language Translation, in: 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2018, pp. 7784–7793

    2018

  2. [2]

    Cihan Camgoz, O

    N. Cihan Camgoz, O. Koller, S. Hadfield, R. Bowden, Sign Language Trans- formers: Joint End-to-End Sign Language Recognition and Translation, in: 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), IEEE, Seattle, WA, USA, 2020, pp. 10020–10030

    2020

  3. [3]

    Mukhiddin, W

    T. Mukhiddin, W. Lee, J. Jun, S. Lee, Deep learning pathways for automatic sign language processing, Pattern Recognit. 164 (2025) 111475

    2025

  4. [4]

    Colonna, I

    E. Colonna, I. Rinaldi, D. Landi, G. Vessio, G. Castellano, H andscribe : A gloss-free framework for sign language translation and gloss sequence generation, Comput. Vis. Image Underst. 265 (2026) 104674

    2026

  5. [5]

    Stoll, N

    S. Stoll, N. C. Camgoz, S. Hadfield, R. Bowden, Sign language production using neural machine translation and generative adversarial networks, in: British Machine Vision Conference (BMVC), 2018

    2018

  6. [6]

    Saunders, N

    B. Saunders, N. C. Camgoz, R. Bowden, Progressive Transformers for End-to-End Sign Language Production, 2020

    2020

  7. [7]

    M. Kipp, A. Heloir, Q. Nguyen, Sign Language Avatars: Animation and Comprehensibility, in: International Workshop on Intelligent Virtual Agents (IVA), 2011, pp. 113–126. 20

    2011

  8. [8]

    Ebling, M

    S. Ebling, M. Huenerfauth, Bridging the gap between sign language machine translation and sign language animation using sequence classification, in: SLPAT@Interspeech, 2015

    2015

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Saunders, N

    B. Saunders, N. C. Camgöz, R. Bowden, Continuous 3D Multi-Channel Sign Language Production via Progressive Transformers and Mixture Density Networks, Int. J. Comput. Vis. 129 (2021) 2113–2135

    2021

  2. [10]

    Saunders, N

    B. Saunders, N. C. Camgoz, R. Bowden, Adversarial Training for Multi- Channel Sign Language Production, in: Proceedings of the British Machine Vision Conference (BMVC), 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Zelinka, J

    J. Zelinka, J. Kanis, Neural Sign Language Synthesis: Words Are Our Glosses, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applica- tions of Computer Vision (WACV), 2020, pp. 3395–3403

    2020

  4. [12]

    Baltatzis, R

    V. Baltatzis, R. A. Potamias, E. Ververas, G. Sun, J. Deng, S. Zafeiriou, Neural Sign Actors: A diffusion model for 3D sign language production from text, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    S. Fang, C. Sui, Y. Zhou, X. Zhang, H. Zhong, Y. Tian, C. Chen, SignDiff: Diffusion Model for American Sign Language Production, in: 2025 IEEE 19th International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition (FG), 2025, pp. 1–11

    2025

  6. [14]

    S. Fang, L. Wang, C. Zheng, Y. Tian, C. Chen, SignLLM: Sign Lan- guages Production Large Language Models, CoRR abs/2405.10718 (2024). arXiv:2405.10718

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    S. Tang, J. He, D. Guo, Y. Wei, F. Li, R. Hong, Sign-idd: Iconicity disentangled diffusion for sign language production, in: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 39, 2025, pp. 7266–7274

    2025

  8. [16]

    Raissi, P

    M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, G. E. Karniadakis, Physics-informed neural net- works: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations, J. Comput. Phys. 378 (2019) 686–707

    2019

  9. [17]

    G. E. Karniadakis, I. G. Kevrekidis, L. Lu, P. Perdikaris, S. Wang, L. Yang, Physics-informed machine learning, Nature Reviews Physics 3 (2021) 422– 440

    2021

  10. [18]

    Vaswani, N

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, L. Kaiser, I. Polosukhin, Attention is All you Need, in: Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    Peebles, S

    W. Peebles, S. Xie, Scalable Diffusion Models with Transformers, in: 2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2023, pp. 4172–4182. 21

    2023

  12. [20]

    J. Ho, T. Salimans, Classifier-Free Diffusion Guidance, 2022. arXiv:2207.12598

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Hartley, A

    R. Hartley, A. Zisserman, Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision, Cambridge University Press, 2003

    2003

  14. [22]

    van den Oord, Y

    A. van den Oord, Y. Li, O. Vinyals, Representation Learning with Con- trastive Predictive Coding, ArXiv abs/1807.03748 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Radford, J

