mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

signwriting-evaluation: Effective Sign Language Evaluation via SignWriting

arXiv 2410.13668 ↗First posted 17 Oct 2024cs.CLcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The lack of automatic evaluation metrics tailored for SignWriting presents a significant obstacle in developing effective transcription and translation models for signed languages. This paper introduces a comprehensive suite of evaluation metrics specifically designed for SignWriting, including adaptations of standard metrics such as textttBLEU and textttchrF, the application of textttCLIPScore to SignWriting images, and a novel symbol distance metric unique to our approach. We address the distinct challenges of evaluating single signs versus continuous signing and provide qualitative demonstrations of metric efficacy through score distribution analyses and nearest-neighbor searches within the SignBank corpus. Our findings reveal the strengths and limitations of each metric, offering valuable insights for future advancements using SignWriting. This work contributes essential tools for evaluating SignWriting models, facilitating progress in the field of sign language processing. Our code is available at urlhttps://github.com/sign-language-processing/signwriting-evaluation.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 5 of its 12 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Oct 2024.

Builds on

5 of 12 references.

References · 5

  1. 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,456
  2. 2021CLIPScore: A Reference-free Evaluation Metric for Image Captioningcited by 2,388
  3. 2018A Call for Clarity in Reporting BLEU Scorescited by 1,790
  4. 2022Machine Translation between Spoken Languages and Signed Languages Represented in SignWritingcited by 17
  5. 2023An Examination of the Robustness of Reference-Free Image Captioning Evaluation Metricscited by 11

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.

1 paper.