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sas- try, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark, G. Krueger, I. Sutskever, Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision, Proceed- ings of Machine Learning Research, PMLR, 2021, pp. 8748–8763

    2021

  16. [24]

    Pavlakos, V

    G. Pavlakos, V. Choutas, N. Ghorbani, T. Bolkart, A. A. A. Osman, D. Tzionas, M. J. Black, Expressive body capture: 3D hands, face, and body from a single image, in: Proceedings IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2019, pp. 10975–10985

    2019

  17. [25]

    Z. Wu, Y. Ding, L. Wan, T. Li, F. Nian, Local and global self-attention enhanced graph convolutional network for skeleton-based action recognition, Pattern Recognit. 159 (2025) 111106

    2025

  18. [26]

    J. Ho, A. Jain, P. Abbeel, Denoising diffusion probabilistic models, in: Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS ’20, Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, USA, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    Nichol, P

    A. Nichol, P. Dhariwal, Improved Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models, ArXiv abs/2102.09672 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    J. Song, C. Meng, S. Ermon, Denoising Diffusion Implicit Models, in: 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021, OpenReview.net, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Tevet, S

    G. Tevet, S. Raab, B. Gordon, Y. Shafir, D. Cohen-Or, A. H. Bermano, Human Motion Diffusion Model, in: International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Zhang, Z

    M. Zhang, Z. Cai, L. Pan, F. Hong, X. Guo, L. Yang, Z. Liu, MotionDiffuse: Text-Driven Human Motion Generation With Diffusion Model, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 46 (2024) 4115–4128

    2024

  23. [31]

    Y. Dang, J. Yin, S. Zhang, J. Liu, Y. Hu, Kinematics modeling network for video-based human pose estimation, Pattern Recognit. 150 (2024) 110287

    2024

  24. [32]

    Y. Yuan, J. Song, U. Iqbal, A. Vahdat, J. Kautz, PhysDiff: Physics-Guided Human Motion Diffusion Model, in: IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2023, Paris, France, October 1-6, 2023, IEEE, 2023, pp. 15964–15975. 22

    2023

  25. [33]

    A. G. Baydin, others, Mechanistic Learning with Guided Diffusion Models to Predict Spatio-Temporal Brain Tumor Growth, in: MICCAI Workshop on Computational Mathematics in Biomedical Imaging, 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    Z. Cao, G. Hidalgo Martinez, T. Simon, S. Wei, Y. A. Sheikh, OpenPose: Realtime Multi-Person 2D Pose Estimation using Part Affinity Fields, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    Forster, C

    J. Forster, C. Schmidt, O. Koller, M. Bellgardt, H. Ney, Extensions of the sign language recognition and translation corpus rwth-phoenix-weather, European Language Resources Association (ELRA), 2014, pp. 1911–1916

    2014

  28. [36]

    1316–1325

    H.Zhou, W.Zhou, W.Qi, J.Pu, H.Li, ImprovingSignLanguageTranslation with Monolingual Data by Sign Back-Translation, in: 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), IEEE, Nashville, TN, USA, 2021, pp. 1316–1325

    2021

  29. [37]

    Zelinka, J

    J. Zelinka, J. Kanis, Neural sign language synthesis: Words are our glosses, in: The IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), 2020

    2020

  30. [38]

    Kreutzer, J

    J. Kreutzer, J. Bastings, S. Riezler, Joey NMT: A minimalist NMT toolkit for novices, Association for Computational Linguistics, Hong Kong, China, 2019, pp. 109–114

    2019

  31. [39]

    S. Tang, R. Hong, D. Guo, M. Wang, Gloss Semantic-Enhanced Network withOnlineBack-TranslationforSignLanguageProduction, in: Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia (ACM MM), 2022, pp. 5630–5638

    2022

  32. [40]

    W. Shan, Z. Liu, X. Zhang, Z. Wang, K. Han, S. Wang, S. Ma, W. Gao, Diffusion-Based 3D Human Pose Estimation with Multi-Hypothesis Aggre- gation, in: 2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2023, pp. 14715–14725

    2023

  33. [41]

    P. Xie, Q. Zhang, P. Taiying, H. Tang, Y. Du, Z. Li, G2P-DDM: Generating Sign Pose Sequence from Gloss Sequence with Discrete Diffusion Model, in: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, 2024, pp. 6234–6242

    2024

  34. [42]

    S. Tang, F. Xue, J. Wu, S. Wang, R. Hong, Gloss-Driven Conditional Diffusion Models for Sign Language Production, ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications (2024). 23

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.